Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline The Gospels Historicity and Timeline

07-17-2008 , 11:12 AM
I was surprised to come across a series of videos from a lecture of Gary Habermas regarding the Historicity of the Resurrection. He holds a Ph.D. in History and the Philosophy of Religion and an M.A. in Philosophical Theology.

In this 11 part lecture he peels back some of the history of the Gospels. His studies originally started back when he was working on his docotorate and he decided to use the Resurrection as the topic. The faculty staff approved his topic provided he only use things that could back it up and not just approach the topic from an inerrant holy book perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsrqF...eature=related
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-18-2008 , 08:46 AM
If the above links excited any interest about Habermas's field of study he has his own site with audios at: http://www.garyhabermas.com/
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-19-2008 , 11:38 AM
After watching these videos I was thinking about Saul of Tarsus and how he really was a Jewish Intellectual Brahmin thrown in with the very humble working men Apostles. For some reason I always preferred the Apostle John over Paul. Probably everyone has a favorite Apostle sort of like having a favorite Beatle only the choice is between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

But seeing Habermas connect everything in a timeline back through Paul to the Apostles themselves really made me appreciate him a lot more. He also as an intellectual must have had a much greater appreciation for making sure everything got written down.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 12:30 AM
What was the theist take on these videos? Did it explain things well or was it too long and dry?
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 01:17 AM
I'm about 1/2 way through professor Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus.
The subtitle is "The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"
Ehrman is a top New Testament scholar, and this book details all the changes that have been made since the oldest known New Testament, which was written in 4th century Greek. Fascinating stuff.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 10:02 AM
Some other bible scholars are claiming Ehrman is self refuting.
http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2008/...quoting-jesus/

What I like about Habermas's video is he tracks the timeline and he points out that the very first historical record of Jesus is in the bible itself in Corinthians 1:15. People that are knowledgable about history know that the bible is very historical and they keep making archaeology finds that substantiate many biblical accounts.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Some other bible scholars are claiming Ehrman is self refuting.
http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2008/...quoting-jesus/
Here's a quote from one review of Ehrman's book:

Quote:
Dr. Bart Ehrman also never gives any supporting arguments to back up his claim that these errors render the Bible, a book that possibly can’t be inspired by God. Which indeed the evidence points the other way around, “No central tenet of Christianity hangs on any textually uncertain passage” (Dr. Craig Blomberg). Dan Wallace in his review quotes what Bruce Metzger once taught him, “over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine” (Dan Wallace). Norman Geisler and Willam Nix concluded in their book, “A General Introduction to the Bible”, as quoted by Bruce Metzger, the text is in “a form that is 99.5% pure.” If Dr. Bart Ehrman’s mentor and “Doctor-Father” (Acknowledgments, Misquoting Jesus), Bruce Metzger, came to the conclusion that the text is 99.5% pure, we should take “Misquoting Jesus” with a grain of salt.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 03:51 PM
I'm also a fan of Ehrman since using his NT textbook in college religion classes. And I didn't go to your average, super-liberal university either, I went to a Baptist affiliated (SBC), conservative university in Middle Georgia.

Ehrman is great because he examines the NT in a historical manner. He writes about the sources for the NT, the fact that the earliest sources for the books of the Gospel were written 100+ years after the death of Jesus, and the fact that many Gospels written were excluded from the Bible, arbitrarily, by early Church elders.

Ehrman also mentions the fact that historians writing contemporaneously with the life of Jesus fail to make any mention of him. Josephus, the great Jewish historian, makes no mention of the messiah or a messiah-impersonator. Roman historians, unlikely to take note of provinicial upstarts anyhow, also make no mention of Jesus. Does this prove absolutely that Jesus did not exist? Of course not. But it speaks volumes to how little is known from the time of the life of Jesus.

I doubt any claim that purports to create a timeline all the way back to the original apostles. It is simply impossible because there is no data. Most of what we know of the Apostles and Jesus come from the Gospels and the Book of Acts. These were all composed long after Jesus lived. There is no chance that the authors of these books witnessed the events they are recounting. Even the sources from which they drew were most likely secondary sources themselves.

Last edited by duckwaltz; 07-25-2008 at 04:11 PM.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 05:27 PM
Most people know the Apostles lived day and night with Jesus for approximately 3 years and no one disputes that Paul wrote substantial portions of the New Testament and Paul didn't live up to 100 years following Jesus. He died in 67CE.


Here's Habermas pinpointing the time of Paul's writing on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Most people know the Apostles lived day and night with Jesus for approximately 3 years and no one disputes that Paul wrote substantial portions of the New Testament and Paul didn't live up to 100 years following Jesus. He died in 67CE.


