₦airaland Forum

Maximus69:
Please go to Google play store download {JW Library} then click on the the icon at the top left, you'll see list of options, click on publications, then click on books. You find them there, you can download as many as possible it's free what you just need is data to access it!

Max, I got a copy of Jesus the way truth and the light about four days ago. But really, I wasted more than 16hrs scrambling for the historicity of Jesus life and much of his miracles but I can't find any. The book, more like Book of my Bible stories, is written for kids. I don't know why you asked me to get it cause it doesn't address the issue on this thread.

Aside from not addressing the historicity, there are loads of misinformation about the authors of the gospels, no out of the bible sources for keypoints, and lacks historical references.

For one, none of the authors who wrote the for gospels witnessed or saw Jesus in his time.

There is no historical references of when Herod ordered the wholesale massacre of young male children. Also Ceasar Augustus didn't start registration of new babies in Jesus time.

The only historical reference mentioned is Tatian who wrote about Jesus in 170CE, about 140yrs after Jesus death. How can one hold such work written over a century and half as primary source data? What happened to historians in Jesus lifetime? Is it that they don't know anything about him or he didn't exist as been told today?

In short, why do you reference these books? What are the points you want to make from them

budaatum:
It is meant that none had acquired the understanding of the things that are Godly and that come from developing the mind which is in your heavenly head.

Really? I like this new twist. Does this mean Jesus didn't ascend to Heaven; there was no real ascension and any witness of such is allegorical?

MuttleyLaff and EMILO2STAY, guys say hallelujah.

budaatum:
You can not be asking why someone was not recording Jesus' ascension on iPhone

The bible said there were witness numbering to about 550. It is bizarre that not of these half a thousand could pen this incident. Much of the stories about the ascension are not plausible when especially none of the writer witnessed it.

Adding, you said it didn't happen literally. Maybe we can both assume the whole bible is allegory, and not historical incidence.

@Maximus69 , I have been unable to get those two books you required I get from jw members. I have met with couple of them but it seem they don't have it available. One promised to get it on request from Benin but not hearing from him again. Is there no soft copy or pdf of the said books?

EMILO2STAY:
your words here shows you lean towards that angle. There is no middle ground bro. You are either here or there.

There can be middle ground my friend. There are always unanswered questions, and a burning heart that pop up queries. Religion and science both tried to answer the questions, but none can give it all.

Maximus69, I could have become JW member many years back. I was with them in 2007,worshipped and studied in the kingdom hall for four years. Unfortunately I didn't partook in baptism cause I had doubts, and unnecessary fear. My mind prop out loads of questions every seconds. Maybe the doubt can be totally erased, I don't know. Science isn't promising to answer all either. But until the doubt can be removed, I am the middle grounded guy.... Spiritual atheist should do now

Maximus69:
Have you gotten the books?

Just welcome Jehovah's Witnesses and ask for those books, you can make voluntary contributions for the printing but if you can't do that don't bother God's organization only want you to show appreciation for the books by studying them to know more about our Master, Lord and King "Jesus Christ"

God bless you!

Seriously I have read those books some years back. But will get new copies soonest. Will surely call your attention when I get them

EMILO2STAY:
folks like you reject the bible and christ only to subscribe to the theories of big bang and evolution. I can give you archeological evidence. But can you also give me eye witness account of the big band? Or even a tangible evidence of evolution and big bang if not for theories.
If you call it fables, then what about the big bang theory said to happen 14billion years ago? I noticed you are avoiding that question.

When did I tell you or mentioned on this forum that I subscribe to the theories of big bang and evolution?

Finallydead:
I like that you didn't challenge logic when it worshipped God and betrayed you in math(as it will do in all fields of knowledge) but simply ignored it. Says a lot.
When you are able to use your logic to make the number infinity conform to finite math principles, It will justify your search for a logical basis for our infinite faith. Till then, you're only hypocritical to ask any believer to explain faith to fit logic and so you now see why I won't tow that line with you and will probably cease to reply you henceforth.

Common bro, you should be smarter than this. The logic evidences supporting God existence and putting God in the box have nothing to do with the current discussion. Take another look at the topic and the OP contents, the word 'God' wasn't mentioned. It is needless, stressing myself on issues not related with the discourse.
In case I need to remind you, the thread is more of fact-findings on the historicity of the Bible account, and justification of christian faith.

Finallydead:
Take note that I never claimed to not care for evidence. In fact, I care much about evidence, spiritual and physical, aware of spiritual being the greater. But a billion physical evidences, useful as they may be, can add nothing to my faith, it could only add to my mental knowledge, which has its use.

Are we not saying the same thing? Evidence does not define your faith; and with faith you require no evidences. What matter to you is total acceptance, not verification or ascertaining truth. 1 Thes 5:21 isnt for you.....

Finallydead:
To clarify Luke1:1-3 for the genuine inquirers. Luke 1:1-3 must be taken in two parts. v1-2 separate from v3. In v1-2, Luke is saying many had written narratives as had been taught to the whole church by the eyewitnesses from the start, so some important material may have been lost in transit(these second hand narratives were not included in the bible) . In v3, however, he is saying, he has a more privileged position than such to give a narrative because he had firsthand, exact(in the greek) and circumspect knowledge of the matter from the very beginning as other eyewitnesses(which he proved in his being the most detailed) , hence felt the need to write to recover some relevant missing pieces.

There is no element of truth in your post above. All you did is twist and distortion.

Quoting from King Jame Version, and New America Standard Bible simultaneously; the writer admitted he is compiling account of the so called eyewitness and first sources he didn't personally know. The gospel of Luke is entirely a secondary account which is not tenable as fact.

KJV
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

NASB
Luke 1.1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
1.2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesss and servants of the word,
1.3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent, Theophilous;

Luke the evangelist is saying
i. After the killing of Apostle Paul by Nero, many of the 70 disciples took it upon themselves to compile account of all things they, according to kjv, believe.

ii. The believe system is rooted on information passed either through oral sources and piece of writings.

iii. Luke admitted there is a first source of his information. The sources are L source and gospel of Mark.

iv. Largely, information which are from secondary source are fiction. Luke the evangelist is not an eye to the incident he wrote. He relied on other sources, and as source his own account isn't reliable.

v. Luke is the disciple of Paul. Paul declared in 1 cor 15:3 that his source is the scripture. Paul also relied on information passed to him. He isn't a eye witness to the incident.

Finallydead:
No. I will not condescend to that. If you are a graduate, you must know how to read compositions and not isolating sentences from paragraphs to lie to yourself. Every reader just needs to read the whole composition of 1Cor15 to see your blatant, shameless lies. Thank God Paul never even put chapters or verses.

Just a post above, we talked about Luke 1:1-2 without me asking if you are a professor because you did not address the whole composition in Luke 1. But as a hypocrite and a nitwit you really are, you are demanding I read the whole 1 cor 15 when the core matter is 1 cor 15:3,14, 17.

Finallydead:
The healthy dont need a doctor but the sick. Remeber, as I said before, I'm for evidence. And your own empirical evidence must have proven to you that you will still sin against your conscience, reasoning and God's laws except of course you no longer value your own empirical evidence. So the scripture is proven right, that you need God the Saviour.

My own empirical evidences? What are you saying?

Maximus69:
You need two more books to read, then i'm sure you'll be able to answer the question yourself and even help others to know more as to what we believe about Jesus of Nazareth!

(1) The greatest man who ever lived!

(2) Jesus the way the truth the life!

I have read both magazines.

Finallydead:
I'm here not mainly for the sake of OP but for the sake of my brothers who he seeks to distort our scriptures to, in order to maintain scriptures in their place.

My words represent me. The thread is borne out of been curious, and it seem you make the answer come in with little stress. However, it is important that I address the misconstrued matters in your post.

