...continued...
Alrighty now, Jim. You wrote...
"You ask for proof that the Bible is wrong...well there is archaeological evidence a plenty just watch the Discovery
channel....or read the Bible to see just how many contradictions and alternative versions of events there are......bear in
mind that ALL the Gospels were written at least a hundred years after the death of Jesus how can we take the facts at face
value......also there is no written evidence from Roman sources to show of any of the events actually taken place.
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htmplenty more where that came from."
I already addressed the archaeological point so I won't reiterate that. Actually the epistles of Paul were written much
earlier than you mention. The first which I believe was to Timothy is now estimated to be somewhere within 15 to 25 years
after the death of Jesus. The Gospels were written 40 to 60 years following his death contrary to what you stated. They were
also eyewitness accounts. There are more recent extant copies of the Gospels than there are for any writings of antiquity
including Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars and no historian denies the legitimacy of that. But I digress. Paul's letters provide
an outline of all the events of Jesus's life found in the Gospels-his miracles, claims, crucifixion, and resurrection. This
means that the Biblical accounts of Jesu's life were circulating with the lifetimes of hundreds who had been present at the
events of his ministry. Luke claims he got his account of Jesus's life from eyewitnesses who were still alive. There were
numerous well known living eyewitnesses to Jesus's teachings and life events. They had committed them to memory and they
remained active in the public life for the churches throughout their lifetimes, serving as ongoing sources and guarantors of
the truth of those accounts. Some of the eyewitnesses were named. Mark, for example, says that the man who helped Jesus carry
his cross was the father of "Alexander and Rufus." There is no reason for the author to include such names unless the readers
knew or could have access to them. Mark is saying "Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling you, If you
want to ask them. Paul refers to a body of five hundred eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ at once. You can't write that
in a document designed for public reading unless there really were surviving witnesses whose testimony agreed and who could
confirm what the author said. All this decisively refutes the idea the gospels were anonymous, collective, evolving oral
traditions. Instead they were oral histories taken down from the mouths of the living eyewitnesses who preserved the words
and deeds of Jesus in great detail.
It was not only Jesus's supporters who were still alive. There were many bystanders, officials, and opponents who had heard
him teach, seen his actions, and watched him die. They would have been especially ready to challenge any accounts that were
fabricated. For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take hold in the public imagination it is necessary
that the eyewitnesses (and their children and grandchildren) all be long dead. They must be off the scene so they cannot
contradict or debunk the embellishments and falsehoods of the story. The gospels were written far too soon for this to occur.
The New Testiment documents could not say Jesus was crucified when thousands of people were still alive who knew whether he
was or not. If there had not been appearances after his death, if there had not been an empty tomb, if he had not made these
claims, and these public documents claimed they happened, Christianity would have never gotten off the ground. The hearers
would have simply laughed at the accounts.
The link you provided by the way includes a list of fancies that have been around for decades and debunked many times
throughout that time. If you're going to try to disprove the Bible at least include something that doesn't come from avowed
atheists who have their own agenda.
For the sake of brevity I'll address only a few of the assertions...
CONCLUSION: POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE JESUS MYTH
Various propositions have been advanced to account for the rise of the Jesus myth. Barker lists the following as
possibilities:
1. It was “patterned from a story in the Jewish Talmudic literature about the illegitimate son of a woman named Miriam (Mary)
and a Roman soldier named Pandera, sometimes called Joseph Pandera.”
This one is quite a stretch. Indeed, it is an "advanced proposition" as stated above.
It could have been based on a naturalistic explanation that the resurrection story was essentially historically reliable,
“but that Jesus merely fainted, and was presumed to be dead, coming back to consciousness later.”
OK, let me get this straight. A man is beaten almost to the point of death (before being crucified) IS then crucified, a
spear thrust into his side to determine that he was indeed dead, is put in a tomb with a stone rolled into the opening,
somehow has the strength on the morning of the 3rd day with infection setting in to move the stone and escape unnoticed by
the garrison of Roman centurians charged with guarding his tomb when they would have been put to death for even sleeping on
the job so that they didn't notice....
Oh my gosh...Danger Will Robinson...Major disconnect.
It “grew out of a pre-Christian cult of Joshua,” originating in tensions between two different Joshua factions.
Interesting in this regard is the fact that “Jesus” is the Greek word for “Joshua." As Barker notes, in Mark 9:38, “the
disciples of Jesus saw another man who was casting out devils in the name of Jesus (Joshua).”
Nice try but no cigar.
Finally, and I'll close here for now...you often speak of good and evil, about doing good to your fellow man, morality,etc.
If there is no creator,then who is the arbitor of what is good or bad.? Who made the rules concerning good and bad?
Apparently, if this is the case, the answer is...We just made it up. THAT is the part that is man made as you say. If I see
an elderly lady crossing the street I can stop and let her across. Or...I could run her down with my car. Neither is good or
bad, good or evil. It just IS. After all, there cannot possibly be a God or creator can there? And without an ultimate law
giver there can be no definitive law of good and evil. It all lies in the opinion of finite men based on situational ethics
which are man made based on connvenience. Yeah, I think I've got it now.
Oh...just in case you're wrong and there is a Holy God (I know...I know, that's impossible) you will get your chance to give
Him an "ear bashing" as you stated in your last post on Judgement day. I wonder how that will pan out.
