I am no longer an atheist.

Check the dates for the Jewish and secular historians I listed. Most lived and died within Jesus' generation.

Galatians (the earliest book of the NT) was written around 49 AD. This is not far removed from Jesus' death and in this letter Paul addresses a flourishing church in which he writes that he already visited before. We see that not 10 years from Jesus' death there is already thriving churches. 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians was written somewhere between 49 to 51 AD, where Paul addresses more letters to another church in which he had visited before.


The earliest gospel, Mark, is dated to before 70AD (and some scholars date it closer to 50AD). The entire NT was written within the generation of Jesus.

We also are talking about an "oral society", where people verbally passed on important information. The fact that so many books were written about Jesus is amazing.

These points are not based on blind faith, they are based on historical evidence. The same historical evidence that dates other ancient works of literature, but the difference with the NT books is that there are thousands of more copies than any other ancient book. Some copies pre-date the council of Trent, and yet they are consistent with the modern versions of the NT.

The stories of Alexander the Great were written about 500 years after his death, yet historians believe the accounts we have of his life and death are accurate. The stories of Jesus were written 10 - 40 years after his death.

 

Lovely.

Same can be said about Joseph Smith...

 

And all of the historical figures. So we can't know anything for certain. Believe what you want.

 

Joseph Smith lived in early America (1805 - 1844), I don't see how he relates to the secular historians from the eastern Mediterranean (37 AD up to 120 AD)????

 

I excerpted some of your statements, but yes I intend to do some research on your "Jewish and secular historians."

1. Give me some concrete examples of what you claim is "historical evidence."
2. You chose not to answer my questions about the Gospels: who wrote them and when?
3. Regards Alexander the Great, just for starters, allow me to advise that in fact, Callisthenes of Olynthus was a prolific writer who accompanied Alexander when he invaded Asia in 334. Can you say ten books on Greek history and three books on the '3rd Sacred War'? Can you say Aristobolus, who also went with Alexander on his campaigns and wrote about them, just as Onesicritus of Astypalaea did? Where did you come up with this "500 years after his death" business? And who told you that historians (?) "believe the accounts" of the life and death of Alexander? In fact, there is more myth built around Alexander than facts. Same with some other historical figures.

In closing, are you trying to tell us that the Romans had an "oral society"? In fact, they documented everything and had prolific writers, historians, scribes, and learned citizens. By the time that Jesus came along, the Romans were writing for at least two weeks, so they had that skill down pat. Point me in the direction of the accumulation of written materials produced by the Romans describing the life and miracles performed by Jesus. If you can't do that, point me in the direction of the accumulation of written materials produced by the Jews about Jesus...or were the Jews also a simple people who only passed information 'orally'?

Crank up the volume.

 

EDIT: Charles makes some very good points as well. If only I could edit in an I'm with Stupid smiley.

Great. Now let's get a believer from each of the other 4199 established religions on this planet to tell you why you're wrong.

It's just a pissing match. I'm right because of a,b,c - no, I'M right because of d,e,f. If any of it could be proven, it would've been. It all requires that you believe a certain series of events happened of which there is no proof to prove that something else happened. It's the same circular argument.

Doesn't mean that you might not be right, but you certainly can't prove it any better than a Muslim can about his beliefs.

 

and batman.

 

Explain that to his staunch followers who faithfully believe even his most self serving 'revelations'....

 

They should read and understand the Bible, espescially Galatians 1:6 - 12.

 

or maybe we should read the book of mormon. Not everyone believes the bible is authoritative.

 

What do you consider "concrete examples" for historical evidence? I gave examples of Jewish and secular writers from Jesus' generation that wrote about the early Christian church and the early Christian following.

I did give one example (Mark); Mark was written before 70AD. The authorship of Mark goes to John Mark, who accompanied Peter.

Luke was written between 59 and 60 AD. The authorship is attributed to a physician who worked with the Apostle Paul. Luke's writings have incredible historical accuracy, especially concerning the physical details of places and venues.

I don't have time to dig for it now, but I will research what I read.

No, I was referring to Jewish society and the many books of the NT.

The fact that the Romans recorded so much is why there is such a great historical record of Jesus' life outside of the context of the Bible.

 

Sorry, my memory was wrong. The reference to Alexander the Great is about the amount of historical copies of manuscripts regarding his life. There are nearly 500. The life of Jesus has been documented in thousands of manuscripts (mostly from NT copies).

 

All the Mormons I've talked to believe the Bible is authoritative.

 

So they believe it, they just don't understand it? Using the bible to support an apologetic argument is a bit of a circular argument. Every religion has its authoritative text. Doesn't mean they are all correct.

 

Well, see, this is the thing right here: who 'should' do this or that, and it all depends on where you are in the world and what religions are practiced there. I was breaking your balls a bit, because we could go on and on, and yes, it's fun and informative (although not always to the same degree), but the bottom line is simply that religious faith is just that: faith. If you believe, then you believe, and as long as you gain insight and joy in life from what you practice, then all is well, as long as you and/or your religion doesn't insist everyone follow the same dogma and doctrine, i.e., do no harm to others.

If you want to go on with our dialogue more, that's okay, but I believe for you, it will always be a matter of faith over fact, form over substance.

 

Other way `round. Keep up, will ya!

 

I can translate your term 'understand the bilble' (not much to understand in the galatians, really) as 'taking it at face value'.

Besides a few centuries difference, the birth of these of the two sects follow the same pattern.

In a millennium or two, both prophets will have the same credibility in terms of their antiquity. The mormons will have the great disadvantages of better contemporary data collecting.

 

I had an epiphany about the bible the other day.

*So the bible is a compilation of stuff that a bunch of faithful folks wrote over time, added to, edited, amended and translated as they saw fit.

*That means basically the Bible is a religious old school wiki.

*Thus, when is the Rapture and Apocalypse? Can I Google it?

 

http://wiki.answers.com/