Finallydead:
So I tell you plainly without shame, I believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, not because of any physical or logical evidence

This is apt and precise. As a matter of fact, the curious OP only want to know the basis of christian faith. And like you said, the believers are not in about evidence, not because there is a reliable and dependable evidences, but because faith requires no logical or empirical evidences. In your own thinking, believers should accept every dogma without questioning or seeking validation. I wish MuttleyLaff, Maximus69 and emilo2stay can agree with you.

Finallydead:
you think to discredit all scripture for
LACK of historical sources.

I didn't say anywhere that all scripture lack historical basis. That is your own make up.

Finallydead:
As regards the gospels, please dismiss OPs nonsense. Every gospel was as good as an eyewitness account, the first of them being Mark's, written about 20 odd years(around 54A.D.) after the Lord's resurrection. Mark was Peter's disciple and wrote based on Peter's narrative of the gospel. John's was the last of them written around 90AD, also clearly identifying himself as author(Jn21:24). Luke also was a disciple of the Lord(among the 70) and later became an accomplice of Paul and very well indicated his firsthand knowledge of the events (Lk1:3) as opposed to just hearsay from eyewitnesses by many other authors(not in the bible) who also wrote narrations(Lk1:1-2). Matthew was the disciple of the Lord, the ex-tax collector.

1. I should have thanked you for correcting my mistakes, but since you leave my input and tag me a lair, you don't deserve any thanks. But I must acknowledge and admit I made a mistake with the calculations of AD timing. I thought AD mean after death if Christ, this is what I was taught in Secondary school back then. Did I say I am always right? Nope! I want to be proven wrong.

2. The general consensus of most scholars is that the synoptic gospel were copied from Gospel of Mark. The gospel of Mark was written in 70 AD, 37yrs after Jesus died, by someone who does not have direct relationship with Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Mark was not written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events. Claiming he is Peter disciple makes the gospel implausible, as the account is drawn from secondary sources.

3. The book of John was not written by Apostle John. So is book of Revelation and the epistle of John. The church tradition holds that Apostle John is the author of Gospel of John, but is that the truth? I bet no. Scholars hold that the author of the book of John is the unnamed disciple jesus loved. John 21:24 didn't give identity of the said disciple.

The question that should be on your mind is who is the loved disciple? What is his identity? But I would like to indicate that the writer depicted Jesus as magician, something strange. Also, he intentionally forced himself into Jesus life and death, an account other writer didn't note. The character surprisingly appears in gospel of John. Making the whole gospel questionable. Scholar consensus is that the unknown loved disciple is a priest in sanderin. But the question is still. However, we know the author is loved disciple. He wrote a propaganda on false witness.

4. The gospel of Luke, like you said is written by Luke the evangelist. Luke 1:1-2 mentions that Luke knows of other written sources of Jesus' life, and that he has investigated in order to gather the most information. The author indicated that he from witness accounts, not claiming he is the witness.

But scholar view on the gospel is that author of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source for the narrative of Christ's earthly life, and likely used a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source for Jesus' teaching. Luke corrupted the great commission of the twelve. Other gospels indicated only twelve were commissioned but Luke infused 70 disciple so that he could show up there. That is another fraud. I wish emilo2stay can see this. Many of the author had a mindset and intention which make them trim and twist the gospel anyhow they wish.

L source has been defined as oral source. Oral source and traditions are not trustworthy. You wish Luke was a witness, he didn't claim he is one.

5. Gospel of Matthew could not have been written by Apostle Matthew when he copied largely from the gospel from the gospel of Mark, the work from secondary sources.

The gospel is largely subjective works of people who ain't direct witness. It is evident that the gospels are largely copies of copies of oral traditions and full of propaganda.

Finallydead:
As for the nonsense about Pauls doubting in 1Cor15, I wouldn't even bother. Simple primary school level reading of the chapter, will make all see how desperate OP was to find something.

The doubt is in 1 Cor 15:3,14,17. Can you deal with those verses please? And by doing that, please keep your emotion asides.

Finallydead:
As for OP. Since you're at a loss to what you should really worry about and seem to be doting around aimlessly kicking against pricks. Let me remind you what and who you should really be bothered about. Regardless of what you might or might not achieve on this thread. One fact remains, you would not achieve a freedom from the law of sin and death in your life which is the reason why you will still sin against God's laws and even your own reasoning and conscience.

Keep the emotion aside, and take a deep breathe. Most importantly, save the sermon for your sheeple who accept fantasy without seeking for logical and empirical evidence. Thanks.

EMILO2STAY:
at this stage it is clear to me you are not ready to accept the undeniable evidences confirming the bible and christ.
If archeology, history and prophecies which prove the Bible and christ is not enough for you, then you are free to disbelieve in Christ and the bible. But as for me I am 100% convinced of their authenticity and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the bible or the existence of christ.
Mean while those who doubt the bible seems to be proponents of the big bang theory which has no eye witness neither does it have any single substantial proof to back it up yet people like you subscribe to this but question the bible which has both eyewitness and many substantial proof to it than the big bang or evolution. So at this point I would say go on with your unbelief in Christ or the bible.

You my dear have not presented any evidence to prove the existence of Jesus, or that any of the incident starting from creation account, to exodus, Solomon temple and babylonia captivity did not happen.

I have asked you to present report from a renowned archaeologist, and eye witness report but you couldn't present any.

I can conclude now, that the basis of you and finallydead faith is founded on fables and popular fictions, having no single basis in reality.

Thanks for all the time and effort.

Maximus69:
Sorry Sir!

I think what interests humans with brains in all of these is how to tackle the problems facing mankind and perhaps our future, NOT some useless or hopeless fabricated evidences of no significance!

I deliberately called you out cuz most of what I put out there are deducted from JW works. 'mankind search for God' and some couples of awake. With that at hand, I did more findings using wikipedia only. Nothing more.

The latest awake subjected on peace of mind is the latest JW material with me. But hey, why are most of your works focusing on historicity of Jesus, Origin of life as against evolution, focusing on gospel textual fragments. If mean nothing, the jw world won't touch it at all.

In all the materials from jw world, there is yet any vital information to buttress Jesus truly existed.

EMILO2STAY:
but it wasn't any of his family members who converted paul. Paul himself stated that he saw christ, this is a first hand witness account that should bot be denied. Paul was the hardest working apostle and also the one who demonstrated faith in christ the most. This showed his genuine conversion and belief in christ. Why any one should doubt the conversion of paul is beyond me. Actually there is no reason for any doubt except just beeing a doubting thomas.

The discourse isn't about Paul conversion. I am saying that his conversion doesn't prove the existence of Jesus. He may believe anything, the existence of Jesus is the bone of contention here. Paul saw born after Jesus had died. He didn't see the incident play out before him. What he know about the person of Jesus is drawn from the scripture. That is what he said in 1 corinthian 15:3. 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Paul said Jesus died for his sins according to the scripture, not according to what he heard directly from Jesus.

EMILO2STAY:
What happend before he met with the apostles?

Whatever he saw is inconsequential. Using the terminology of MuttleyLaff, Paul on his way to Damascus saw the glory of Jesus in form of light, not the Jesus that was carnally given birth by Mary. The later Jesus had died and didn't meet Paul.

EMILO2STAY:
he evidence exist except you have chosen to disbelieve in it. But I also will ask you again what are the evidence of a big bang 14billion yrs ago?.

I demand evidences proving Jesus existence, and all you could give is Big bang? Hallelujah!

EMILO2STAY:
are you expecting the romans to chronicle the life of jesus whom they did not even believe in? If jesus was a roman thwn sure they would have written about him.

Yes. Afterall they had input about Dositheos , a messiah-like figure among the Samaritans who was known to have been active during the reign of Pontius Pilate.

There is enormous record Pilate was retired when he killed armed militants, followers of Dositheos. There is no record of Pilate encounter with Jesus anywhere. It goes to show Jesus was fictional figure that was infused into the lifeline of Pilate.

EMILO2STAY:
what is your evidence for calling paul an illiterate ? Your begining to sound funny. Then who wrote the epistle of paul.

