The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Messiah has not come yet.
Not about the Messiah.

I'm sure DOCs response will be something about "ACLU lawyer" Leo Pfeffer or Thomas Arnold (again) and not an actual response to what's on these entries.

 

[DOC]

Clearly, you haven't learned anything from your imaginary friend, nor have any of the sources you site.

Tactitus, Seutonius, and Josephus, must have liked writing about imaginary people. And are you saying 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths for an imaginary person. And are you saying Peter (who denied Christ 3 times) went to Rome to preach and Doubting Thomas went to India to preach for an imaginary person.

 

[JoeEllison]

Tactitus, Seutonius, and Josephus, must have liked writing about imaginary people. And are you saying 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths for an imaginary person. And are you saying Peter (who denied Christ 3 times) went to Rome to preach and Doubting Thomas went to India to preach for an imaginary person.

See, your imaginary apostles are just as real to you as real people in history, who wrote about the myth you believe in. Yes, the cults did exist. No, there's no extra-biblical confirmation of the mythology.

So, you're still wrong, and still living in a delusion.

 

[JoeEllison]

The Messiah has not come yet.
Not about the Messiah.

I'm sure DOCs response will be something about "ACLU lawyer" Leo Pfeffer or Thomas Arnold (again) and not an actual response to what's on these entries.

He'll pull the lever on his Lies for Jesus See 'n Say, the arrow will spin, and he'll post something randomly... maybe "Thomas Jefferson went to church, so Jeebus is real!!" Then he'll drool a little bit and his mommy will put him down for a nap.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Tactitus, Seutonius, and Josephus, must have liked writing about imaginary people.

The TF is a fraud.
Suetonius isn't referring to Jesus.
And Tacitus is referring to Christians, not Jesus.

Joe, no one does the Gish Gallop and the ad nauseum like DOC does.

 

[DOC]

Remind me, do we have the original manuscript which Luke wrote, or the result of several generations of copying by many hands, each of which might have their own motives for making changes?

Here is a little info about the New Testament manuscripts in existence:

From the article: Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas

"Further, significant portions of some ancient works are missing. For example, 107 of Livy's 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus's original Histories and Annals, only approximately half remain.

The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T. Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world...

...The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine."

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html

 

[JoeEllison]

The TF is a fraud.
Suetonius isn't referring to Jesus.
And Tacitus is referring to Christians, not Jesus.

Joe, no one does the Gish Gallop and the ad nauseum like DOC does.

I know... but there's the whole writers strike thing. I usually have a bunch of stuff TiVo'd, but instead I have to poke a troll for amusement.

 

[JoeEllison]

Here is a little info about the New Testament manuscripts in existence:

From the article: Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas

"Further, significant portions of some ancient works are missing. For example, 107 of Livy's 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus's original Histories and Annals, only approximately half remain.

The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T. Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world...

...The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine."

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html

Yep, more absolutely nothing in support of your religion.

 

[Nogbad]

Here is a little info about the New Testament manuscripts in existence:

From the article: Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas

"Further, significant portions of some ancient works are missing. For example, 107 of Livy's 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus's original Histories and Annals, only approximately half remain.

The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T. Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world...

...The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine."

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html

I am not sure why people use such hyperbole as "by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world". It is unnecessary and immediately raises the suspicions of any reader that they are being spoofed.

It should also be pointed out that the canon of the New Testament didn't happen overnight and the agreement of what was in and what was out was the subject of much debate. Revelations was only just included by the skin of its teeth (it was considered a bit Gnostic by many of the Bishops involved in the discussions). Dozens of Gospels and letters that had been popular for 300 years were removed from use by decree from the Bishops. Early Christians from say the year 200 would have been shocked at how thin the final New Testament was. It would be fair to say that such heavy editing 300+ years after the events is going to lead to a degree of harmonisation in the story. It is only when all the writings from the early Christian period are included that one can get a true picture regarding the diversity of opinion and interpretation that prevailed in the early Church. Some of the Bishops involved in suppressing alternative positions were quite unpleasant, Saint Cyril of Alexandra springs to mind.

 

[DOC]

He {DOC} has been criticizing opponents for using "census" instead of "taxation" yet he quotes a source which calles it a "census" and not "taxation."

If people insist on using census instead of the King James taxation and taxed than I have the right to counter their argument in way they can easier understand.

 

[JoeEllison]

I am not sure why people use such hyperbole as "by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world". It is unnecessary and immediately raises the suspicions of any reader that they are being spoofed.

