Internet Revisionists Beware: Real Facts Being Released to Public!

Just to finish up with your attempts to derail the thread Naykidape..

You probably shouldnt go strutting about with a shit-eating 'what me?' look on your face when you were happy to drop comments in the 'Paul Contradicts Jesus' topic (all supportive I might add) like buttressing the 'Nicene Mafia' arguments with:

and then you stupid phoney you went on a big rant saying about Christianity being historically verifiable:

So you can drop the act already thanks.
Not that I really care.

There are other reasons why we can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels we are reading are what they say they are is by using external evidence in archeaology and test it against the Gospels.

Completely the opposite of what Fulmah would like to believe, you most defiantely do take the testimony of other Christians at the time as having wieght and as evidence.
If I told you I saw a UFO on 3rd street and you also found that 10 other people reported seeing a UFO then no court or common sense in the land dismisses the other 10 reports as 'they dont count because they also believed they saw a UFO'.
Stupid.
Actually, the more testimonies the better.

The fact that so many others... even others who DO NOT believe a UFO landed but attest they did see me on 3rd street are lending real credibility to my story at least that far.
Same as with our early Christians... Celsus may think Christians believed in Bullshit but the point is that he is placing them and what they seem to be claiming at the scene.

Anyways... Some of the reasons why we believe that the Gospels are real, real-time, real place accounts is because the authors use place names, names of officials and refer to real things and customs.

Again, its one thing for me to write a story about how I met Tom Cruise and he bought me a beer and this happened in the Arctic somewhere.
well great.
Its another thing if I write that I was on Sunset and Vine, while Schwarzenegger was campaigning and this was at the Coyote Ugly and the beer was a Coors and it was 3.99 a bottle.
Of course I could be making that up too but the problem is that you can now verify and cross check me on that.
You have a specific time period.. you might be able to find out where Tom Cruise was that month.. you can look at a map and then find out that is NOT where Coyote Ugly Bar is.. and Coors are NOT 3.99 a bottle.

If I was right on about all those details it still wouldnt 'prove' it happened but it does give you evidence that I was at least accurate on the other details.

If I was making up such a detailed story there is good reason to believe I would get caught out by making some mistakes.

Anyway lets take Lukes book of Acts:
The book of Acts covers the beginning of the Church, from about AD 30 to AD 62. The author, Luke, describes in some detail the travels of the apostle Paul and his co-workers in present day Turkey and Greece. In describing the local officials Paul bumped up against, the author uses a range of different titles. For example, he talks about praetors in Philippi, calls Publius the first man of Malta, refers to the Asiarchs who governed Ephesus, and calls the city council of Thessalonika politarchs. (Acts chapter 17 verse 6)

If he is making shit up.. or if you want to come up with a guess that Constantine (300+ years later) just made up this story than consider it huge balls because it dropping some very specific names and dates here.

But get this... what if I said that it even dropped names and dates that only an 'insider' who was really there would know?...

In the past, scholars 'knew' that Luke was an inaccurate and unreliable historian, who did not know what he was writing about, or perhaps just could not be bothered to be consistent in his use of official titles. For example, there was absolutely no known use of the word 'politarch' anywhere in Greek literature. Luke must have got it wrong!

OOps!
For example, in 1835, a Greek inscription was discovered on an arch at Thessalonika, which contained the title 'politarch'. .... Since then, this term has been found in a large number of other inscriptions - several of them at Thessalonika.

So its all good and well to start supposing that someone just made a fictional account and loaded it with lots of place names and details to give it added plausability but what happens is you eventually have to make up a much more UNlikely story with less (or none) historical evidence than taking the books as they were written.
Again.. we are not trying to prove Christ as Messiah or Divine or debate theology here.
We are showing mounting historical evidence that the authors were indeed the authors, they are recording real events which they believe to have experienced and that we have the same accounts today.
(well actually we have complete NT's by around 350-500 AD so its before that in question here).