I meant to say Peter was an illiterate. And that what Paul knew about Jesus is what he heard or read.

EMILO2STAY:
the story of Jesus has more archeological and historical evidence than the big bang and the evolution theory.

Can you share the archaeological findings that prove Jesus existed?

EMILO2STAY:
the odysseys cannot be compared to a book like the bible. The bible is a book that apart from beeing confirmed by archeology and history, the prophecies contained in it have played out with accurate precision that it has authenticated the bible to be not only a book of history but a book that is truly inspired. If archeology history and played out prophecies confirms the people and and the places and the events which were formally thought to be fables or not exist to actually exist then, the evidence lends credence to the account of the Bible and this should leave little or no room for doubt at all except one just wants to be unnecessary doubting thomas.

I can argue that Odyssey contain valid prophecies which are accurate within the context which the book was written. Beyond prophecy, the name of the geographical location and firm description of mountains and valleys mentioned in the Odyssey are confirmed. The book mentioned many places in Africa, Europe and far Asia. It also mentioned names of popular figures and prominent kings in the ancient time, but the story is the same with the bible, it is all fable.

When you talk about history, his Adam and Even story historical? Is the exodus too historical?




EMILO2STAY:
qustoryweatsubstantialpark off a mythical tale of a strikingly similar tale of a world wide flood by every tribe and cultures world wide who have not met each other before? What sort of coincidence is that? The fact is something like that is highly unlikely if such tales were not sparked off by a true event.
what am saying concerning the legends surrounding a catastrophic world wide flood is that the legends behind it is supported by both archeological and scientific evidence , so also other legends around the world which were formally held as just legendary mythical tales.

The lemba tribe of Zimbabwe and the ashanti tribe of ghana both have a legendary or mythical stories of migration from the middles passed down from generation to generation which actually have a historical and scientific back up and this making it much more than just myths or legends but actually a true event.

Fable is fable, redressing it won't make it truth. Recounting there is archaeological evidences for the Noah ark is not substantial especially when you ain't showing us the report and the name of the researcher who found the boat.

EMILO2STAY:
i think you are making a case were there is non. What if the author was just copying popular tradition but claimed to be an eye witness but he or she is just trying to receive credit were it is not due. how will you be able to verify the authenticity of the account!?. My point here is that since archeological, historical and scientific evidence confirms the story to be true then it is very unnecessary for one to go through much stress in confirming from a first hand account.

The parameter isn't mine, I am only adopting measuring standard for affirmation of truth in your bible said in John 19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

The verse, if I am not misinterpreting it, said, he who witness with his own eye bares the record, and the such record from the eye witness is truth.


Like Kameron Searle said: A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition fiction and not history at all..

Moses did not witness the global flooding, the incident happened many centuries before he was which makes one easily conclude it is popular held fable, the account is secondary and as such cannot be accepted as truth. Modern archaeology also dismissed global flooding and the Noah Ark have no bearing in the scientific world. Not a shred evidence found till date proving any of the incident truly happened.

EMILO2STAY:
Most proponents of evolution and the big bag theory strongly hold unto their belief even without an eye witness account to it. But we question the bible even when there are substantial evidence to support it much more than the big bang or the theory of evolution. One shouldn't be doubting the bible much more than they doubt the big bang or evolution because the bible has got much evidence supporting it.

Need I remember you this thread is about historicity of the bible and Christian faith, not evolution or big bang

EMILO2STAY:
armenia is a land locked country bordered by about four cointries. Ararat in armenia lies on the border between turkey and iran

Oh! Thanks for correcting me on that part. When I saw Armenia, I thought it was a country. Never knew there is another indigenous armenians in Turkey.

EMILO2STAY:
tacitus might have written based on popular believe but it doesn't make it a lie. Who invented christ 25 before tacitus? If the romans invented Christ or christianity then why were they trying to tame the fast growing religeon they invented? Why were they killing christians and christianity which they invented?. with these facts at hand it doesn't make sense to argue about the existence of christ or to think that christ was invented by the romans. The fact that is was a popular belief during the time of tacitus even authenticates the veracity of the existence of christ.

It is surprising, that you admitted Tacitus drew his writing on popular belief, but want us to agree popular belief is truth. Need I remember you that there is a popular belief that Abiola submerged ship loaded with bible in the sea, without any evidence till date? Do I need to inform you that people held that Abacha died from eating poisonous apple given to him by prostitutes? Do I need to inform people belief Okparaji died from netting stone in a match between Nigeria and India, and the scoreline is 99-1? Do I need to remember you that parents always ask their children to beg lizard opening when the kids lost their teeth? I can go on and on. Point is, a popular belief without a tangible evidence to back it up is fable. In fact, all popular beliefs are lies.

Let me quickly address your questions...

1. No one claimed Rome invented Christianity. I didn't say that.

2. The unsettlement between Rome and Judea was political. The Jew were revolting and wanted to secede from rulership of Rome. The struggle only brew from 66 CE, when the premier of Judea, Gessius Florus, seized funds from the temple treasury, the Jewish fighters swarmed into Jerusalem, slaughtered the local Roman garrison, and declared their independence from Rome. 3 month later, over 30,000 troops, led by Cestius Gallus, advanced on Jerusalem to crush the rebellion. Starting a full blown war which Titus triumph in 70 CE.

3. Why wouldn't government kill rebels? Emperor Nero believed Christians were responsible for the fire outbreak in Rome, and he punished them for that.

In all these, there is no Jesus in the picture. This above is what Tacitus writes about. Tacitus was about seven years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome , and like other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians. It is only Christians who want to redress the story by infusing Jesus into it.

EMILO2STAY:
what other proof of christ are you looking for? His skeleton? Or his finger prints?. Archeology has confirmed the men who saw him and met him, historians have wrote about him. That alone is proof enough.

Account from those who saw him ascending without propulsion. And the record of the walking dead alive zombies who resurrected after Jesus died. These are significant incidents that ought to have been penned by so many eye witness.

Archaeology confirmed Pilate, not Jesus. The coin found minted by Pilate didn't prove anything that relates to Jesus.

EMILO2STAY:
this is totally unnecessary. Were are the eye witness account to the big bang 14billuon yrs ago?

Big bang has nothing to do with Jesus existence. If the account of Jesus must be accepted, it must be written by eye witnesses. This is the golden in John 19:35

EMILO2STAY:
if you cannot accept this then that is your own cup of tea but i believe you accept the theory of evolution.

An account written by someone born 25yrs after the incident happened is not tenable. You admitted Tacitus wrote from hearsay, and that makes it not admissible as fact.

EMILO2STAY:
an interpolation by who and when?

Church fathers.

EMILO2STAY:
the apostle peter is an eye witness so also paul, paulhimself statedbthat he saw christ with the rest of the apostles . There is absolutely not need doubting this except you are doing it for the sake of argument you want to win. But if you will not accept them know also that you cannot precisely deny them either. Let me also ask can you present an eyewitness to the big bang 14billion yrs ago?.

Paul wasn't born yet when Jesus was nailed on the cross. He can never be witness.

Peter though could be witness, but there is no report from him giving direct account of how the incident played out.



EMILO2STAY:
the book of peter clearly indicated peter as the author. Even if the book wasn't written by peter. The texts contain in it gives no room for any christian to doubt it veracity or admonition. If you choose to believe christ never existed then that is you business. The historical and archeological evidence for christ exist and that is enough for Christians who believe in him.

What is book of Peter?