It should also be pointed out that the canon of the New Testament didn't happen overnight and the agreement of what was in and what was out was the subject of much debate. Revelations was only just included by the skin of its teeth (it was considered a bit Gnostic by many of the Bishops involved in the discussions). Dozens of Gospels and letters that had been popular for 300 years were removed from use by decree from the Bishops. Early Christians from say the year 200 would have been shocked at how thin the final New Testament was. It would be fair to say that such heavy editing 300+ years after the events is going to lead to a degree of harmonisation in the story. It is only when all the writings from the early Christian period are included that one can get a true picture regarding the diversity of opinion and interpretation that prevailed in the early Church. Some of the Bishops involved in suppressing alternative positions were quite unpleasant, Saint Cyril of Alexandra springs to mind.

It is strange that the "best" evidence that the Christians have for their mythology is "accurate copying" and "adequate editing". Not GOOD editing, mind you, because good editing would have eliminated the idiotic contradictions.

 

[zooterkin]

If people insist on using census instead of the King James taxation and taxed than I have the right to counter their argument in way they can easier understand.

By quoting sources which you believe to be incorrect, given your previously stated position that it was taxation, not a census?

 

[Garrette]

If people insist on using census instead of the King James taxation and taxed than I have the right to counter their argument in way they can easier understand.

"Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

 

[JoeEllison]

"Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

We both know that some people see Lying for Jesus to be the ultimate in "decency".

 

[Ladewig]

And are you saying 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths for an imaginary person.

Why do you have such a hard time believing that people are willing to die for false ideas. In 1997, three dozen Heaven's Gate cult members committed suicide based on a false idea. In 1978, over 900 people died in a murder-suicide event after following the false prophet Jim Jones.

The question is not rhetorical. I want to know why you have such a hard time believing that people would die for a false cause.

 

[JoeEllison]

Why do you have such a hard time believing that people are willing to die for false ideas. In 1997, three dozen Heaven's Gate cult members committed suicide based on a false idea. In 1978, over 900 people died in a murder-suicide event after following the false prophet Jim Jones.

The question is not rhetorical. I want to know why you have such a hard time believing that people would die for a false cause.

It goes right next to "why would anyone lie about it?" in the Bad Reasoning Bin that religious people get their rationalizations from.

 

[zooterkin]

Here is a little info about the New Testament manuscripts in existence:

From the article: Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable by Gary Habermas

"Further, significant portions of some ancient works are missing. For example, 107 of Livy's 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus's original Histories and Annals, only approximately half remain.

The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T. Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world...

...The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine."

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html

Nice appeal to authority, which doesn't answer the question, and introduces a somewhat biased 'authority'.

It also does not support your point. Let's see. I said:

Remind me, do we have the original manuscript which Luke wrote, or the result of several generations of copying by many hands, each of which might have their own motives for making changes?

Your reference says:

the Bodmer and Chester Beatty Papyri contain most of the New Testament, dating about 100-150 years later than the New Testament, using an approximate date of A.D. 100 for its completion.

I.e., the earliest manuscript we have dates from 200-250 AD. Thanks for confirming my point.

 

[joobz]

Tactitus, Seutonius, and Josephus, must have liked writing about imaginary people. And are you saying 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths for an imaginary person. And are you saying Peter (who denied Christ 3 times) went to Rome to preach and Doubting Thomas went to India to preach for an imaginary person.

Yup. That is possible.

It is also possible that jesus was a real man and convinced everyone he was divine.

It is also possible that jesus was real and others invented his divinty to give support to their teachings.

It is also possible that jesus was a actually a combination of several preachers at the time.

What isn't possible is that Jesus was Indeed divine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The most you've offered so far has been
1.) Other people believe it
2.) A 2000 year old book told us so.

you have no external validation of the story being real.

 

[zooterkin]

And are you saying 11 of the 12 apostles died horrible deaths for an imaginary person. And are you saying Peter (who denied Christ 3 times) went to Rome to preach and Doubting Thomas went to India to preach for an imaginary person.

I'm not sure if you have time to listen to the news, but every day there are people blowing themselves up in the name of Islam. Now, I grant you that Mohamed is pretty well attested historically, but unless you're saying that willingness to be martyred is solely an indication of the existence of the person in whose name one is prepared to be martyred I don't think your point proves anything. People have died in the name of pretty much any religion you care to name; does that mean they are all right?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Hell, David Ben-Gurion has probably fulfilled more of those [messianic prophecies --ed.].

He's not the only one. From my previous source...

...another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kokhba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kokhba was the moshiach. Bar Kokhba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name.

The Roman Empire eventually did him in, but he was *that* close.