Here's Habermas pinpointing the time of Paul's writing on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40aRXR8cBxQ
While everyone may think that Paul actually wrote the Acts of the Apostle, NT scholars generally attribute it to the same author of the Book of Luke. Here's a hint: Paul didn't write Luke.

Acts was written sometime around 60CE which places it also, several decades after the life of Jesus. Even if Paul did write Acts and significant portions of the NT, he never lived with Jesus nor the Apostles. Paul first claimed to have encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. The actual apostles lived and worked with the living, breathing Jesus during his lifeitme. Paul never knew Jesus.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Most people know the Apostles lived day and night with Jesus for approximately 3 years[/url]
This has been pointed out by many before, but the apostles didn't write any of the gospels. They should be considered, at best, secondary sources that were written 100 or more years after his death.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 06:58 PM
A lot of serious bible students know that Acts was written by Luke. Luke knew Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist.

But the earliest history on the resurrection was in 1 Corinthians with a list of the people Jesus appeared to after he had risen:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...015&version=31

And if we look at the beginning of 1 Corinthians we can see Paul is the author of it.

NIV Bible:


1 Corinthians 1
1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
A lot of serious bible students know that Acts was written by Luke. Luke knew Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist.

But the earliest history on the resurrection was in 1 Corinthians with a list of the people Jesus appeared to after he had risen:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...015&version=31

And if we look at the beginning of 1 Corinthians we can see Paul is the author of it.

NIV Bible:


1 Corinthians 1
1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I never denied that Paul wrote The Epistles. My claim was that he did not know Jesus personally like the 12 Apostles. Paul is just another example of a secondary source writing decades after the life of Christ.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 07:11 PM
If 11 videos is too long to watch here's a pretty good summary by Habermas himself.


The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus
By Gary R. Habermas

When the New Testament defines and identifies the Gospel data, at least three items are always mentioned: the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.1 The key to Jesus' resurrection is his post-death appearances. Critical scholars agree that the entire enterprise of the early church-worship, writings, and witness—would never have come about if Jesus' followers were not absolutely convinced that He had conquered death by appearing to them afterwards.

Throughout this essay, I will not assume the inspiration or even the reliability of the New Testament writings, though I think these doctrines rest on strong grounds. I will refer almost exclusively to those data that are so well attested that they impress even the vast majority of non-evangelical scholars. Each point is confirmed by impressive data, even though I can do no more than offer an outline of these reasons.

We must be clear from the outset that not only do contemporary scholars not mind when points are taken from the New Testament writings, but they do so often. The reason is that confirmed data can be used anywhere it is found.

Using almost solely those data that are well-attested and recognized, I will list 10 considerations that favor Jesus' resurrection appearances. Each angle has this in common: it indicates that one or more persons were utterly convinced that they had seen Jesus again after his death. Although I cannot defend the additional thesis here, I and others have argued elsewhere in much detail that this conviction cannot be viably accounted for by any natural means. Perhaps surprisingly, comparatively few skeptical scholars even favor these alternative hypotheses.2 Therefore, the most likely conclusion is that the disciples and others really did see the risen Jesus.

Here is the absolute crux of my case: These 10 arguments point to the disciples and others having actual, visual experiences. When juxtaposed with the failure of viable natural alternatives, we have an especially powerful indication that, after His death, Jesus actually appeared to many persons. These appearances were to both individuals and groups. In other words, if multiple evidences point to visual experiences, and natural attempts fail to explain them otherwise, the most likely explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead. Briefly, the early disciples' experiences plus the failure of naturalistic theories equals the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Our first four arguments are drawn from Paul's epistles. The remaining six are taken from other New Testament sources.

(1) For a number of reasons, when recent scholars discuss the resurrection appearances of Jesus, they begin with the apostle Paul. He had clearly been a powerful opponent of the early Christian message (Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7; 1 Cor. 15:9). Paul explains that he was converted from his high rank in Judaism. Clearly, the reason for his change was his belief that he had seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). As a scholar on both Judaism and Christianity, Jesus' appearance to Paul certainly qualified him as an exceptionally strong witness to the resurrected Jesus.

(2) Beyond his scholarly and eyewitness testimony, Paul contributes far more to a case for Jesus' resurrection appearances. Few conclusions in current study are more widely held by scholars than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul recorded a very ancient tradition that actually predates his book, probably by a couple of decades. It could very well predate even Paul's conversion to Christianity. After explaining that he received this from others, Paul succinctly reports the Gospel that was preached in early Christianity: Christ died for our sins and was buried. Afterwards, he was raised from the dead and appeared to many witnesses.