EMILO2STAY:
Paul admitted getting the knowledge of christ s death and resurrection from the scriptures because he was prolly not in jerusalem when christ was on earth But he saw the eyewitnesses to christ and the impact of the message of christ of which he tried to tame. Paul is also considered an eyewitness to Christ because his conversion was not one which took an apostle to convince him but the appearance of christ whom he previously did not believe in. This is not inconsequential considering the fact that Paul was a non believer and a persecutor of the Christian sect which he formally hated. For a person of that caliber to become a Christian himself without seeing christ on earth or converted by an apostle, it must have taken a great deal of convincing and arrest such like which happend in his case of conversion to be converted. In 1corinthians 15:5, paul confessed to have seen christ with the rest of the apostles. His statement in that verse is to show the authenticity of christ and his message and also to dispell doubt about about the authenticity of his work in christ and the message of christ. 

Do I need to inform you sir, that Paul had many converted Christians in his family before he was converted? There is nothing too big in his conversion. Paul was born 5yrs after Jesus purportedly died. He didn't known Jesus or what Jesus looked like. Whatever he saw, maybe light or person, he assumed it is Jesus, but he wasn't so sure of what he saw. Given the contradictions, one can conclude he didn't know what he was saying, or prolly high. And statement from a confused person is not acceptable.

He actually meant with Jesus disciples. And they taught him about Jesus. Like I told Mr MuttleyLaff, 1 cor 15:14,17 holds that Paul had some form of doubt and fear. He queried the death and resurrection of Jesus, and holds that if he hadn't died or resurrected, his faith is in vain. Though he conclude, without tangible evidence that Jesus died and resurrect. But he never include evidence behind his trust.

That evidence is what I request from you and MuttleyLaff. So far so good, there is none from both of you.



 

EMILO2STAY:
I don't know about buddha. But i believe the religion of buddhism must have started from a known figure because there are testimonies from those who knew him and there have been The discovery of places and the remains of buildings that were mentioned in the narratives of His time. The religion did not start out of thin air. 

Buddhism grew out of Hinduism, more like Christianity from Judaism

EMILO2STAY:
judae and its inhabitants were insignificant compared to Rome and other neighbouring cities. Historians wrote little about the place because it was wasn't much regarded. Like I stated before Peter was an eye witness to christ., Paul confessed to seeing christ with the rest of the apostles. This gives authenticity to the gospels and dispels doubt as to the authenticity of christ and the gospels. What more could one be seeking for?

Judea isn't significant were the people all the time provoked Rome into a full blown war which lasted for 3yrs. The movement sprang from many struggles which their leaders were known in the Jewish-Rome war record. The leader of a cult from Samaritan who led their movement is also known. But in all these, there is no mention of Jesus. Doesn't this inform you Jesus was just a hot air?

Apostle Paul didn't write the epistle. He was an illiterate. Apostle Paul only knew about christ from what he read or heard, he didnt meet Jesus when he was alive.

In the absence of eye witness account, Jesus remains a fiction and all the stories about him are myth

I sincerely apologize for responding late.

EMILO2STAY:
not in the case of the bible, archeology confirms at least 50 people alone aside from places mentioned in the bible. So in the case of the bible, mentioning towns and cities, peoples which can be confirmed by archeology to actually exist lends credence to the bible and goes a long way to validate the bible. Experts who have previously thought the bible to be a book of fables have been humbled times and again when an evidence supporting the account in Bible are found by archeologist.

Odyssey contain names of historical persons, cities, towns and settlements. I repeat, it does not make the dialogue in odyssey truth.




EMILO2STAY:
you can disagree on this one but you are wrong on what myths and legends truly are,  "Myths are largely event-based, in that they are triggered to a large part by an event, or combination of events, that catastrophically impact society, Myths and legends are actually triggered by actual event only that it becomes currupted over the years and as such will start to sound unbelievable. The native americans have a legend of coming in contact with giants once upon a time, this was unbelievable to the new inhabitants of America untill larger than life sized skeletons were discovered in different mound in america.

What are we missing here? I think we need to form a consensus on what myth and legend is. Your own definition would do.

But from what I understand, myth and legend are false narrative constructed on popular or real person. An example of legend is Odùduwà descending from heaven. That account of sky descending is mythical, the person of Oduduwa may not.

Help me understand your worldview on the term myth and legend. We may proceed from there.

EMILO2STAY:
The author of the five five books is thought to be moses, but not all scholars agree on this. But the author is of little significance when other books of the bible corroborates what is recorded in the first five books. Showing that this couldn't have just been a guess work. Besides, there are archeological evidence of the catastrophic flood recorded in the bible. As at the time of moses or who ever the author was the flood story was a common knowledge and the authenticity was not subject to debate. This is the reason why almost every tribe and cultures have a legend of a devastating flood which once engulfed the earth. This cannot be a coincidence and the strangest thing about it is that all the stories are strikingly similar to the account of the bible. Even the scientific evidence is too mic that scientist who deny the flood of noah admitted that the earth was once flooded. So even if the account of the flood of Noah might not be an eye witness account, it os still a very reliable and provable account. Today we are taught in schools that the earth came out of a big bang 14billion years ago,... Is there any eye witness account to this? Can it even be proven in any way at all? We are also taught in schools that man came from ape, but we have never seen any ape or monkey of any kind evolve into a man. We are taught about transitional fossils when non have been found. the piltdown man from Essex England has been exposed as a hoax with a Jesuit priest named Pierre tilhard de chardin as the culprit. But let me Not digress from the issue. My point is why question the bible when it has both archeological and historical evidence that supports the account written In it but we do not dare to question the so called science of evolution or the big bang theories even when we know that there is no eye witness account to any of the theories. In the end the bible is far more believable and provable than any of the so called scientific theories mentioned above.  

The Author is important as he/she would help us determine if he is recounting popular traditions or if he witnessed the occurrence. Without providing a eye witness account, his account is secondary, and not plausible.

EMILO2STAY:
no it is not. There definitely exist a structure of wooden substance that looks like a large boat on the top of the mountains between turkey and Iran. This gives the suggestion that it might be the ark of Noah spoken of in the bible. Because it lies at the exact location spoken of in the bible. 

Is Mount Ararat in Turkey/Iran or in Armenia?

The bible said the ark berth on top mount ararat in Armenia. Here you are telling us it is in turkey/iran. Who should we believe?   

EMILO2STAY:
the account of christ and pilate is not only to be believed when there is a document written by pilate. There are extra biblical sources which states confirming the meeting of christ with the roman prefect pontus pilate. Tacitus the roman historians work has never given any scholar a reason to doubt any of his work, but when it comes to the case of christ and pilate then the experts begin to scream foul.  Tacitus’s last major work, Annals , mentions a “Christus” who was executed by Pontius Pilate and from whom the Christians derived their name. Tacitus’s brief reference corroborates historical details of Jesus’ death from the New Testament. Tacitus was not a christian and his mention of pilate condemning christ shows it was a common knowledge around his time.

I have put the Tacitus, and Josephus writing, in it place in response to MuttleyLaff post.

1. Archaeology confirmed the existence of Pontius Pilate, the premier of Judea. The minted money bearing his name, the stoned letter, official documents from his days, and so many artifacts. But not a single evidence have been found confirming the existence of Jesus.

2. I said it before now. Only eye witness report is the truth and acceptable. John 19:35 support my ground. Secondary accounts from the Tacitus or Josephus are not tenable.

3. Tacitus who was born 25yrs after the death of Jesus, and only wrote his work 80yrs after Jesus death. Such work after so many years can not be accepted.

4. History recorded that Pontius had issue with the Jewish community when he wanted to erect a idol of the emperor in the temple. This sparked the unrest in the area which later led to 71 CE jewish and roman war.

5. In all these account, there is no Jesus there. Which make scholars concluded that Tacitus mentioning Christ is an interpolation.


You know what, we need evidence from eye witness and not what someone many centuries after Jesus said. Can you present one?

EMILO2STAY:
yes the gospels we have today are copies of copies but i do not believe that their intent was different and I also do not agree that all the new testaments are not eye witness account. The book of Peter clearly indicates Peter as the author who himself is an eyewitness to christ. One is bound to make mistakes when copying writings but the errors did not cover the message the gospels were intended to pass across. 



