Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity…

Seriously , You really need to get out more.

Sure, you can develop a multitude of reasons to justify your unbelief.

The Pharisees …. the scholars of the Jewish culture….knew the messianic prophecies…..saw Jesus do miracles and they also refused to believe Jesus as Messiah.

For the third time I gave you Flavius Josephus
But you are not interested in doing the study.
You just want spoon feeding like a baby.

Bart Ehrman dates Mark around 70 CE (not necessarily before.)
He did a blog in March 2022 -"Why date Mark after 70 CE?"
Scholarly consensus estimates between 65-75 CE.

So not unreasonable that it's a narrative written
after the Temple destruction ..so not a prophecy.

Eugene Boring (PhD Vanderbilt):

"… the apocalyptic discourse of chapter 13 with its prediction of the temple’s destruction
… seems to reflect the tumultuous times of the war in Judea 66–73… The reference to the
death of James and John in 10:39 is also relevant. …Thus virtually all scholars date Mark
in the period 65–75, with the major issue being whether or not Mark 13 is understood to
reflect the destruction of Jerusalem as something that has already happened."
(Mark: A Commentary, 2006, p14)

These posters reject God for the same reason most do. They don't want anyone telling them what to do. They are not intellectual. They are rebellious.

You have no concept about what you post here.

There is that too. Apostle Paul said in Romans that people suppress the truth and unrighteousness because they wanna go their own way. Pascal said that people almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. A lotta people believe things just because they find them attractive, and maybe one of the attractive things about not believing in God is that there’s no moral accountability; you get to do whatever you want and never be judged for it.

To me, Christian faith and reason are complementary; to me, Christian faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true.

Irrational apologetics and reason don't mix.

No court would accept the claim that a stone dead corpse resurrected after 3 days
and had dinner with old friends..the evidence is Pathetically underwhelming.

I don't invent any reasons. I merely point to what is absent.

'Good reason' to believe is evidence. Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.

We have living eyewitness testimonies to Big Foot
which is not available for claims surrounding Jesus
but Xtians doubt BigFoot's existence.

The special pleading in Xtianity is chronic.

When he knocks, answer the door....

In addition to predicting the complete destruction of the Jewish Temple nearly 40 years before it actually happened just as He’d predicted, Jesus also predicted the survival and thriving of the early church that’s been previously described. When Peter made his famous declaration that Jesus was God’s anointed One, the One they’d been waiting for, the Son of God ~ Jesus confirmed that Peter was right about that, and on the basis of that declaration, He was gonna build His ekklesia ~ and the gates of Hades (a place of death) would not prevail against it. Death wouldn’t stop it; not His death, and not any of His Apostle’s deaths. Nothing was gonna stop it. The Jewish Temple is gone, as is ancient Judaism. And the Roman Empire is gone too. And nowadays both Jerusalem and Rome are filled with Christian tourists, and crosses that commemorate Jesus. And people name their children Peter and Paul ~ and they name their dogs Caesar and Nero.

Scholarly consensus concerning the dating of Mark
raises a big question over such claim.
It's far from certain that Mark was written before the
Temple destruction by Romans.


Bart Ehrman writes; (blog 9th March 2022.)

"New Testament scholars are virtually unified in thinking that
the Gospels of the New Testament began to appear after 70 CE.
The major exceptions are conservative evangelicals who often
date them earlier. One can understand why: they typically maintain
that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus...

There are good reasons, nonetheless, for the scholarly consensus outside
evangelical circles. I’ve talked about the matter on the blog before but just
now I reread my discussion in my New Testament textbook and thought it
might be useful to give it here. In particular I like the final point I make
(in the second to last paragraph), which, now that I think about it, I don’t
think I’ve stressed enough over the years."

A case of "Chinese Whispers" or more like "Jewish Whispers"?

Simmer down subject.

Subject to what?

Pertaining to the life of Jesus, the authors of the New Testament manuscripts were certainly included in the historians of the day (as you know). Christianity started with an event in history ~ the resurrection of Jesus. And following His resurrection there was a new movement. It was the ekklesia of Jesus ~ the body of believers that was eventually called the church. And following the historical events of Jesus’ life…including the things He said and did (and keep in mind he died in AD 33 at the latest)…people who were involved in these historical events later documented them for us. This is how we got the four Gospels and the Book of Acts and the Epistles. All of it happened in the first century.

All of ancient history was written and recorded after the events occurred. Things that ancient historical figures said and did were recorded after they said and did them. The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus was written decades after the events that he wrote about actually occurred.

Which actual scholarly historians (not theologians)
back a resurrection as historical fact?