Paul tells his readers that he was handing down this teaching that he had received from others (see I Cor. 15:3). His explicit statement here is important, due to the respect that scholars have for Paul's testimony. Further, his claim has been vindicated because there are many textual indications that the words that follow were not composed by him. For example, this list of appearances exhibits a parallel structure, as if it were an ancient catechism whose purpose was to be passed on and learned. Moreover, to identify a few other characteristics, the Greek sentence structure, diction, and some of the words are not Paul's, judging from his other epistles.

Most scholars who address the subject think that Paul received this material about 35 A.D. just three years after his conversion, when he made his first trip to Jerusalem. Paul explains that he visited Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (see Gal. 1:18-19). In the immediate context both before and after, Paul is discussing the nature of the Gospel (see Gal. 1:11-2:10). Additionally, Paul's choice of words in verse 18 shows that he was interviewing or questioning the two apostles in order to gain information. Here we have an exceptionally early tradition from almost immediately after Jesus, centering on the Gospel report, and clearly including Jesus' resurrection appearances.

(3) Paul was so careful to assure the truth of the gospel message that he returned to Jerusalem 14 years after this initial visit (see Gal. 2:1-10). Amazingly, his purpose was to be absolutely sure that what he preached was true (see Gal. 2:2)! For a second time, Paul conducted his ancient research. Besides Peter and James, another major apostle, John, was also present. Could Paul possibly have consulted three more prominent Christian leaders? Crucially, these four witnesses were the most influential in the early church. And with a single voice, they testified at this early date to the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The bottom line was that Paul's Gospel teaching, which included the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15:1-5), was approved by the other three apostles. They added nothing to his message (see I Cor. 2:6, 9). Paul's two trips to Jerusalem provided the data and the confirmation that he desired.

(4) In 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul added still another layer of personal testimony. We already learned that the other major apostolic leaders had approved Paul's gospel message. Now Paul asserts that he also knew what the others were preaching. And as they had confirmed his message years before, Paul now testified that they also taught the same truth that he did regarding Jesus' resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:11). In fact, Paul had just recorded separate appearances to two of them: Peter (see I Cor. 15:5) and James (see I. Cor. 15:7). Together with John, all the apostles preached the same truth—they were witnesses of the risen Jesus' appearances (see I. Cor. 15:12, 15).

Scholars uniformly regard Paul as the earliest and best witness to the resurrection appearances. Considerations such as these four provide some indications of the value of Paul's testimony to Jesus' resurrection appearances. But Pau's writings are far from the only evidence. There are at least six more confirmations that work together to form an even tighter lattice work.

(5) Besides 1 Corinthians 15:3, scholars usually agree that many other New Testament books also contain early traditions that predate the texts in which they appear. Many of the best examples are found in the Book of Acts, where succinct summaries of early preaching are embedded.3 The center of these early statements is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(6) Virtually no one, friend or foe, believer or critic, denies that it was their convictions that they had seen the resurrected Jesus that caused the disciples' radical transformations. They were willing to die specifically for their resurrection belief. Down through the centuries many have been willing to give their lives for political or religious causes. But the crucial difference here is that while many have died for their convictions, Jesus' disciples were in the right place on to know the truth or falsity of the event for which they were willing to die.

(7) It is almost always acknowledged that during Jesus' ministry, His brother James was a skeptic (see John 7:5). He was probably one of the family members in Mark 3:21-35 who thought that Jesus was insane! But how do we account for the surprising reports that James later led the Jerusalem church (Gal. 1:18-2:1-10; Acts 15:13-21)? According to the creedal comment in 1 Corinthians 15:7, Jesus appeared to James, yet another pointer to a resurrection appearance.

(8) The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty shortly afterwards. The early apostolic preaching of the resurrection began in Jerusalem, where a closed or occupied tomb would have been disastrous! Moreover, the unanimous agreement that women were the earliest witnesses to the empty tomb is another strong consideration, since the widespread prejudice against female testimony indicates that the reports were not invented. Although the empty tomb does not prove the resurrection appearances, it does strengthen the disciples' claim to have seen the risen Jesus.

(9) That Jesus' resurrection was the very center of early Christian faith also indicates its reality, since, for this reason, it was repeatedly affirmed by believers and challenged by unbelievers. For example. Paul visited the Jerusalem apostles at least two or three times in order to make sure that his Gospel message was truthful. Indeed, there was no Christianity without this event (see 1 Cor. 15:14, 17). It was the church's central proclamation (see Acts 4:33). Unbelievers attacked this centerpiece of faith, but could not disprove the rock on which it was founded: Jesus' appearances.