 

The Gospels mention Pontius Pilate.
We already had historical witness that he existed but it was often brought up that 'funny' how there is no archaeological evidence?
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.htm

Well anyways.. here is the Pilate Inscription.
Again, the authors are using specific public names.
If this was just a fictional trial they made up then thats pure balls because lots of people would easily catch them on it.

 

Once again, its just fine and well to make up a story about Paul being some 'Roman Antichrist' and just 'suppose' Constantine some 300 years later just rewrote Paul into stories with the other Apostles and all this.


Here though is more examples of Paul being placed in real times at real events at set dates which can be cross checked against external historical evidence:

Gallio the governor

Junius Annaeus Gallio was the son of Seneca the rhetorician and brother of Seneca the philosopher, and was the Roman governor of Achaia (in present-day Greece). An inscription naming Gallio found at Delphi says that he was a 'friend of Caesar', and dates his governorship to AD 51 or 52.

Paul spent 18 months in Corinth, which overlapped with Gallio's governorship. Acts chapter 18 verses 12-17 records how the Jews tried to make a case against him in the Roman courts, but Gallio refused to hear it, taking the view that it was an internal Jewish religious dispute. Gallio was executed by the maniac emperor Nero in AD 65

Why is the Delphi inscription important?

• because it confirms the historical accuracy of the book of Acts - real people in real places
• because it fixes a date in Paul's life
• because it shows that one Roman provincial authority at this time regarded the new Christian movement as part of Judaism, rather than as something completely separate

Again, while its always 'possible' someone rewrote these accounts its also just asking for sheer brass balls to suppose that either Luke (or Paul) or some mysterious evil Ghostwriter was bold enough to drop in very specific dates and names which (if not true) could be easily caught out by historical evidence to the contrary.

 

Here is another example of very specific names and consequently specific time periods which can be crossed checked and verified by other external sources.

In this case it does cross reference with other testimonies.

Cross referencing is a very signifigant part of where we are going with these too:

Lysanus - ruler of Abilene

Luke chapter 3 verse 1 dates the start of John the Baptist's ministry to the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius (that is, 29 AD), while Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod Antipas was ruler over Galilee, Philip was ruler of Iturea and Traconitis and Lysanius was ruler over Abilene.

Abilene was to the north of Galilee and Iturea, between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon range of mountains, west of Damascus.

For many years, the only known Lysanius was one who had been executed in 36 BC - sixty years before the date given by Luke. Skeptical scholars mocked Luke's historical inaccuracy.

But now two Greek inscriptions from Abila, northwest of Damascus, have been found, which prove there was a 'Lysanius the ruler' between the years AD 14 and 29:

There is an inscription of a temple in Abila 'for the salvation of the Lords Imperial, by a freedman of Lysanius the ruler.' 'Lords Imperial' was a technical title given jointly to the emperor Tiberius and his mother Livia, widow of Augustus, so this inscription must have been made between AD 14, when Tiberius became emperor, and AD 29, when Livia died. As Jesus's ministry must have begun no later than AD 29, the archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of Luke. Once again, we see that the Bible talks accurately about real people and real places.

In AD 53 the Roman emperor Claudius gave Abilene to Herod Agrippa II. Because of this, Josephus (Antiquities 20:138) can accurately speak of 'Abila, which had been the kingdom of Lysanias'.


Gee whiz.. If I was to try and use these as evidence that someone 'doctored' or rewrote these accounts later - that is ONE MUTHERFUSKER of some detailed historical research and date-checking they poured into their fictional story!!!
It becomes far far more likely that the author is someone who was there in the first place writing about real dates and people than to think someone went to these lengths (and why would they anyways?).

 

Wow! you can see me now? do you watch me in the shower too?

I would ask you how critiquing Paul ties in with the "Nicene Mafia" conspiracy theory but I think what you're really concerned about is the "Reality vs Erasmus" conspiracy.

Yes, I'm on the side of reality.

Wait, now you're saying it's not?