It is good you ain't denying they copied each other. And since you ain't seeing the different intentions, could you explain why gospel of John stated that Peter and the disciple Jesus loved both met Jesus's mother; but the book of Mark only mentioned Peter? I suspect the author of John was trying to propagate another figure, disciple Jesus loved. This figure is only found in gospel of John, revealing his intentions. As a matter of fact, the author of the gospel of John is not John the Apostle but the unnamed disciple Jesus loved.

There again, epistle of Peter, traditionally was written by Apostle Paul. That is what tradition says. The author of the epistle gave his name rather as Silvanus in 1 peter 5:12. The Epistle is pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor.
Paul called Peter illiterate fisherman. And there is no way an illiterate, who speak Aramaic could write in Greek vocabulary without been educated. Dating of the texts in the epistle buttress it was written many years after Peter was purportedly killed by Nero.

Mr Emilo, I wish to inform you that the author of the epistle is not peter, not the eye witness of Jesus persecution, and in the absence of eye witness account about Jesus, one can conclude the person called Jesus never exist.

MuttleyLaff:
"Then He appointed twelve of them and called them His apostles.
They were to accompany him, and He would send them out to preach,"
- Mark 3:14.

"¹Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us.
²They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.
³Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus,
⁴so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."
- Luke 1:1-4

Eyewitnesses accounts, investigative work etcetera helped in building up what we have as Bible today. FOLY, dear friend, the Bible may hurt with the truth, but it will never descend to comfort you with a lie. The point in there, is that there is no lie about God, in the Bible

Muttley, I would like to know, before you pushed the submit button, did you read what you posted above? Did you understand the post, or you deliberately posted a version with confounded texts? I seriously have lot of works to do on you.

Firstly, the author of gospel of Luke is not disciple of Jesus. The author of that gospel is Luke the evangelist, a disciple of Apostle Paul. Colossians 4:10–11, 14

Secondly, Luke the evangelist, author of gospel of Luke which you cited wrote the gospel around 70AD and died on march 84AD, at the age of 84. Meaning he is a not eyewitness but only retelling popular traditional stories.
You lied there.

Thirdly, quoting from King Jame Version, and New America Standard Bible simultaneously; the writer admitted he is compiling account of the so called eyewitness and first sources he didn't personally know. The gospel of Luke is entirely a secondary account which is not tenable as fact.

KJV
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 [/b]Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;[/b]
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

NASB
Luke 1.1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
1.2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesss and servants of the word,
1.3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent, Theophilous;

Luke the evangelist is saying
i. After the killing of Apostle Paul by Nero, many of the 70 disciples took it upon themselves to compile account of all things they believe.

ii. The believe system is rooted on information passed either through oral sources and piece of writings.

iii. Luke admitted there is a first source of his information. The sources are L source and gospel of Mark.

In view of the above, the citation is implausible and summarily dismissed.

Fourthly, it remains that neither the sources or the original writings of Luke the evangelist is from the eye witness. And as such, the story of Jesus remains fable

Fifthly, all the gospel were copied from L, M source which are majorly oral and fictional. The gospels of Matthew, John and Luke copied from mark who copied from L and M and fictional sources. The Apostles were only reshaping the tales in their days.


So Oga Muttley, if you want the truth about historical Jesus, look beyond the bible. Copish?

MuttleyLaff:
All this laborious and strained write up just because I mentioned only two out of others with historical sources and documents, hmm?

If you had known the details of those two persons and their writings, it won't come as a surprise to you. It was a gift from me to you though. Suck it..

MuttleyLaff:
"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said,
“Blessed is the womb that bore You, and blessed are the breasts that nursed You.”"
- Luke 11:27

FOLY, aside the useful and informative Luke 11:27 above, are you remotely familiar with this famous comment: "he who does not enter by the door, into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber."

Unfortunately Muttley, I can't find answer to when in the address above.

MuttleyLaff:
C'mon now FOLY, I carefully choose how I respond to you. I have not, did not and never did use only faith, in response to "the basis of my faith ...". Where you materialised that from, only you know.

Of course, it wont make sense and thats because that is something you concocted.

If you really wanted to abide by what basis means, then you wouldnt have any problems with my response that: "The short answer is, it is drawn from and/or based on, conviction, faith and available/known
historic facts out in there[/b" Those three are the hinges that fastens and holds my faith on to the door

Please do not be offended with my remark. I still can't make sense out of this.

In case you don't know sir, conviction, trust and faith mean the same. So using either conviction, trust or faith for the basis of your faith still don't make sense.

Oh well, it would be more gain if I let you loose from the maze.

The basis of your faith is on historical facts here and there. Isn't what you mean? If it is let us proceed.

What historical fact are you talking about? The exodus us fable, Genesis is tale, and the Noah global flood is fiction work. Now tell sir, what is the fact you are talking about?

MuttleyLaff:
My brother, my brother, I know you arent keen on sermons, lol. but hey, of course, you know and will be the first to admit that, faith, is a currency and one such that works everywhere. FOLY, when you went to bed last night, on what basis, did you believe and/or have faith, that you will wake up, still in the land of the living, to read this post, erhn? Dare I say it FOLY, hmm? Is it conviction?

It is more of Knowledge and trust. Well I may call it conviction.

I know the security situation of my environment, know my health status, and understand that I have to live my life without worries.

Were you expecting some magic?

MuttleyLaff:
It's OK to be mushy, especially on a day like Val's, but then, it's better to understand things instead of hiding from them, lol.

Do you know that pride and conceit were part of the original sin of man, hmm FOLY? When people quote a text(s) out of context, they are nine times out of ten, quoting it/them under pretext. You see FOLY, context is king, if you read a text(s) in isolation, just like you've done singly out 1 Corinthians 15:3,14 and 17 then you're under a pretext and pretending yourself. If you read 1 Corinthians 15:3,14 and 17 in context, you'll find that this is about a letter written, dedicated to teaching about the ins and outs resurrection of Jesus Christ

I insist,if you are ready to know about the fear and doubt of Paul, you need to see 1 cor 15:3,14,17. Like I said in my previous post, it is about precision sir.

MuttleyLaff:
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."
- Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Kings College, London

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. .... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent."
- Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

"[In answer to the question, did Jesus exist?] I would say it is much more likely that he did than he didn’t. To believe that he had been imagined or invented is a much harder task than to rely on the available evidence, which is obviously not as clear-cut as one would like, but is sufficiently good to say that somebody by the name of Jesus existed around the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in the first century AD."
- Geza Vermes, Oxford University

"I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder

"Jesus did more than just exist. He said and did a great many things that most historians are reasonably certain we can know about today. .... A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today - in the academic world at least - gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."
- M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

Mehn, these are opinions of some few men. They ain't facts. So please bring something more reasonable on board.

MuttleyLaff:
FOLY, the Bible is enough to be trusted just the way it is. No one can spiritually amount to much, except they come to the unshakeable conviction that the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God

One may have a subjective and bias viewpoint, and such can be forgiven when the opinion when it is based on little or lack of rightful details or information. With this Muttley, I forgive you 'cuz you lack proper knowledge of what you are saying.

May I provoke your curiosity?

I wish to inform you sir, that the bible is not the rightful source information when history is the peculiar point of discourse. Reasons are;

1. The gospel was written not as a eye witness account, and as such cannot be held liable as a primary source of information. Secondary sources of info are not reliable.

2. The earliest manuscript of the gospel, judging by the textual format was written somewhere around 60yrs after the death of Christ. This make the manuscript prone to lot of distortions and fabrications by the author.

3. Gospel of Mark is the known earliest manuscript. The gospel of Luke, John and Matthew were all copied directly from Mark gospel. With the limited information in the Gospel of Mark, it is established that every added accounts and details in remaining other gospels are fabrications.

4. The author of the gospels are not known till date, and as such their writings cannot be trusted.

5. The inconsistencies, contradictions and inputting errors indicate the bible contain element of falsification.

6. The canonization of the Bible justified the Council chiefs only cherry picked accounts that suit their propaganda, leaving out and outrightly destroying contrary works. This makes the bible not trustworthy or acceptable as source of information.