(10) Lastly, 2,000 years of attempts by nonbelievers to explain what happened to Jesus in natural terms have failed. The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had the power, motive, and location to investigate thoroughly the proclamation of the resurrection appearances. They knew of Jesus' death and His burial. Though they were ideally situated to expose the error, they did not refute the evidence. Even many of today's skeptical scholars are without an explanation of what occurred.

For reasons like these 10, the vast majority of contemporary scholars conclude that Jesus' disciples and others thought that they had seen Jesus after His crucifixion. This is what the earliest believers claimed and this teaching is confirmed by an amazing variety of details from a number of perspectives. We might even say that the disciples were overpowered by these evidences themselves, which convinced them that they had seen the risen Jesus. Given that natural theses cannot explain these experiences, Jesus' resurrection appearances remain the best explanation of the historical facts. The early disciples' experiences plus the failure of naturalistic theories equals the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

End Notes

1For examples, see Romans 1:3-4; 10:9; Acts 2:22-36; 3:12-23.

2See Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), especially pages 79-150; Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), especially Chapter 1.

3Commonly-cited examples include 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckwaltz
I never denied that Paul wrote The Epistles. My claim was that he did not know Jesus personally like the 12 Apostles. Paul is just another example of a secondary source writing decades after the life of Christ.
I don't know of any dissent by the other Apostles to Paul's preaching do you?

Paul was a skeptic indeed a persecutor of Christians. He was a citizen of Rome and a Jew of high status why would he throw it away to live a life of privation and hardships (he was shipwrecked twice and imprisoned) if he didn't see Christ? Why court execution?

James the brother of Jesus was also a skeptic but became a believer upon seeing the risen Jesus.

Paul is so well known because he was the Apostle commissioned by Christ to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and his work bore a lot of fruit. But the other Apostles all of who were also commissioned by Christ were told to go elsewhere.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-25-2008 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
I don't know of any dissent by the other Apostles to Paul's preaching do you?

Paul was a skeptic indeed a persecutor of Christians. He was a citizen of Rome and a Jew of high status why would he throw it away to live a life of privation and hardships (he was shipwrecked twice and imprisoned) if he didn't see Christ? Why court execution?

James the brother of Jesus was also a skeptic but became a believer upon seeing the risen Jesus.

Paul is so well known because he was the Apostle commissioned by Christ to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and his work bore a lot of fruit. But the other Apostles all of who were also commissioned by Christ were told to go elsewhere.
A claimed revelatory experience is not evidence enough to suggest that Paul knew Christ. If we want to be objective about this topic, we have to acknowledge that there are no primary sources from the time Jesus lived.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 12:40 AM
Acts 16:16 reports Paul cast an evil spirit out of a woman and Silas was present. Both were jailed and an earthquake miraculously released them an hour later. This event in Acts was written about Paul by Luke. So that's Luke and Silas witnessing for Paul's miracle.

Besides Paul verified with the other Apostles not once but at least twice. The accounts are in 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 02:07 AM
Splendour, why is it hard for you to accept that neither Jesus himself, nor anyone who knew him, wrote the Bible? The Bible has nothing to do with Jesus. It's a church construct, and as such a political document. A sales tactic, you might say. It's changed many times, and even now is present in different forms. No two translations are the same, and sometimes vary significantly. There isn't even any such thing as THE Bible.

I believe in Jesus. The Bible, otoh, is repugnant to me. It's just moronic, insulting, drivel, and anti-Christian in effect, especially the Book of Revelations, which is Jesus-hating filth.

You should worry more about Jesus, and less about the Church that uses his name for money and power. You need to understand that JESUS DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE. Jesus had nothing to do with the Bible.

But if you want a good version of the Bible--a version more useful than any of the many other versions out there--try this one:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

This version was created by Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States. You've heard of him?
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 02:32 AM
Where did you get the idea that I thought Jesus wrote the bible?

I've never said that and I've never heard anyone else make that claim.


So far the bible's historical accounts have stood up as highly accurate when looked at by the science of archaeology.

There is a 6 part series "Proving the Bible through Archaeology". The beginning of the first video is rather redundant then it goes through a lot of biblical finds: Joseph's tomb in Egypt, Joseph's burial place in Shechem, Jericho, the House of David, and the Dead Sea Scrolls amongst others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukCLU...eature=related

I have one question for you. Where do you think Jefferson got his material to write his own bible?

Last edited by Splendour; 07-26-2008 at 02:39 AM. Reason: correct grammar
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
So far the bible's historical accounts have stood up as highly accurate when looked at by the science of archaeology.
No, archaeology has shown that *gasp* the places the Bible is set in really did exist. This is a far stretch from saying that the events actually occurred the way they are put in the bible--there's no evidence for this, scientific or otherwise.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 03:21 AM
Well the videos explain otherwise.