Are you still claiming that Mark and Luke were 2 of the twelve apostles? even though the very books you're "defending"--books that they wrote--say they weren't?

So basically what you're saying; Mark and Luke were 2 of the apostles, even though the books that they wrote leave them off the list of the 12, therefore (you're saying) Mark and Luke were liars but somehow the books they wrote are still the inerrant word of God?

I'd say one of us is very confused.

 

Paul once again drops names of public people.
Again, you can simply say that he does this to add some validity to himself or maybe you can say someone 'rewrote' Romans and added these details.
The problem here is that you cant just get away with shit like that so easily.. lots of people would know the Official.
The Public Official could easily be notified of this and have a very public way of exposing Paul too.

Erastus, the city treasurer of Corinth

Paul probably wrote his letter to the Church in Rome from Corinth in 57 AD. In the middle of a list of personal greetings at the end of the letter, he says, 'Erastus, the city treasurer, sends you his greetings...' (Romans chapter 16 verse 23).




Archaeologists have discovered in Corinth a block of marble in a paved square near the theater, with the Latin inscription

Erastus, commissioner of public works [aedile], laid this pavement at his own expense.

Oh sure, there were lots of people named Erastus but again, real and specific place names and corresponding dates going on here.
Either we are reading real accounts by real people who seem to believe what they are writing or else we got one helluva forgery .. a freaking masterpiece of a forgery that would seem to include getting more and more and more people in on it.

 

Its you.

 

This is the basis of your confusion.

 

You are the confusion in the basis.

 

No, you can't trust that evidence. If one person claims they saw a UFO on third street, and 10 others also verify this, but they're all members of the UFO fan club, their evidence can't be trusted.

I doubt very seriously that you believe that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah because a slew of Islamic historians "verify" the Quran.

Luke and Acts used Josephus as their historical source, and we know this because not only do every famous person, institution, place or event that he mentions can also be found in Josephus, but Luke’s argument structure is in the same style as Josephus, basically replacing the Jews that Josephus’ was trying to defend with Christians. Luke practically pulled a cut and paste to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. This seriously detracts from the veracity of his story, it could be historical fiction for all we know. You’ll probably want to specifics though, so here’s one of Mr. Carrier’s comparisons…

The census under Quirinius (Luke 3:1; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8).

The census under Quirinius is notable for three reasons. First, Josephus uses the census as a key linchpin in his story, the beginning of the wicked faction of Jews that would bring down Judaea (and the temple), whereas Luke transvalues this message by making this census the linchpin for God's salvation for the world, namely the birth of Christ (which also would result in destruction of the temple).

Second, no other author did or was even likely to have seen this census as particularly noteworthy--Josephus alone uses it as an excuse for him to introduce his villains, a group that scholars doubt existed as a unified faction--and therefore it is perhaps more than coincidence that it should appear as a key event elsewhere, even more so since only Josephus, precisely because of his apologetic aim, associates the census with Judas the Galilean, and thus it is peculiar that Luke should do so as well.

Third, Matthew does not mention anything about it in his account of the nativity, thus one is left to wonder where Luke learned of it. Given the first two points, the answer could be that Luke borrowed the idea from Josephus, and therefore it probably does not come from any genuine tradition about Jesus. Finally, it is most unlikely that Josephus got the information from Luke, for Josephus provides much more detailed, and more correct information (e.g. he knows exactly when and why the census happened, that the census was only of Judaea, not the whole world, etc.), such that it is far more likely that Luke was drawing upon and simplifying Josephus than that Josephus was expanding on Luke.

The same three rebel leaders: Judas the Galilean--even specifically connected with the census (Acts 5:37; JW 2.117-8, JA 18.1-8); Theudas (Acts 5:36; JA 20.97); and "The Egyptian" (Acts 21:38; JW 2.261-3, JA 20.171).