7. Thomas Jefferson removed divinities and miracles from his Bible. This goes to say other Bible containing miracles and divinities were probably later thought work for evangelical purposes.

8. The miracles and divinities contained in the bible are not tenable in the scientific and historical sense.


I can go on and on sir. Sorry to burst your bible Ore... Lol

With those listed argument, no one would admit the bible account as truth.

You can now go on fact findings on what I stated there.

MuttleyLaff:
Of course yes, why not share. Knowledge never decreases by being shared. Other historical sources and documents, I'll humbly share, are from two well known Jewish and Roman historians, in the persons of Jewish Flavius Josephus, he twice mentions Jesus in "Jewish Antiquities" a massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people, and that Jesus had a brother named James and then the Roman senator Cornelius Tacitus, mentions that Jesus in his "Annals of Imperial Rome" a history book of the Roman Empire, was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea and Tiberius was emperor.

When you said you have other historical sources and documents, I thought you have something at hand which everyone ain't aware of. Look closely at the OP, Josephus and Tacitus were both mentioned and their writings summarily dismissed. I had thought my learned friend, Muttley is bringing reasons why Tacitus and Josephus Testimonium should be accepted, but we have you recounting and repeating dismissed and boring secondary and tertiary details.

Just in case you haven't see my argument against the Testimonium, I will grant you as a Val gift in this post. Shall we?


When someone ask you to historical sources and documents on a historic person, you should provide primary sourced information, not secondary or tertiary.

According to wiki:

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact , document, diary, manuscript, autobiography , recording, or any other source [/b]of information that was created at the time under study.[/b]
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources , which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary.

Take a closer look at the details sir. Primary source, in history, is a source of information that was created at the time under study..

There lies the problem of Christians who struggle to prove Jesus existed historically. The information provided are majorly secondary sourced information written many decades after death of Jesus, none is from eye witness. Adding salt to the injury, known authors of these submitted works were born after the death of Jesus, which tells that they sourced their information primarily from hearsay and traditions which possibly been distorted and reconstructed.

Like Kameron Searle said: A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition fiction and not history at all..

Josephus and Tacitus works are secondary sourced resources which amount to fiction.


From another perspective, the history of Josephus and Tacitus works are well known. A snippet which I would love to share with you.

Josephus first project, The Jewish War, started around 74 AD, after he had established his office in Rome around 71 AD, during the reign of Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. Josephus completed writing his second project somewhere around 92 AD.

The identification of time 71 AD, and the correct identification of Ruler of Rome of the time Vespasian gives credence to the writing as authentic work. In reality, Josephus was only writing about the clamping down on first century christians by Emperor Nero, agitation of the christians, sack of Jerusalem by Cestius Gallus, and the total destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by General Titus.

It is important to note that Apostle Paul writings abruptly stopped around 68 AD after Emperor Nero order he is beheaded, after the wall fire. And also note that there were unknown authored writings, hearsay and traditions about Jesus which Apostle Paul actually learned about him from. I guess he called the tradition, creed. Between 68 AD and 92 AD, there is 28yrs of time, and 100+yrs after Jesus purportedly lived.

With an ample of time, Josephus was only writing base on the popular tradition of the first century Christians. Moreover, there are no extant (surviving) manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these were copied by Christian monks.

Base on the above, one can conclude that;

1. Josephus work is secondary resources.. And as such can't be accepted.
2. He probably referenced hearsay and popular traditions which are not reliable as his primary source
3. Judging on textual relationship of his first work The Jewish war, and second work the Antiquity, there is huge evidence of interpolation and fraud
4. Is original works are not yet found. Testimonium is only found in the copies from Christian monks, millennium after Josephus death. Which could be reasonably altered.




On Tacitus. He wrote the Annas around 116 AD. We know he is a member of Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis , a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome. Without mentioning is source or reference, one can conclude that even as the Van Voorst of the council, he was writing base on the popular knowledge on traditional stories of Jesus.

Therefore;

1. Tacitus was born 25yrs after the death of Jesus. He wrote his work 116yrs after Christ death. He is not an eye witness.
2. Annas is not from the primary source. There were popular traditions and unfounded unsubstantiated claims by Christians he prolly copied from.


All the way long, you still have to provide information from primary sources because it can be admitted

MuttleyLaff:
Never mind FOLY, if you arent aware to that.

At the stage, I think it is important to be mindful and curious about the raw and original details of your claim that Jehovah was carnally given birth to as Jesus. Much of these details like when, how, where, by whom and explicit evidences would easily help identify if you know what you are saying, and if what you are saying is indeed fact.

So we are starting, all over again with the first query, tell us when he actually come via birth canal?

MuttleyLaff:
I did, but you didnt pay enough attention to notice I have

Whats the point of all this, if you arent paying attention, hmm?

Yet again, repeating the same mistake, you refuse to address my question. You slip and took wrong steps, maybe you ain't having a close look at the details. Let me help.

The initial question:

1. Where exactly is the confidence of hope drawn from knowing that the Bible stories are fables having no substances in history?
2. How can you strongly trust that a Jesus who never exist as accounted would take you to heaven/paradise?
3. What is the basis of your faith; historical fairies or historical facts?

The answer you provided tend to lump and address the whole questions as one. You said:

The short answer is, it is drawn from and/or based on, conviction , faith and available/known
historic facts out in there

Do you see the flaw? Let me play it again...

Mr F: when is your hope and confidence when since the account have no basis in history?

Mr M: my hope is drawn from conviction, faith and history.

Mr F: what is the basis of your faith
Mr M: the basis of my faith is faith.

Does that make sense to you? I bet No!

If you have watched critically, I added basis is between historical fact or historical fictions. But you are all over the places. Lol


With respect I have for you, brother, can you tell us the basis of your faith presently? And note, you should be prepared to defend whatever you pick. Shalom!

MuttleyLaff:
"And without faith it is impossible to please God,
because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists
and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
- Hebrews 11:6

Taking a leap of faith is always better than taking a leap of doubt. Faith/belief is what you hold on to, but conviction is what holds on to you. Develop some convictions FOLY, but not before you're ready to drop some, if not all your assumptions, lol. A man without conviction, is a man who doesn't know and/or a man not in the know, is like a door, hanging on a door frame, without no nails and hinges.

Here we go again. Can you please keep the sermon for Sunday. It's Val today.

MuttleyLaff:
Smh. Just like I thought that you have misundertood and wrongly thought that Apostle Paul was querying the existence, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, when in fact, the good part of the whole of 1 Corinthians 15, was dedicated to educating the Corinthians about resurrection

Need I tell you again that the Paul Doubt and Fear I am on about is in 1 Corinthian 15:3,14,17. I wasn't asking you to tell me about 1 cor 15. Precision is what matters here Muttley.

If you can keep eye on the details in 1 Corinthian 15:3,14,17 you will see all details about his doubt. Falling over places would make us loose focus sir.

And if yet, you can't find the detail, point out to me and I will explain, my dear friend.

dragunov:
Your oracles told you my name is Darasimi? It is (your oracles) wrong. Oga Folake, I am DRAGUNOV!

That aside. You can't just hop into this forum and start make sweeping generalisations that all events recorded in the bible are fables and have no basis in history.

Where did I say all the events recorded in the bible are fables? Apostle paul is real like the son. You didn't see me disputing that.

However, archaeological findings wrapped the whole stories from Genesis creation to Jesus as myth. There is no shred of evidence out there to prove the event happened. Bible is giving us a traditional story and not eye witness account.

My dear, if you have any eye witness account, why can't you present it.

dragunov:
Historical accounts themselves are recorded by humans. So if for whatever reason, at any given time, there is no individual available, literate or willing to record the events of his time, does that now translate to the event not happening at all?
So if those accounts /events were now recanted 100 yrs later and documented, those that make it false? Hell no!

