Do you think jesus christ existed

[là bạn điên]

The Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness.

i) The gospel of John seems to have been written about 90-100 AD according to most sources, therefore about 60 years after the supposed death of Jesus, this makes an eyewitness account rather unlikely but even if it is (according to a few Christian theologicans) earlier it doesn;t actually prove that the writer was an eye witness

The Epistle of James is written by the brother of Jesus, another eyewitness. I don't expect either of those points to convince you, much less would I expect you to believe 1/2 Peter is written by Peter.

If you would like to prove who wrote it then Ill be happy to accept it. Theer were some diaries proporting to be Hitler's some years ago. they were fake too AND managed to fool lots of people

Luke-Acts is written by Luke - or at the very least a single author (concensus view), and he is a companion of Pual. More than half of the events recorded in Acts happened at the time of the author's involvement in the church and many of them were witnessed by him.

And we know this how?

Paul is the undisputed author of 7 Epistles, but he's the author of a total of 13-14 Epistles. Paul is an early church leader, he knew the apostles personally and he knew James and the family of Jesus, and he knew other early church leaders.

We don;t even have evidence of Paul's existence much less that he is the author of anything at all

So for those 9 books you have no recourse to say that they are bad quality evidence at all based on the authorship criteria.

Oh yes I do, you have not given an Iota of evidence for your claim. All you have is some documents with a name who is proported to have written them

Scholars don't stop with that criteria, they look at far more things than you have bothered to list. Luke obviously made use of the Gospel of Mark believing it to be a reliable source.

"Scholars". Not academics then but BAHBUL beleivers

Here's some examples...

Luke-John bound together:



Further evidence that Luke-Acts is written by the one author comes from Codex Bezae, which contains all the gospels and acts, and has an anti-Semitic strain found only in Luke-Acts. Thus the strain has to go back to a copy that was made containing only Luke-Acts bound together. Since all four gospels were bound together by the middle of the second century, it's believed that you can't date the inception of this "corrupted" copy of Luke-Acts after that. Thus the Luke-Acts component was a separate codex bound together and written no later than mid 2nd century.

Sceptics like yourself believe that John was written in the second century, or at the very earliest in the AD 90's. Yet there are more early manuscripts for John dating to the second century than for any other gospel, and one that may even date to the first century (but likely dates to the early 2nd century). The most important of these is this one:


(Papyrus 66)

It is near-complete. Like all early manuscripts, it contains the nomina sacra, which itself is strong evidence of canonization. It has the title "Gospel according to John" as is found on every copy - every one (this is true for all the Gospels). But you know what's interesting is the sceptics say this gospel had to have been written no earlier than the very late first century, they say it's written after all the other Gospels - yet the manuscript evidence is the reverse and we have more early copies of John than any other Gospel, so what evidence is this based on?

I see you link above is actually to a seminary. We aren't going to get much in the way of objectivity there are we!

---

The Qurʼan was written in the 7th century, it's hardly going to be as reliable as evidence for events in the 1st century than those written in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
[/quote]

But according to your logic it is reliable as to events of the 7th century. So why aren;t you a Muslim?

• Ant. XX.9.1:
  AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

What part of that is obscure as to which James he is talking about, and why are you disagreeing with the consensus view?

Again your nonsense about 'scholars'. lecturers at Bible colleges are hardly rigourous academics. There is no consensus at all from proper historians that Jesus existed

The only proper New Testament historians are New Testament scholars that specialize in texts written around the first 5 centuries AD, which includes the New Testament, gnostic texts, church records, other texts, etc. That would include the works of Josephus. The faith of the scholar makes no difference to their academic credentials, rather their studies of the ancient manuscripts do.

We know that Joespehus has been massively forged.

Scholars can specialize on more narrow aspects of this, of course, and so you have scholars that specifically specialize on the gnostic texts, or the works of Josephus, etc, rather than say the letters of the church fathers.

That word' scholars' again

New Testament scholars are not Old Testament scholars, and vice-versa. Old Testament scholars are intently interested in the (non-biblical) works found in the DSS, and other materials from the time of the OT times written in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.

And they are christians who are out to find evidence of Gawd