(March 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm)discipulus Wrote: What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

Deidre, you've been owned...twice!
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/yeti.aspx

I linked to the encyclopedia of World Biography

You linked to the encyclopedia of World Occultism

See the difference my friend?

(March 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Yea, but I think when you follow a religion, (I speak from experience) ...your only 'reliable source' is the Bible. And that's not an objectively reliable source. You can find historical writings about Jesus, and so on, but again, where are they getting their material from? The only reason Jesus comes into the historical fold, is a religious leader of sorts. (Meanwhile, I don't think he was pro-religion, but ...)

You can read different perspectives about who he might have been, but usually they are religious slants. Islam for example doesn't believe he was the Savior of the world. Doesn't even believe he was crucified. So...who he was, what he was, is up for religoius interpretation, and that is the only reason he even 'fits' into history.

What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

Once again the only source they have to cite from regarding the life of Jesus is the Bible.

There are no contemporary sources of his life or existence.

(March 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm)discipulus Wrote: What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

I looked, and at the top of the page, we read:

Jesus (persons of the Bible)

The Bible is unfortunately the only source that breathes life to any stories of Jesus. Not trying to be flippant with you, it's just the way it is. And the motive was to breathe life into a religion, not to simply record history. You can't compare a US History book to the Bible. Noah's Ark for example...all hearsay, and most likely a fable. It doesn't share the shelves of the history book sections of book stores for a reason. The Bible is about religion, not about history.

Are you serious or are you joking?

So now the Encyclopedia of World Biography is just dismissed on the basis that it has the word "Bible" in it?

(March 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm)discipulus Wrote: What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

Deidre, you've been owned...twice!
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/yeti.aspx

lol

the evidence is overwhelming, i can't take it.

(March 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm)discipulus Wrote: What does the Encyclopedia say about Jesus Deidre?

Deidre, go here http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Jesus_...le).aspx#1 and start reading. See what you find.

Once again the only source they have to cite from regarding the life of Jesus is the Bible.

There are no contemporary sources of his life or existence.

Can I ask you a very serious question?

(March 9, 2014 at 4:34 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I looked, and at the top of the page, we read:

Jesus (persons of the Bible)

The Bible is unfortunately the only source that breathes life to any stories of Jesus. Not trying to be flippant with you, it's just the way it is. And the motive was to breathe life into a religion, not to simply record history. You can't compare a US History book to the Bible. Noah's Ark for example...all hearsay, and most likely a fable. It doesn't share the shelves of the history book sections of book stores for a reason. The Bible is about religion, not about history.

Are you serious or are you joking?

So now the Encyclopedia of World Biography is just dismissed on the basis that it has the word "Bible" in it?

I'm being serious. Where did they get their info from? The Bible.

I don't dismiss the Bible as a religious text that may have some historical anecdotes within it, but it's not a reliable source for debating with a non believer, if those things really happened. You are a Christian, you believe it. But, that comes from your faith...your hope in a higher power. For those who don't share that same hope, the Bible is a book designed to 'teach' two religions. Why can't you open your mind a little more, discipulus? I've tried to meet you 1/2 way.

(March 9, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:34 pm)discipulus Wrote: Are you serious or are you joking?

So now the Encyclopedia of World Biography is just dismissed on the basis that it has the word "Bible" in it?

I'm being serious. Where did they get their info from? The Bible.

I don't dismiss the Bible as a religious text that may have some historical anecdotes within it, but it's not a reliable source for debating with a non believer, if those things really happened. You are a Christian, you believe it. But, that comes from your faith...your hope in a higher power. For those who don't share that same hope, the Bible is a book designed to 'teach' two religions. Why can't you open your mind a little more, discipulus? I've tried to meet you 1/2 way.

So you are not aware that there exist references of Jesus and His crucifixion outside of the Bible?

Is this what you are saying?

(March 9, 2014 at 4:39 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Beccs Wrote: Once again the only source they have to cite from regarding the life of Jesus is the Bible.

There are no contemporary sources of his life or existence.

Can I ask you a very serious question?

That's between you and your funny bone.

(March 9, 2014 at 4:12 pm)discipulus Wrote: In order to determine where I need to begin my case, I need to ask you your views regarding certain aspects of the gospels.

This question is with regards to your view on the reliability of the textual transmission of the gospels and NT in general. This subject is what is known as bibliography. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History -https://archive.org/details/introductiontore030300mbp , lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography. They are: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and lastly, the external evidence test.

Is it your view that the gospels as found in the latest edition (Edition 28) Of the Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) are reliable copies of the original gospel autographs?

Yes or no? If not, then our debate needs to be on "Do the N.T. writings pass the bibliographical test used by historians?"

Reminds me:

No difference would be a 'book' written by a team of people trying to convince the world that Big Foot exists. Throw in a little truth, and maybe some will buy it. But, the book will be based on hearsay, people who claim they've seen Big Foot, but of course, they have no reliable pictures, or footage. They only have their ''story.'' No witnesses of course.

I'm waiting for it to become a religion.

---

(March 9, 2014 at 4:42 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I'm being serious. Where did they get their info from? The Bible.

I don't dismiss the Bible as a religious text that may have some historical anecdotes within it, but it's not a reliable source for debating with a non believer, if those things really happened. You are a Christian, you believe it. But, that comes from your faith...your hope in a higher power. For those who don't share that same hope, the Bible is a book designed to 'teach' two religions. Why can't you open your mind a little more, discipulus? I've tried to meet you 1/2 way.

So you are not aware that there exist references of Jesus and His crucifixion outside of the Bible?

Is this what you are saying?

Can you post the reference here? I'll look at it.

---

(March 9, 2014 at 4:42 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 9, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I'm being serious. Where did they get their info from? The Bible.

I don't dismiss the Bible as a religious text that may have some historical anecdotes within it, but it's not a reliable source for debating with a non believer, if those things really happened. You are a Christian, you believe it. But, that comes from your faith...your hope in a higher power. For those who don't share that same hope, the Bible is a book designed to 'teach' two religions. Why can't you open your mind a little more, discipulus? I've tried to meet you 1/2 way.

So you are not aware that there exist references of Jesus and His crucifixion outside of the Bible?

Is this what you are saying?

I'm aware of historians who say there 'could have been' a historical figure (named Jesus), who had been crucified, because that was the execution style of that time period. The places exist. People were largely following the Jewish faith, as has been recorded. But, that's it. There is nothing written outside of the Bible that independently supports Jesus' life story, from the time his ministry began to his death and ''resurrection.''

Please post the source you are thinking of, and I will look at it.

---

So, you believe discipulus, that the Bible is a compilation of 'sacred' texts that have been preserved throughout the ages, that one central council eventually (many years after Jesus' death) pieced together, to form what we now call 'the Bible.' These sacred texts being eye witness accounts of Jesus. Is this what you believe the Bible is?