So much for America's Religious Right

[IamCanadian]

Actually, Josephus wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" in 93AD, a good 60 years after the purported events. Apart from that, it's thought that that particular passage was interpolated by later church leaders, and was not actually original (for example, writers in the 3rd century who used Josephus's writings extensively make no mention of the passage in question).

There are no contemporary accounts of Christ, and no secular accounts until (at the very earliest) 60 years later, making them completely useless as historical fact.

Someone here boldy proclaimed that Christ is a "myth". This is rank stupidity based on pure ignorance.

Any third rate historian can prove that Christ existed. I can prove that Napolean is not a myth. I can prove that Julius Caesar is not a myth. I can prove that Alexander the Great is not a myth.

Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are also confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers.

Apart from Josephus, Secular historians like the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) also make direct reference to ***** or affirm one or more historical New Testament references.

Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy.

Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

 

[IamCanadian]

Most of the U.S leaders are dropping like flies. That senator that sent explicit emails to young boys, jimmy swaggart...the priest who was addicted to prostitutes, and now this guy...its difficult to pretend.

Sweeping statements.

Let me make one. Most South African leaders are not dropping like flies. Manto, Zuma, Selebi et al. They seem to be bullet proof inspite of their peccadillos. Maybe if they could find their machine guns then something could be done. It's a good thing they are not religious because then you would really have something to say.

 

[Nick333]

Someone here boldy proclaimed that Christ is a "myth". This is rank stupidity based on pure ignorance.

Any third rate historian can prove that Christ existed. I can prove that Napolean is not a myth. I can prove that Julius Caesar is not a myth. I can prove that Alexander the Great is not a myth.

Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are also confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers.

Apart from Josephus, Secular historians like the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) also make direct reference to ***** or affirm one or more historical New Testament references.

Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy.

Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

Wether or not ***** existed is besides the point. Almost every detail that we have about him is of a mythical nature, hence ***** is a mythical figure.

The fact that the new testament is accurate regarding peripheral details doesnt make the focus of the stories it tells accurate. The fact is that what is not disputed is that the new testament accounts are not contempory accounts of the life of *****. They are hearsay and quite possibly hearsay that has been heavily edited to suit the agendas of early church fathers.

 

[IamCanadian]

Wether or not ***** existed is besides the point. Almost every detail that we have about him is of a mythical nature, hence ***** is a mythical figure.

The fact that the new testament is accurate regarding peripheral details doesnt make the focus of the stories it tells accurate. The fact is that what is not disputed is that the new testament accounts are not contempory accounts of the life of *****. They are hearsay and quite possibly hearsay that has been heavily edited to suit the agendas of early church fathers.

Nick,

I have to hand it to you. You have single handedly come up with iron clad proof that Christ is a made up mythical figure. How does it feel?

You are a genius. I am going to put your name in for the Noble prize.

 

[Nick333]

Nick,

I have to hand it to you. You have single handedly come up with iron clad proof that Christ is a made up mythical figure. How does it feel?

You are a genius. I am going to put your name in for the Noble prize.

Watch IamCanadian do what all willfully ignorant, right-wing, christian morons are especially adept at doing: sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la la".

I never claimed to have or even tried proving anything.

 

[IamCanadian]

Watch IamCanadian do what all willfully ignorant, right-wing, christian morons are especially adept at doing: sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la la".

I never claimed to have or even tried proving anything.

Watch Nick the Left Wing Loon trying to state "facts" like this one:

Almost every detail that we have about him is of a mythical nature, hence ***** is a mythical figure.

and then trying to deflect his idiocy onto someone else.

 

[Claymore]

Any third rate historian can prove that Christ existed. I can prove that Napolean is not a myth. I can prove that Julius Caesar is not a myth. I can prove that Alexander the Great is not a myth.

Difference is, there are heaps and heaps of contemporary writings about those persons.

Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are also confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers.

Many of the events, peoples, places and customs in Wilbur Smith books have been confirmed too. This does not make Wilbur Smith books any less fictional.

Apart from Josephus, Secular historians like the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) also make direct reference to ***** or affirm one or more historical New Testament references.

None contemporary, and all basing their references on hearsay.

Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

The New Testament is not a single document; it's a collection of documents from various places, carefully selected by church elders hundreds of years after the events.

As for being remarkable...it may be remarkable, but there are many parts that are rather dubious. Sections in the Gospels that are not backed up by any historical evidence, or are blatantly wrong. For example, the Roman Census, or the time periods of Herod's reign or his actions.