It seems quite a remarkable coincidence that Luke should even mention these men at all (no other Christian author does), and that he names only three rebel leaders, and that all three are the very same men named by Josephus--even though Josephus says there were numerous such men (JW 2.259-264; JA 20.160-9, 20.188) and he only singled out these three especially for particular reasons of his own. In fact, to use only the rather generic nick-name "The Egyptian," instead of, or without, an actual name of any kind (there were millions of Egyptians, and certainly thousands in Judaea at any given time), though explicable as an affectation of one author, seems a little strange when two authors repeat the same idiom.

It also makes sense for Luke to draw these three men from Josephus: since Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, if the Romans knew any Jewish rebels, it would be these three men. Just as Josephus named them as examples of what good Jews are not, Luke names them specifically as examples of what the Christians are not--and as the latter two were specifically painted by Josephus as religious figures, messianic prophets, similar to Jesus, it would have behooved Luke to disassociate Jesus with these men, recently popularized to Romans by Josephus as villains. Similarly with Judas, who was a military rebel, very much the opposite of Jesus, the peaceful religious reformer. Notice, for example, how Luke greatly downplays Jesus' use of violence in clearing the temple, and emphasizes in its place his role as teacher: compare Luke 19:45-8 with Mark 11:15-8, Matthew 21:12-6, and John 2:13-6.

Finally, Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josphus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people."

Luke's use of the Egyptian is also telling: Luke has him leading the sicarii, assassins, into the desert. But this does not make sense, since the sicarii operated by assassination under the concealment of urban crowds, not in the wilds. Moreover, Josephus does not link the Egyptian with them, though he does mention both in exactly the same place (cf. JW 2.258-61, JA 20.167-9), and in fact also mentions there other figures who led people into the desert, even though the Egyptian led them to the Mount of Olives. As Mason puts it (p. 212):

This is clearly part of Josephus'] literary artistry. How did Luke, then, come to associate the Egyptian, incorrectly, with the sicarii? If he did so independently of Josephus, the coincidence is remarkable. It is even more remarkable because sicarii is a Latin term for assassins. Josephus seems to have been the first to borrow this word and make it a technical term for the Jewish rebels in his Greek narrative.

That Luke should use the same word, and similarly conflate the Egyptian with the other imposters mentioned by Josephus in the very same passage as leading people into the desert , further signifies borrowing--that exactly these mistakes should be made is incredible if not the result of drawing (albeit carelessly) on Josephus.

The death of Agrippa I as God's vengeance for accepting praise as a god (Acts 12:21-3; JA 19.343-52)

Although Luke puts this event in a different location and changes other details of the story, there is a strange similarity that suggests borrowing: Josephus connects the divine praise with the putting on of a brilliant robe, whereas Luke mentions putting on a robe before the praise, but without making the connection explicit--one wonders why the donning of the robe is mentioned by Luke at all, if he was not thinking of this story in Josephus.

The association of Agrippa II with Berenice (Acts 25:13, 25:23, 26:30; JA 20.145)

Whereas Josephus hints at an incestuous affair between them, and Agrippa II's other profligate tendencies, there is no explanation given by Luke for mentioning Berenice at all, and from his account one would think that Agrippa II is an honorable, disciplined observer of Jewish customs. But if a reader knows the details of Josephus, the entire scene of Paul before Agrippa II becomes comic sarcasm. It seems plausible that Luke intended it this way, and therefore may have gotten the idea from Josephus (see Mason pp. 96-100).

The association of Felix with Drusilla (Acts 24:24-6; JA 20.143)

Josephus reports that Drusilla the Jew was seduced and abandoned her husband, the king of Emessa, to marry Felix. Acts puts the two together in a way that makes more sense if this account in Josephus is understood, especially considering Josephus' portrayal of Felix as notoriously cruel to the Jews. For when Felix and Drusilla visit Paul in jail, Paul discusses "justice, self-control, and coming judgement," at which Felix is terrified for some unexplained reason. As Mason puts it, "Why these themes in particular, and not the resurrection of Jesus or faith in Christ, which dominate the book elsewhere?" (p. 114). And why did Paul's subject scare him? This could be answered by the fact that Josephus' accounts of Felix and Drusilla were spreading, and were in the mind of Luke when he wrote of this encounter.

