Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Simon39759]

1) Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in CE 70. This gospel is full of errors concerning the geography of Galilee, and Mark has a fuzzy idea of Jewish law. It is highly unlikely that the tradition that Mark was Peter's secretary is true. The failed geography alone makes it unlikely that he was an eyewitness.

To be honest, isn't the main evidence of the gospels being written after the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:2?

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

It is supposed to be a prediction by Jesus, so, if you subscribe in the thesis of magic Jesus, then it is conceivable that he knew and predicted the first revolt and the temple destruction by 33ish CE. The apostle would have reported it when writing the Gospels at any point after that, not even necessarily fully understanding it before it came to pass.


Similarly with Mark 13:9 that mentions the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues (that started in the 80ies -80ies of the first century, hence it was not for playing Disco music):

But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

Obviously, it seems more of a stretch than just assuming that it was written afterwards but it is not necessarily a slam dunk, considering Doc presuppositions.

 

[DOC]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

You are trying to prove the authenticity of the Bible by using quotes from the Bible. I hope I don't have to explain the logical fallacy there.

There is that word "prove" again. I almost never use it when making a statement of fact but a lot of people attribute it to me, You will notice my thread in the History Forum starts out with the word Evidence not Proof.

Prolific reader Thomas Jefferson called Jesus' teachings the most moral and sublime he had ever read. So when I report something that Jesus (whom most historians believe existed) is reported to have said I am not proving anything, I am reporting on the words attributed to a historical person.

So when someone says how could the gospel writers have remembered the words of something spoken many years earlier, I simply gave one explanation from the mouth of a historical figure who was greatly admired by many. That is not proving anything, that is stating the words a historical character that were related to a point you made. What you do with his words is up to you.

 

[eccles]

There is that word "prove" again. I almost never use it when making a statement of fact but a lot of people attribute it to me, You will notice my thread in the History Forum starts out with the word Evidence not Proof.

Prolific reader Thomas Jefferson called Jesus' teachings the most moral and sublime he had ever read. So when I report something that Jesus (whom most historians believe existed) is reported to have said I am not proving anything, I am reporting on the words attributed to a historical person.

So when someone says how could the gospel writers have remembered the words of something spoken many years earlier, I simply gave one explanation from the mouth of a historical figure who was greatly admired by many. That is not proving anything, that is stating the words a historical character that were related to a point you made. What you do with his words is up to you.

Interesting that Jefferson thought he knew more that the evangalists that he re-wrote the Gospels.
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

As though there aren't enough versions of the bible.

 

[joobz]

Prolific reader Thomas Jefferson called Jesus' teachings the most moral and sublime he had ever read. So when I report something that Jesus (whom most historians believe existed) is reported to have said I am not proving anything, I am reporting on the words attributed to a historical person.

Thomas Jefferson also called the bible a dung heap. Given the fact that it condones slavery and shows jesus as condoning the beating of slaves, I agree with him.

 

[Fireshadow]

Interesting that Jefferson thought he knew more that the evangalists that he re-wrote the Gospels.
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

As though there aren't enough versions of the bible.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

I've lost count of the number of times this has been pointed out to DOC. He trots out the same arguments and drops the same names so often that it's become a game to guess which argument he'll use next.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4704998#post4704998

 

[zooterkin]

There is that word "prove" again. I almost never use it when making a statement of fact but a lot of people attribute it to me, You will notice my thread in the History Forum starts out with the word Evidence not Proof.

And yet you still have to produce any.

Prolific reader Thomas Jefferson called Jesus' teachings the most moral and sublime he had ever read. So when I report something that Jesus (whom most historians believe existed) is reported to have said I am not proving anything, I am reporting on the words attributed to a historical person.

How many levels of hearsay is that, exactly?

So when someone says how could the gospel writers have remembered the words of something spoken many years earlier, I simply gave one explanation from the mouth of a historical figure who was greatly admired by many. That is not proving anything, that is stating the words a historical character that were related to a point you made. What you do with his words is up to you.

You are of course making the assumption that the words you referred to were accurately reported in the first place. If they were true, how do you account for the many discrepancies between the gospels?

Interesting that Jefferson thought he knew more that the evangalists that he re-wrote the Gospels.
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

The irony that he keeps quoting Jefferson, who did not believe in the supernatural aspects of the bible, and produced his own version concentrating on the words attributed to the man Jesus, completely escapes DOC. It has been pointed out to him many times.

 

[tsig]

You're clearly a recipient of a version of the Gospel which was subject to transcription errors.

Ying tong, ying tong, ying tong, ying tong,
Ying tong tiddle i po....

Yong dong with a long dong tittled the world

 

[tsig]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

If the Holy Spirit can speak to you why do you need the bible?

 

[tsig]

And so are you Zooterkin: Dreaded transcription errors of the "All Leather" Goon Show. The Ying Tong song goes: "Ying tong, IDDLE i Po".
You will all be murdered in your beds. DEADED.
And you live in Berkshire: A POM. Well the Poms lost 8 wickets for 308 runs. You might not get the Ashes back.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

There were sometimes meanings.

 

[zooterkin]

And you live in Berkshire: A POM. Well the Poms lost 8 wickets for 308 runs. You might not get the Ashes back.

Well, the Aussies lost 10 wickets for 160 runs. So, get ready to hand the Ashes back

 

[tsig]

Well, the Aussies lost 10 wickets for 160 runs. So, get ready to hand the Ashes back

English you are using, understanding not so much.

 

[Maia]

So when I report something that Jesus (whom most historians believe existed) is reported to have said I am not proving anything, I am reporting on the words attributed to a historical person.

