Zone1 They Were Eyewitnesses to the Death and Resurrection

[ding]

None of your evidence passes the sniff test. Sorry.

You haven't disputed one single piece of evidence. Do I need to detail the evidence you have dismissed without cause?

LIke I said before the only argument you can make is an argument of conspiracy. The fact that you haven't made that argument can only be because even you realize how ridiculously hard it would be to prove that argument.

 

[ding]

Roman law is well documented. For minor offenses people were flogged, exiled, or sold into slavery.

So what. The Babylonian Talmud recorded that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and leading Israel into apostacy? Both of which confirm the accounts of the 24,000 written manuscripts.

So even Israel understood that they had Jesus put to death. The Romans were merely an instrument of theirs.

It's like your biases are keeping you from being able to logically process the evidence.

 

[ding]

When your evidence meets the criteria of Textual Criticism , let me know.

Every single piece of evidence corroborates every other single piece of evidence. There is nothing that does not fit or agree with any other piece of evidence and that includes the lack of opposing evidence. No one argued that Jesus did not perform miraculous feats because they couldn't because he did and that's why it was recorded that way in the Babylonian Talmud.

 

[alang1216]

The point is that it corroborates what was recorded in the 24,000 written manuscripts and corroborates the early Christians worshiping Jesus as God.

But I will play along with your latest red herring and say so what? What does it have to do with Jesus? The 24,000 written accounts detail miraculous feats by Jesus, non-Christian historians record the early Christians worshiping Jesus as God because he supposedly performed miraculous feats. The Babylonian Talmud recorded Jesus being put to death for sorcery and bringing Israel to apostacy. So unless you are making a conspiracy argument, your logic is still flawed.

Let's let this horse rest in peace.

 

[alang1216]

And? Created a central authority.

Central authorities.

 

[alang1216]

Says the guy with no evidence at all and accepts his beliefs on faith alone.

Sorry you dismiss what I've said but until you can find a better source than the very flawed NT, I'm content to leave it at that.

 

[ding]

Let's let this horse rest in peace.

Maybe you should have argued there was a conspiracy instead of hiding it behind a thin veil.

 

[ding]

Central authorities.

Who wrote texts that were accepted by all.

 

[ding]

Sorry you dismiss what I've said but until you can find a better source than the very flawed NT, I'm content to leave it at that.

That doesn't sound like something someone who wants to let his horse rest in peace would say.

I'm sorry you can't admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs and dismiss the evidence that does exist based on faith alone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Archaeologists Found a Skeleton Wearing an Amulet That May Change the History of Christianity

Here’s evidence of Christ from Germany from sometime between 230 to 270 AD

 

[alang1216]

Maybe you should have argued there was a conspiracy instead of hiding it behind a thin veil.

I explained this but you ignored it since it was too inconvenient for your faith in the accuracy of the NT.

 

[alang1216]

Who wrote texts that were accepted by all.

No Christian theology was ever fully accepted by all and that is true to this day.

 

[alang1216]

I'm sorry you can't admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs and dismiss the evidence that does exist based on faith alone.

I'm sorry you can't admit that the NT is not historical but theological and the history it does have is contradictory and improbable and wholly unconvincing. Your belief and trust in the NT 'evidence' is based mainly on your faith.

 

[ding]

I explained this but you ignored it since it was too inconvenient for your faith in the accuracy of the NT.

Your explanation was illogical, had no evidentiary basis and made no sense. Your argument that it was only a big misunderstanding doesn't hold water anymore than a conspiracy theory argument holds water. Every single piece of evidence proves that Jesus really did perform supernatural feats.

 

[ding]

No Christian theology was ever fully accepted by all and that is true to this day.

Why are you changing from Jewish texts to Christian texts. We were discussing your sily belief that Jews go off in all directions in their religious beliefs. We were discussing your silly belief that it wasn't possible for Jewish religious leaders to accuse Jesus of sorcery and apostacy because there was no central religious authority. Let's call it what it is... a poorly constructed strawman because you lack evidentiary proof to argue against Jesus performing supernatural feats. It's just another one of your red herrings in a long line of red herring arguments.

 

[alang1216]

Your explanation was illogical, had no evidentiary basis and made no sense. Your argument that it was only a big misunderstanding doesn't hold water anymore than a conspiracy theory argument holds water. Every single piece of evidence proves that Jesus really did perform supernatural feats.

Maybe are judging these 'supernatural feats' or miracles differently. What do you consider a miracle and how often have miracles been performed and by whom? We have faith healers today, are they performing miracles? If someone prays for another's recovery and they get better, is that a miracle?

 

[ding]

I'm sorry you can't admit that the NT is not historical but theological and the history it does have is contradictory and improbable and wholly unconvincing. Your belief and trust in the NT 'evidence' is based mainly on your faith.

The NT is historical. Where is your evidence that it's not historical. Non-Christian historians who recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats is literally evidence which corroborates the historicity of the NT. Where is your evidence that it's not? For you to say I accept the evidence of the NT based upon faith is ridiculous. The evidence is consistent and shows that the first Christians who witnessed Jesus performing supernatural feats worshiped Jesus as God, the 24,000 written manuscripts explain why the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God, non-Christian historians confirm the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats and the Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostacy. That evidence. That's not faith.

 

[ding]

the history it does have is contradictory

What evidence of the accounts of supernatural feats performed by Jesus are contradictory?

 

[ding]

and improbable and wholly unconvincing

Again... If you eliminate the impossible then what you have left must be what it is despite how improbable it is. It's because it was improbable that it was a really big deal natural feats in front of big crowds why Jesus was worshiped as God.

It's important to remember there are no accounts that oppose Jesus committing supernatural acts. Why is that?

 

[alang1216]

Why are you changing from Jewish texts to Christian texts. We were discussing your sily belief that Jews go off in all directions in their religious beliefs. We were discussing your silly belief that it wasn't possible for Jewish religious leaders to accuse Jesus of sorcery and apostacy because there was no central religious authority. Let's call it what it is... a poorly constructed strawman because you lack evidentiary proof to argue against Jesus performing supernatural feats. It's just another one of your red herrings in a long line of red herring arguments.

I guess I misunderstood your reply. If Jews had a central religious authority why were there Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, apocalypticists, and Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds?

I wasn't possible for Jewish religious leaders to accuse Jesus of sorcery and apostacy, not because there was no central religious authority, but because those weren't crimes under Roman law and, even if the Romans wanted to punish Jesus, they had other means to do it. Crucifixtion was reserved for runaway slaves and treason.