Felix sending priests, "excellent men," to Rome for trial on petty charges (Life 13)

Could this have been Luke's pretext or model for having the same thing happen to Paul?

Mention of Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1; JW 2.215, 2.247, JA 19.275)

The parable of the hated king sounds a lot like Josephus on Herod (Luke 19:12-27; JW 1.282-5)

Similarities in the description of the siege of Jerusalem (including mention of slaughtered children: Luke 19:43-4; JW 6)

Mention of a famine in the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28-9; JA 3.320, 20:51-3, 20.101)

Pilate's attack on Galileans in L sounds like Pilate's attack on Samaritans at Gerizim (Luke 13:1; JA 18.85-7)

L begins by asserting that Christian teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as J emphasizes that Jewish teachings were "handed down" (paradidômi) by Moses, and by the fathers of Pharisees. In both cases, the authors are drawing on Greek ideas of handing down succession in philosophical schools. Thus, both L and J are portraying their religion as traditional and philosophical (though the concept also has precedents in Paul).

L and J use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth.


L's emphasis, far greater than in any other NT text, on the virtues of poverty and the sins of hypocrisy and wealth, are all standard philosophical themes (in Stoic and Epicurean thought especially, but also in Platonic and Cynic ideals). Josephus also engages in similar discussions of the three schools of Judaism. Compare Luke 2:7, 2:16, 2:24, 3:10-14, 4:18, 6:20-6, 12:13-21, 14:1-14, 16:14, 16:19-31, 18:1-14 (and Acts 2:44-5, 4:32-5) with comparable passages in other Gospels, if any, and it becomes clear that Luke has this philosophical message more in mind than anyone 9].


L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).


L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis, a term that would later take on a negative meaning among Christians as "heresy" (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5; on Christianity as a hairesis: 24:5, 24:14-5, 28:22). We know of no other author but Josephus to have done this--it is a creative feature of his own apologetic program and therefore likely his own idea.


L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189).

Finally, L curiously never mentions the third school, the Essenes. Yet Josephus praised them above all. They also happened to be much like Christians in many respects. Mason advances the hypothesis that Luke intended the Christians to take the place of the Essenes--and certainly wanted to avoid competing with them--so that Christianity would appear to Roman readers as this very third school: the most like Greek philosophy, the most like Christianity, and the most praised by Josephus. We lack the data necessary to prove or refute this hypothesis, but it is worth considering in light of all the evidence so far. It certainly fits.

 

Wrong and this is a contrived standard falsely introduced by critics (who would never apply this standard otherwise) whenever this topic comes up.
Simply not acceptable.
By any reasonable standard you would most definately enter the 10 others testimony as evidence but you would be dismissed from any jury for the blatant prejudice you display when you say 'they cant be trusted'.
Huh?
In the case of the UFO analogy - you would most definately give more 'wieght' to 10 Trekkies saying they saw something than 1.
Your insane as well as prejudiced if you cant see that.

But hang on because your missing the point again.
We are not so much concerned whether witnesses numbers 2-10 even saw a UFO anyways.. or are even trying to to validate the claims of witness 1.
What we DO LIKE is that we now have 9 more sources which can be cross checked against one another and 9 members who are confirming there was a 10th member and confirming there WAS indeed a UFO Club.
Good!

So getting away from the analogy which is not really needed but fun.
Clement of Rome is just as valid as a witness as Lucian and you are insane if you think any court only hears hostile witnesses and disallows sympathetic witnesses.
Seriously.. what the hell is wrong with you for even trying to pull that idea?

Again, we are not so much worried about whether or not Clement can prove Jesus was resurrected.
Its just another person who (in his mind) seems to be convinced that Christianity is established and there are Gospels and a Church in Corinth and this is all pretty interesting to a juror.
Conversely.. it begs some questions about how exactly Paul was preaching something different than Peter.. but this third guy doest seem aware of this even though he is very familiar with both of their congregations.