The bible didn't fall from the sky. It was written by some men. Also, some councils of men voted what would be and not be in the cannon. It was all about men.

Another important thing, the bible account are bunch of copies of retorted tradition stories. Not a single author of the Bible books bare a witness to what they wrote. With that in the frame, you have to prove, otherwise that the stories are truth, now essentially when findings have shown it is false.

aadoiza:
How am I not surprised at your wanton insults? You knew I was gonna expose you for what you are, a shameless scientific pagan.
At least, you have done my work for me; you can continue to wankk at your Yiddish scholars' opinions. Wetin consign me

Gosh! Why all these gay shibboleths full this forum na?

Gosh!!

LordReed:
Damn! I actually assumed there was archeological evidence for Solomon's Temple. Shows how much indoctrination can influence a person.

It was shocking

budaatum:
Depends what message you are receiving.

Many consider, "Love your neighbors and your enemies moreso" a very valid truth.

But that's not a message many seem to think is meant when told "Accept Jesus into your life", or, "Lift up your cross and follow me". Especially when one isn't keyed into how religious scripture works. Even many religious folks miss the point.

What did he meant when he said 'none has ascended to heaven except he.

But history wasn't on his side as no one record his ascension when the gospel claim many people witnessed it. How come there is no witness account of the ascension

MuttleyLaff:
You conveniently seem to have forgotten that it is the other way round, that man is a picture of God, that man is an image of God. So what, if God manifest to physically wrestle with human or drag meat with men., huh? Do you think, God has a chip on His shoulder ni? Though He has every right to, I guess you suppose that God thinks too much of Himself, for me doing any of those such thing. You are one of those guys who thinks, why would Almighty God come to earth and come in via the birth canal of a woman. You're the type often that will say, what kind of God is that who gets himself haung up on a cross and ends up crying out on the cross

When did he actually come via birth canal?

MuttleyLaff:
No skin off my nose

I already more than once have, but obviously its not an answer you are used to getting, so you frustratingly are not satisfied with it

Not at all. You didn't tell me anything.

I am asking what is the basis of your faith currently.

MuttleyLaff:
Knowing its you, you've probably misunderstood the verses, so I request you provide the verses you attribute your comment to

1 Cor 15:3,14,17

MuttleyLaff:
How do you know Jesus did not exist? Is it not documented in the Bible and other historical/passing comments that Jesus existed ni?

1. The bible is not tenable and acceptable as historical fact

2. What other historical sources and documents are you talking about? Care to share them?

EMILO2STAY:
but it goes a long way to lend credence and also makes the claim plausible. As a matter of fact it makes it true.

Mentioning names of towns, popular figures and animals does not make tales truth. The Yoruba creation myth mentioned Oduduwa descending on a chain from the sky in a city known as Ode Ife. Actually, Ode Ife is a real town in the present Osun state. But it is a known fact that there is no man at any point in time, climb down from the sky. It was wholesale falsity, though mentioning names of historical places but that doesn't make it true.

EMILO2STAY:
What you do not realize is that some of what we call myth and legends are actually historical facts which have been passed down from generation to generation and as such becomes corrupted with time. The whole accounts of the bible I believe to be factual, but experts scoff at it only to be humbled when facts supporting the scriptures are found.

I disagree with you bro. What we call myth are actually a constructive thought on a wrong premises with the aim of explaining a phenomenon or conveying moral message. I remember telling my son reasons why pig grunt around and dig the ground with it nose. True, pig digs around with it nose, but the reason I gave is not factual. I constructed my tale using a real trait of pig, but my story is laced with lies and imaginations.

EMILO2STAY:
your right. The Noah account is dated to be around 5 to 6000yrs old same as human civilization on earth. How ever there is no factual evidence of the millions of yrs purported by scientist. Except carbon dating which is never a reliable system of dating at all.

Who gave the account of Noah in the bible, prolly Moses. A figure that existed many centuries after the incident occurred. The account on the first note is not tenable and acceptable as it is not eye witness account.

On the second note, we can talk about how Moses or the author of the Noah global flood story got his evidence from. Since he/she wasn't writing base on eye witness note, he would have gotten the evidence of the incidence from somewhere.

EMILO2STAY:
this is not just something you can get on google search. You may try to read this book online

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=vHLU7hJboKoC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Consider+now+that+shells+from+living+snails+were+dated+using+the+Carbon+14+method.+The+results+stated+that+the+snails+had+died+twenty+seven+thousand+years+ago.+Similarly+living+penguins+have+been+carbon+dated+that+they+had+died+eight+.&source=bl&ots=Trh6fPEgKe&sig=ACfU3U1is7Tnh6Pwqu4wGy6Qy79JcI_wqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt8o72r87nAhUhsaQKHV6VACQQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=Consider%20now%20that%20shells%20from%20living%20snails%20were%20dated%20using%20the%20Carbon%2014%20method.%20The%20results%20stated%20that%20the%20snails%20had%20died%20twenty%20seven%20thousand%20years%20ago.%20Similarly%20living%20penguins%20have%20been%20carbon%20dated%20that%20they%20had%20died%20eight%20.&f=false

Will surely check when I get home.

EMILO2STAY:
you cannot call this a lie and a fraud because there definitely exist something large of a wooden structure up in the mountains ararat that looks like a large boat.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/does-new-evidence-prove-noah-s-ark-buried-turkish-mountain-009404

All these have been discovered to be fake.

EMILO2STAY:
Lady justice cannot be compared to jesus, the teachings and the legacy of christ cannot be compared to any lady justice as the teachings of christ and the impact ot made disturbed the government of his time. The name of some roman governors and prefects who existed at that time and can be confirmed by historical records and are there for us today. If pilate existed who saw and spoke with christ then it is most likely that the man christ existed.

Can you present a document written by Pilate where he said he met Jesus? Or just any document written during the time of Jesus where the author states that he saw Jesus?

EMILO2STAY:
There is no doubt that the scriptures are copies of copies but this does not disrupt the intent of the message. The author of the book of mark is highly in doubt but at the same time one cannot pin point the authentic author it might be mark and it might not be. But to say precisely that he was not a desciple would be making an assumption which is likely an error.

Emilio, you agree that copies of copies, that the writers are not writing what they witnessed, but only repleting old traditions which have been on 60yrs after Jesus death. And that the author of these gospels do not have same intent, reason there were too many contradictions in the bible.

A writer, who witnessed an incidence, will give an accurate account of what he saw. The case, as you admitted, is not same with gospel of Mark which is the oldest manuscript. If the author is anyone among the disciple, they have given an accurate description of the geographical area, political figures and happenings of that time.

EMILO2STAY:
you are wrong, the Apostle paul saw christ according to scripture. Paul saw christ in his glorified form which is what made him a christian because he was a persecutor of the Christians himself.

Do you understand what an eye witness account is?

If you read 1cor critically, you will find there where Paul stated he got knowledge of Jesus death and resurrection only in the scripture. He didn't say the incident played out before him.

Whether he saw light or man or Jesus on his way to Damascus is inconsequential. As a matter of fact, the contradictions invalidate the account.

EMILO2STAY:
how do you know that budda didn't exist? What is your proof for that?, who wrote the philosophical thoughts of budda? Budda might not have been born by an elephant but once upon a time there mist have been a figure who started the whole religion of Buddhism.

From the materials and resources gather on Buddhism, I found out that Buddha life which can only be found only in the canonical texts, have only biographies which are both late in origin and replete with legends and myths. And that the oldest canonical texts are products of long process of oral transmission that evidently included some revision and much addition.

The first known canonical text was written during the reign of king Vattagamani Abhaya in the 1st century bce, that is nearly a millennium after the death of Buddha. Source : Abington Dictionary of living Religions.

EMILO2STAY:
Now take a time and read Jakata and Buddha charita. It entails the mythical nature of his birth... The whole account is canon cannot be accepted.

