Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Birth of Christ

Nope. There is ancient evidence for Jesus from non-Christian sources; sources that Ehrman and thousands of other biblical scholars and historians put stock in. He refers to these sources in his book about the historicity of Jesus. And the non-Christian historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is considered by them to be excellent…even by scholars and historians who are agnostic/atheists. But you “choose to believe” otherwise about the historical record.

But that’s OK; it’s OK with me that you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.

You can lead them to water antlers, but you can't make them drink. Their eyes have been blinded by satan. So called "deep thinkers" believe that they are more intelligent than God.

I realize that we are supposed to try & bring them to Christ, but many have so much hate for the Truth, that it is very hard to witness.

Not true. He's debated Scholars with doubts.

It’s absolutely and unequivocally true that he made the above assertion. It’s straight from his book. And no skeptical scholar is as prominent today as he is.

But it’s cool with me that you choose to believe otherwise.

What first hand non Christian sources do we have?

Surely you don't consider mentions by Josephus, Tacitus, et al, as being first hand accounts?

You've been provided with the gospel over a hundred times and still reject it.
You are going to hell. That is your choice. I get no joy from that. Jesus was very specific as was the great commission given to the disciples. There's a whole book written on it, John.

Jesus said MANY are going there. I don't have any opposing opinions. He was right, just as He always is.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I suggest listening to the videos if that is still possible.

Your definition of first hand accounts and the scholarly definition of first hand accounts…also referred to as primary sources…are quite different.

Shocker.

There are many non-Christian primary sources that Ehrman references in his book that mention Jesus. He even asserts that “Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind” in reference to these documents of historical record that mention Jesus.

There are zero of your definition of “first hand accounts”
of any ancient historical figure in existence.

But it’s OK with me that you choose to believe that the ancient historical record that mentions Jesus should be held to a higher standard than all of the other ancient historical records that mention any other ancient historical figure.

I’d consider a rejection of original sin (aka total depravity) which is very clearly taught in scripture you’re heterodox.

According to the Bible isn’t something we do; it’s something that we are. There is no one righteous; not one. Including kids and those who are mentally slow.

So you take the Catholic view that all sinned when Adam sinned?

Either way, we are all guilty of sin by choice.
It's not spelled out in Scripture like it is in some dogmas of denominations what the particular age of accountability is.
I don't think that there is a particular age. God only knows and that by individual.
There are examples like Acts 8. God sends His messenger, Philip an evangelist to lead a man to Christ. He was open to hearing the gospel. Some hear many times and say no to it until their hearts harden against the Lord. I believe that God gives to whosoever will. It's a matter of volition/ choice.
Others need the seed watered a while before the fruit of salvation appears.

HC, if you truly believed that every person who has not been "saved" is going to hell, whether or not they had ever heard the gospel, then you should sell everything you have and spend every spare minute of your time traveling to the ends of the earth to warn them. You shouldn't be spending your time on 24HCF warning those who have already heard. You're a fuqking flake and you know it.

When I post a weekly sermon, like the Birth of Jesus, and you trolls do your best to drive away the hundreds who sometimes read or listen, you do waste too much of our time.
You are welcome to go join Bob Brown or Rene'50.

Answer me you little bitch.

You mean small-c catholic as in the historic Christian faith (vs Roman Catholic)? If so yeah… Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all understood this truth because they all studied scripture.

Romans 5:12 is clear; Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men

Erwin never debated Robert Price?
Are you sure about that?

So you are not going to answer the man, just threaten him?

Are you so blind that you cannot understand that simple answer???
I have no opinion other than what Jesus, the apostles and prophets have said.
There is no threat. It's a clear statement of fact for all who choose to trust in good deeds of the law or any religious rituals to be saved. Have you so much as ever told a lie?

No, he ain't gonna answer, he don't have an answer. He is full of sheit.

'First hand account' just means a witness telling the reader or listener what what saw. It's not complicated. To witness means seeing the event.

This is not according to me, it's not personal definition. It's not controversial.



Your defense strategy is shocking.


As pointed out, Josephus, Tacitus, et al, wrote what they had heard. They did not know Jesus, they had never seen him....and there is some controversy surrounding Josephus's account;

''The Testimonium Flavianum, a brief passage in Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus (37 - ca. 100 AD), is widely considered the only extant evidence besides the Bible of the historicity of Jesus Christ. In the sixteenth century the authenticity of this passage was challenged by scholars, launching a controversy that has still not been resolved.''


There are examples, Plato was a student of Socrates, Plato knew Socrates personally wrote about the life of Socrates. The existence of Caeser is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the time period;


The evidence of a historical Julius Caesar consists of several extensive mentions by the historian Sallust, (86-34BC); a biography by another historian, Suetonius (c75-120AD) as well as one by Plutarch (46-127AD). Chapter after chapter by the historian Appian (c95-165AD) relate complex chains of events in which Julius Caesar was intimately involved. There are the many other critically important mentions too, for example in the works of Cicero, Dio Cassius, Livy, Lucan, Valerius Maximus, Vitruvius, Catullus...
What is the epic story of Pompey the Great without Julius Caesar? What gaping holes would there be in the stories of Cleopatra or Mark Antony without Julius Caesar? Or for that matter of Octavian, Cicero and Cato? So much of Roman history depends upon this one man he is like the centerpiece of its history...
In addition, we can find numerous inscriptions and monuments, statues and coins. There is not enough material to satisfy my appetite, (I am still hoping for textual material to be rescued from Herculaneum) but there is, undeniably, quite a bit of historical evidence that a man named Julius Caesar did indeed exist.





Still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy.

Somebody supposedly wrote something from 399 B.C.E. and you choose to believe it. You have no proof that it’s true, but you still choose to believe that it is. It was allegedly written by Plato and you choose to believe that. You have no proof that it was actually written by Plato, but you still choose to believe that it was.And, as Ehrman points out in his book, the same can be said of the non-Christian historical record regarding Jesus.

That is what you choose to believe.

I choose to believe otherwise. Paul was a fire breathing Jewish Pharisee who hated Christians with a passion, thinking he was doing God's work. He was one of the upcoming men in Judaism. Then he met Jesus. Many come to know Jesus through the Bible or by being convinced of the truth by friends or a pastor, or directly by the Holy Spirit. Paul met Him head on, getting knocked down in the dirt and slapped up side the head. Jesus knew what Paul was capable of and hand picked him to be the leading missionary of all time. Jesus also said that he would teach Paul what he would suffer for doing His work. And Paul did suffer. He was beaten and imprisoned. He was chased out of cities and came close to being murdered a number of times. In the end he was murdered by Nero.