They talk about how the walls of Jericho fell down as if a hand had pushed then from above. Also that a large amount of grain was retrieved which was unheard of in those times because when a city was invaded they got sacked but in the bible God told Joshua not to sack the city.

Also the timing of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was eerie as the video explains

The statue of Joseph was very interesting too.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Where did you get the idea that I thought Jesus wrote the bible?

I've never said that and I've never heard anyone else make that claim.


So far the bible's historical accounts have stood up as highly accurate when looked at by the science of archaeology.

There is a 6 part series "Proving the Bible through Archaeology". The beginning of the first video is rather redundant then it goes through a lot of biblical finds: Joseph's tomb in Egypt, Joseph's burial place in Shechem, Jericho, the House of David, and the Dead Sea Scrolls amongst others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukCLU...eature=related

I have one question for you. Where do you think Jefferson got his material to write his own bible?
If you see the NT as the way to understand Jesus, you are mistaken. The NT is a way to understand the profiteering of Jesus and the use of Jesus as a way to control people. Nothing more.

Jefferson pulled the non-stupid parts of the bible into one consolidated writing. Which means, he left out most of what passes for "the bible."

Clearly, to me, Jesus would reject the bible. Unless you reject Jesus, you need to reject the bible, too. The Bible is a collection of fairy tales. Do you really believe Jesus was a liar? A fool? A con man? Do you really believe Jesus wanted only to control the masses, to hustle them for contributions on Sundays? To threaten children with eternal damnation for not being born to Christian families?

The Christian church and it's bible have nothing to do with Jesus. And so, you should have nothing to do with the church and the bible.

Or think of it this way: If you had a bunch of people who witnessed a traffic accident, and asked them about it, you might get quite a few different opinions on what happened. That's from people who WITNESSED it. Now, think of how inaccurate would be an account by people who heard second-hand accounts, decades earlier, about what happened. Would you really think that those second-hand accounts written decades later would be worth anything in court? Especially if they were written by people with an agenda?

The Bible--and I repeat, there really isn't any such thing as THE bible, just many different versions and translations--wasn't written by Jesus or anyone who witnessed Jesus. You understand? It has nothing to do with Jesus.

If you would love Jesus, hate the Bible.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMore
If you see the NT as the way to understand Jesus, you are mistaken. The NT is a way to understand the profiteering of Jesus and the use of Jesus as a way to control people. Nothing more.

Jefferson pulled the non-stupid parts of the bible into one consolidated writing. Which means, he left out most of what passes for "the bible."

Clearly, to me, Jesus would reject the bible. Unless you reject Jesus, you need to reject the bible, too. The Bible is a collection of fairy tales. Do you really believe Jesus was a liar? A fool? A con man? Do you really believe Jesus wanted only to control the masses, to hustle them for contributions on Sundays? To threaten children with eternal damnation for not being born to Christian families?

The Christian church and it's bible have nothing to do with Jesus. And so, you should have nothing to do with the church and the bible.

Or think of it this way: If you had a bunch of people who witnessed a traffic accident, and asked them about it, you might get quite a few different opinions on what happened. That's from people who WITNESSED it. Now, think of how inaccurate would be an account by people who heard second-hand accounts, decades earlier, about what happened. Would you really think that those second-hand accounts written decades later would be worth anything in court? Especially if they were written by people with an agenda?

The Bible--and I repeat, there really isn't any such thing as THE bible, just many different versions and translations--wasn't written by Jesus or anyone who witnessed Jesus. You understand? It has nothing to do with Jesus.

If you would love Jesus, hate the Bible.


If you reject the Bible how do you know anything about Jesus?
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
If you reject the Bible how do you know anything about Jesus?
Maybe he accepts the Quran. It has plenty on Jesus.

Or some other source(s), or maybe he is simply thinking out loud on the Jesus described in the bible and how he would think about the bible, regardless if it is fact or fiction.

Are you suggesting these are not valid approaches?
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote
07-26-2008 , 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
Well the videos explain otherwise.

They talk about how the walls of Jericho fell down as if a hand had pushed then from above. Also that a large amount of grain was retrieved which was unheard of in those times because when a city was invaded they got sacked but in the bible God told Joshua not to sack the city.

Also the timing of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was eerie as the video explains

The statue of Joseph was very interesting too.
The videos and essay are biased accounts. The man is essentially a preacher, not a scientist or historian.
The Gospels Historicity and Timeline Quote

      
m