There are actually historical evidence supporting the existence of christ though minute but they are there. And cannot be disputed

Emilo, as much as I really want to see an eye witness account that provide evidence for Jesus existence, I haven't find any course there is none. The minute you talk about are written several decades after his death. This is unusual for a man like Jesus that have significant things happening in his days.

budaatum:
So, you admit that despite "the messenger [maybe] a hoax", the philosophical thoughts shake the whole world.

Do you realise you are saying that even though the stories about the messenger may be a hoax, the message itself is plausible?

Widely held belief is what it is, belief, not truth

dragunov:
Oga folake, stop meddling in things you don't understand. All this your pseudo intellectualism amounts to nothing.

Tell us what you know Darasimi

MuttleyLaff:
The Landlord tenant was carefully chosen and well thought out selected. I am not talking of interpersonal relationship of Landlord with the tenants, but rather was talking of the lovingingly relationship between Landlord and his sons/daughters who are given rooms in his house/mansion

By the grace and kindness of God, we have being blessed with houses we call our homes. Our kids have being allotted and given their own rooms in the houses. We don't care that much of invading spiders, occasional sights of insects, say mosquitoes, flies, ants, slugs, bugs, cockroahes, rats, birds, bees, wasps etcetera, but our kids, right from day one up to present, my missus and I often stick our necks round into their rooms, if just only to check and see the state of it. We don't interfere in the daily maintenance or use of the room, but if necessary will and voice out when things looks out of place, abused or misused. Sometimes, it's the kids who invite us into their rooms in order to sort things out for them, like to change a bulb or something. So my dear friend, the analogy is best suited to counter your assertion of no interference, lol

Possibly, if I were not wrong, you are painting a picture of God as Man. Well, we saw him wrestling with human and dragging meat with men. Amen!

MuttleyLaff:
Its a pity that's what and all you know.

No one is forcing you to.

Let us leave that for that.

MuttleyLaff:
Unfortunately for you, it's too big a step for you to at the moment and with your frame of mind to take

The beauty of this discourse and one which gives me such pleasuring delight, is that no matter how this discourse swings, you will never ever, and thank God for that, ever have the last word, lol. What a relief.

Can you for once tell us the basis of your faith? Is it shaken like Paul's who queried the existence, death and resurrection of Christ? Does your faith measure up after knowing that the sweet Jesus you long believe in did not exist?

shadeyinka:
You overrate yourself!
Who are you that I have to waste my time doing the work of convincing!!??

I even refuse to correct you several errors within this latest post which to me is a reflection of your (spiritual) father's occupation.

Shade is dancing all around like water lily. Enjoy your opium darling

MuttleyLaff:
Thats your widely held but false belief that Olodumare does not "interfere" in human activities and realities. It is a myth to think that Olodumare is a retired or absentee Landlord, lol, who doesn't "interfere" in His tenants', human activities and realities.

This is diversionary. Let me just deal with Olodumare and Isese topic for the last time. The thread isn't about Olodumare but Historicity of the bible and justification of christian faith.

The landlord and tenant relationship is wrong. Landlord and tenant are both human, person. Eledumare is impersonal. And there can never be interpersonal relationship between a person and impersonal being.

L

MuttleyLaff:
et's use your home as a case study. Yes, the house you built from the sweats of your brow, hard labour and money, since after giving out from this house rooms to your sons/daughters, do you totally not "interfere" in the activities and realities going on in the house and rooms? Just because you've given out the rooms to your sons/daughters are you incurious, distant, disinterested, separate and/or disconnected to the activities and realities going on in the rooms, hmm?

I would say, this shouldn't be the best analogy you can come up with. It doesn't capture the whole picture.

Think about my mansion. With many rooms designated for different functions. Dinning, living, guest, sitting, bar, toilet, bathroom, wifey room, kiddie rooms, playground, pool, garden, lawn court and library. Also keep in mind that a burrow hole in the corner, there are ants living their own world there. What they do, how they do it, when they do it and by whom it is done is not my business. I don't interfere in who take the role of their leadership. I don't see them praying to me or ask me to look beyond. We view the world different.

Same applies to Eledumare. A being who created the gigantic universe, and a possible multiverse, wouldn't care about what happen in the minute earth, which is like a dirt in the beach sand.

MuttleyLaff:
I am not red herring my dear friend, I am showing you the relatedness between Olodumare and Jesus Christ. Sebi, you said you want to know more, lol, about God ni? Have you yet figured that, Jesus Christ is the mask of Olodumare, hmm, lol?

Are you sure I havent focused on Jesus and the bible, hmm, lol? Is Jesus not the manifestation of Olodumare, also known as Ọlọrun, ni, lol?

Jesus is the son of Yahweh, the God of Israel. Yahweh is God of hills, not universe.

MuttleyLaff:
Dogmatism comes with the territory, lol. Welcome to the real world

It is bizarre. The world proclaim their is a figure, profess a hope of his return but cannot prove the figure exist. It is a drunk world I don't want to be part of.

MuttleyLaff:
FOLY, two verses before 1 Thessalonians 5:21, advises not to stifle the Holy Spirit. There is no way, anyone without the Holy Spirit, to throw, cast or shed light on state of affairs, will be able correctly handle the word of truth or be able to rightly divide the word of truth. You will struggle against the forces of evil and succumb to it, if/when the Holy Spirit is stifled. When short of the Holy Spirit, you will fumble in getting right understanding, as you dig, searching and looking to find objective truth, lol.

It is one step at a time.

No one queries an already proven fact.

Can we get on proving bible claim and ascertaining it is fact first?

shadeyinka:
The scripture quoted is true and cannot be broken. The instruction is to Christians as individuals. It has been tested and proven reliable and dependable by true Christians. Your rants are noise, like some people were arguing that HIV and AIDS is a scam.

You are telling us you have tested and proven reliable and dependable the account of Jesus, Genesis, Noah flood and Moses Exodus. What you haven't tell us, and supposedly what I want you to tell us is HOW you carried out this your findings and the method you used. It is after this I can conclude if what you found is truly the truth. All this rambling and directionless attack isn't important and won't achieve anything.

I or anyone wouldn't argue against HIV/AIDS virus because overwhelming evidence to prove it exist. HIV/AIDS is not the subjective work of one person. Many people made their own different research objectively and found the virus is truly out there. But the case is not with Jesus or any stories in the bible.

History and archaeological findings oppose your submission on Jesus's account. History isn't on your side. Archaeological findings are not on your side. We are having limited support, writings from people who lived in the days of Christ. That tells Jesus didnt exist or just maybe, he exist but the Bible account was exaggerated.

But here we are, claiming you and other Christians have found the truth, facts and evidences that Jesus existed in historic time and place. By telling us this, you are putting on a duty, to prove that your findings is truth, reality and fact as you proclaim.

shadeyinka:
To you outside, it's a pity. And like your father, so you are

Mat 4:6:
"And said to him, If you be the Son of God, cast yourself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning you: and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest at any time you dash your foot against a stone."

You seem to have learnt well from him

You always quote the bible out of context. Attacking me serve only one purpose, it reveals your fear, that the whole years, trusting and having strong confidence on a figure which turned out to be fable can become painful. I know it hurts and understand the fear/pain. But see hey, it isn't about me.

It is more about Apostle Paul fear. It is more about your own fear. And the fear of many Christians out there. 1 Corinthian 15:14 professes that if Jesus didn't die, and if Jesus didn't resurrect, that faith of Paul, you and all the Christians are in VAIN. There your fear laid.

I also understand that faith as defined by is simply a hope without evidence. That is how Heb 11:1 put it. I understand you and MuttleyLaff and other Christians seek not the evidence if Jesus truly existed, but blindly hope that the person that didn't exist in time and space would appear in the future and take you away. That is the pain, that is the lane of illusion of hope, hopelessness. Do I want to remove the illusion of hope, Nah!