Well, here we go again... As I posted before (and I'm not sure on which page, so I'm not going back and finding it), I don't know about "most historians". But John Shelby Spong and Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar, both of whom do believe that Jesus was a historical person, also believe that he didn't actually say a good 80% of the quotes attributed to him in the Bible. So we have two types of theologians who really do accept the historicity of Jesus: the ones who aren't going to accept the silly idea that everything ascribed to him was actually said by him, and the ones who do. We just don't have any good arguments, or sensible arguments, or arguments backed up by biblical scholarship to support the second idea.

 

[eccles]

Well, the Aussies lost 10 wickets for 160 runs. So, get ready to hand the Ashes back

I thought I was having a nightmare while listening to the dulcet tones of "Blowers", "Aggers" & Co. on the BEEB on "Talking-type Wireless".

As the famous "Neddie Seagoon used to say: "I don't wish to know about that"

However I love listening to those esteemed gentlemen and the stirring sounds of the Barmy Army in full voice singing "Jerusalem", the only Hymn I do like.

Now the Yanks will be very confused. At least the Barmy Army is better than the US. Army.

 

[eccles]

Well, here we go again... As I posted before (and I'm not sure on which page, so I'm not going back and finding it), I don't know about "most historians". But John Shelby Spong and Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar, both of whom do believe that Jesus was a historical person, also believe that he didn't actually say a good 80% of the quotes attributed to him in the Bible. So we have two types of theologians who really do accept the historicity of Jesus: the ones who aren't going to accept the silly idea that everything ascribed to him was actually said by him, and the ones who do. We just don't have any good arguments, or sensible arguments, or arguments backed up by biblical scholarship to support the second idea.

I must dig out my copy of the transcripts of the "Jesus Seminar". It was very interesting reading.

 

[eccles]

Now I'm going to put myself in danger from the Acharya knockers. I am almost through "Christ in Egypt". I am finding it an excellent book. She has really done her homework. I am glad I have a good knowledge of the Egyptian Religion. It makes it easier to follow what she is writing. I don't necessarily agree with everything she wrote. I think she placed to much creedence over the connection between the crucifix and it's Christian depictions, and those of crosses in Egyptology. However, as a person with a good knowledge of the bible and of Christian doctrine, I can see where the similarities between Christianity and the Egyptian Religion lie. I have know about those well before reading "Christ in Egypt" and I also thought how much Christian fables are similar to Egyptian fables.

That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Anyone who wants to crucify me, make it quick and painless as possible. I will post a list of my fees for haunting houses when I am a ghost.
Pray for me Oh Mighty Horus, Sun God.

 

[amb]

I've been a lone voice in the wilderness in this subject. No sooner do I bring it up then I'm shot down by a torrential of posts telling me why it's not true that possibly, the whole Jesus tale is borrowed from the ancient Egyptian and other mediterranean regions.
That quite possibly, www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

[eccles]

I've been a lone voice in the wilderness in this subject. No sooner do I bring it up then I'm shot down by a torrential of posts telling me why it's not true that possibly, the whole Jesus tale is borrowed from the ancient Egyptian and other mediterranean regions.
That quite possibly, www.jesusneverexisted.com

AMB, (I hope that is you in that pic)

No, I am, here and I have printed ALL the stuff from that Web Site, AND it has a lot of merit.

Look. After reading ALL the information I have and that would take too many posts just listing them I am convinced that Jesus probably existed, but the tales are taken from fables from that area. Are you familiar with the American Davey Crockett? There were many fictional movies and TV shows about him.

"David Stern Crockett (August 17, 1786 – March 6, 1836) was a celebrated 19th-century American folk hero, frontiersman, soldier and politician; referred to in popular culture as Davy Crockett and often by the epithet “King of the Wild Frontier.” He represented Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives, served in the Texas Revolution, and died at the Battle of the Alamo. His nickname was the stuff of legend, but in life he shunned the title “Davy” and referred to himself exclusively as “David.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett

So the Christians had their fables about Jesus as well.



I have actually been to the Alamo in 1968.

 

[amb]

AMB, (I hope that is you in that pic)



Is that the only reason you want to be my friend? Well, I'll keep you guessing then.

 

[Simon39759]

AMB, (I hope that is you in that pic)

No, I am, here and I have printed ALL the stuff from that Web Site, AND it has a lot of merit.

Look. After reading ALL the information I have and that would take too many posts just listing them I am convinced that Jesus probably existed, but the tales are taken from fables from that area. Are you familiar with the American Davey Crockett? There were many fictional movies and TV shows about him.

"David Stern Crockett (August 17, 1786 – March 6, 1836) was a celebrated 19th-century American folk hero, frontiersman, soldier and politician; referred to in popular culture as Davy Crockett and often by the epithet “King of the Wild Frontier.” He represented Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives, served in the Texas Revolution, and died at the Battle of the Alamo. His nickname was the stuff of legend, but in life he shunned the title “Davy” and referred to himself exclusively as “David.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett

So the Christians had their fables about Jesus as well.



I have actually been to the Alamo in 1968.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

Pretty much.
It is common for a story, of a series of story, whether historical and fictional, to be attributed to one particular character.
For example, Robin Hood or William Tell or the many misattributed urban legends/funny anectdotes.
And, because we know of many stories about Jesus that existed before, it is likely that the same phenomenon made its way through the Gospels.

That is not to say that the character of Jesus is entirely fictional, after all, there must have been a preacher at the start of the whole movement, and this preacher must have live at some point before our first recordings of Christians... That Jesus really was this person and lived during the first half of the first century is actually quite likely.

 

[eccles]

"misattributed urban legends/funny anectdotes."

Hey that looks good Simon . I just joined. Just wait till I get going.