A Sympathetic witness is absolutey as allowed and valid (in itself) as is a hostile witness.
You know that Fulmah.
Come on.
You could make a 'better' argument that hostile witnesses are to be disallowed even.
(and thats not right either).

Uhhh.. your missing the point again.. actually your changing the point again but this time Im glad you brought up Mohammed.

First, we are not introducing modern historians so thrownig that in the garbage and getting back to a real comparison to our Topic:

Yes, I absolutely do verify Muhammed as a real historical person who (and this is the point) in his mind has written the Koran and then preached it much as its read today by the very fact there are parallel historical accounts by his peers and companions.
Never mind whether or not this Haddith or that Haddith are 'proof' that Muhammed was really talking to Gabriel.
Thats not the point.
The point is that other people in that same era are writing about a man named Muhammed and about things he and his followers (including them) believed at the time.
(in their minds).

So absolutely yes - the fact that his companions and 'right hand men' also have written documents most definately does validate Muhammed and his teachings as 'Real events and real writings'.
Its not even necessary that it 'Proves it' but its definately giving me much more reason (or all the reason) to believe Muhammed and his followers wrote the Koran and not some baseless 'theory' in which someone just says it was written in 850 AD by some Mafia Boss.

 

This coming from the man who claims the Inquisitions never happened, the gnostics never existed, and that Mark and Luke were members of the twelve apostles.

You're crazy Erasmus. Saying that the fact that there's independant historical evidence for christianity's existence by the end of the first cent. somehow validates the claims made by the gospels themselves (and here it is above in your own words, dork) is like saying that all the historical evidence we have for the civil war proves that Gone With the Wind was a true story.

Assuming we are not retarded would be a courtesy you haven't earned.

 

Your a funny little liar arent you.

Gnostics most certainly did exist.
Then again, you have absolutely no reason to believe they do since the historical evidence by which we know about the Gnostics is going to work on the same lines as the historic evidence that classic Christianity existed.

By your own standards the Inquistion is just as easily a 'story'.
After all - your standards would dismiss it wouldnt they?

Even though you just made up this crap about me somehow denying Gnostics or the Inquisition existed - I wouldnt be surprised if I got screwed up on who was an original twelve (or thirteen if we get more technical), original chosen disciples since I haven't gotten that straight since Confirmation class.
I actually had to Google it (like you would have to) to remind myself:
<LI>Andrew. He was active in bringing people to Jesus, including his brother Peter.

<LI>James. James was the older brother of John. He was the first of The Twelve to be martyred.

<LI>John. See The Apostle John and The Island Of Patmos

<LI>Philip. From Bethsaida, as were Andrew and Peter. Eventually martyred, possibly at Hierapolis.

<LI>Bartholomew. He was one of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared at the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection. He was also a witness of the Ascension.

<LI>Thomas. He was also called Didymus which is the Greek version of his name. Not easily convinced, he has the nickname "Doubting Thomas" because he wanted to actually see and touch Jesus after His Resurrection. Certainly a good witness for us today, because he wanted indisputable proof of what he was expected to report about, and he got it.

<LI>Matthew. Formerly a tax-collector at Capernaum, he became one of the more prominent apostles.

<LI>James. Known as James the Younger, or James the Less, he wrote the epistle which bears his name.

<LI>Thaddaeus. Also known as "Judas the brother of James;" while John probably referring to the same person, speaks of "Judas, not Iscariot."

<LI>Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were a nationalistic sect with very strong political views. There seemed to be a wide variety of personalities among the apostles.

<LI>Judas Iscariot. The traitor. See Why Did He Do It?

Matthias. To bring the number back up to twelve after Judas fell away, Matthias was chosen by the remaining eleven apostles.

Enjoy that considering you couldnt have named them all by memory either, if your life depended on it.

Actually it does validate Gone with the Wind was a story 'based on' real events in a real time in a real place (meaning a real civil war).
The historical evidence for the Civil War is also the very reason you know GwtW is a fictional story in the first place.
You have so much cross referenceable historical evidence that you dont so much have to 'prove GwtW is a fiction' but its simply obvious against everythign else you do know.

(the film btw does validate that such a production was really made by real actors in a real set - so that another way to see it)

As far as the Gospels go - you have two more things going on.
They claim to be real accounts (GwtW doesnt)
External sources are major in establishing that there were Gospel accounts and that the writers certainly seem to believe they are accounts.

Now thats the hidden beauty with archaoelogical evidence because that can catch out whether or not the Gospels are accurate - at least as far as names, places, events and dates.
Again.. does that 'prove' Jesus walked on water?
No. thats not the point.
But... when we discover things like boats from the same Era (100bc-100ad) in the Sea of Galilee.



Compare that to:
Gospel accounts refering to boats they rode in the sea of Galilee, boats they used to travel back and forth in.
The fishing profession some of them were in (can we assume this meant boats).
Jesus being with them on the sea of Galilee but apparently not on a boat.

See, you dont even have to worry about whether or not Jesus walked on water at all yet.
What you do get is just more evidence that the Gospel account is refering to real things, real places and here is an example of external historical evidence doing that.

Again, its not just some sole issue of 'so what.. boats existed' either because what it does do is place the writers in a situation where they can be caught out IF they are fabricating this.
Since there were a lot of fisherman and cities on the Sea of Galilee then it would be pretty easy for an account of Andrew to be exposed.
All kinds of people could easily interupt the Ministry to simply state that Andrew is not a fisherman and not from Galilee or call him out on this claim (if it was false).

Again, its one thing to say I was in the desert somewhere and some guy you dont know saw me jump 3 feet in the air.
Its a whole different thing if I saw I was at Walmart and a guy who worked there saw me jump 3 feet in the air.

 

Here, in your own words;


I said;

you said;

I said;

You said;

Now you're saying;

which is a complete flipflop of your original stance.

And;

-


Ya know, the nice thing about the internet is there's a written record of everything we say.

If you're going to continue to lie you should work on refining your methods a bit.

Either that or start telling the truth, but who knows where that might lead?

 

Sorry.. where again was your false claim that I had ever denied the existance of Gnostics?
You dont seem to have included that quote anywhere?

Please reply

 

Gentlemen please, throwing around the "liar" accusations/hints is very poor form - name-calling, abuse - it tends to distract from the discussion!

Now I'm sure we know Mark (John-Mark) was not "one of the 12" but was likely around with Simon-Peter-Cephas at the time as his scribe, and that Luke was an early Christian (physician, well-educated and traveller maybe scribe for Paul most likely and great recorder of detail, writing elegant kione and apparently addressing his gospel and Acts to an official) - not one of the 12 I guess but maybe one of the 120, or subsequent 3000 in the early 30s AD?

Isn't this thread about the actual historical setting of the early Christians and New Testament documents, 30-70AD? Please, stay on track!

 

Are you sitting in front of your computer with your hands over your eyes?

Read the first two quotes in my last post.

My stance; first 3 centurys of christianity = Pauline Christianity vs. Gnostic (a term somewhat unfairly applied to any christianity that wasn't Pauline).

You're stance; there was never any form of christianity other than what we have now and that even the term "Pauline" is a device used by anti-christian propagandists.

It's hard enough having to keep re-explaining my stance to you over and over without having to constantly remind you of your own.

 

So is accusing someone of using those devises without bothering to demonstrate how you came to that conclusion.

Show me where my quotes were "out of context" if you can.

 

Hey, I was just making a general, hopeful, positive exhortation to keep discussions clean and gracious. Sorry if you thought I was "accusing" anyone, there were a few see-sawing low-blows flying around there. If you feel you were being perfectly gracious, I'm sure nothing I wrote was refering to yourself.

 

Cheers and have a nice day!