New religion

[Carnavon]

There are a great number of articles on this, one of which contains the following "Until recently, there was no contemporary evidence outside the Bible for Pilate's existence (although Tacitus, Josephus, and Philo all wrote about him). Then in 1961, Italian archaeologists excavating the theatre at Caesarea found this stone inscription of Pontius Pilate. Coins have also been found dating from Pilate's rule as governor." (http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.php)

Thanks for trotting this particular item out of hiding as it shows the extent to which xtians will go to pump up their nonsense.

Yes - we had no contemporary evidence "at all" for Pilate ( except Philo who died c 50 AD was a contemporary of Pilate which kind of blows the whole statement out of the water!)...and then there are the coins issued by the Roman prefects of Judaea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Procu...ius_Pilate

and then there is the near contemporaneous writing of Josephus ( he was born the year after Pilate was dismissed by Lucius Vitellius.)

The Caesarea inscription shows that Pilate was aware of his proper title
"Prefect" rather than the highly dubious Tacitus interpolation which calls him by the later title "Procurator."

So, yeah - if we didn't have so much evidence we would have had to rely on the Caesarea inscription....but we did.

BTW, both Philo and Josephus show a Pilate who was an arrogant prick quite unlike the vacillating pussy described in the so-called "gospels." Given what was expected of a Roman magistrate it seems that Philo and Josephus are a little closer to the reality.

So no evidence yet to prove your earlier claim of the "unreliability" of the Bible?

[Epimethean]

You do a damned great imitation of someone who completely misses the point.



Oh. Right. Nevermind.

[Carnavon]

You do a damned great imitation of someone who completely misses the point.



Oh. Right. Nevermind.

The point being that the information in the Bible can be trusted and if so (also suggested looking at prophecy at some stage, but no takers) there will be day judgment soon.
"Mat 12:36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, ." and if that is true, it has implications for each one of us.
Arguments trying to prove the contrary (Bible unreliable) have been based on unsubstantiated claims, wild allegations, setting up red herrings and straw men. No scholarly articles or arguments proving the Bible inaccurate when it claims something as fact.

[frankiej]

The point being that the information in the Bible can be trusted

Yes... In the same way that we can trust Max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide or World War Z that a zombie apocalypse is going to happen soon...

You speak the language of bullshit, sir.

[Carnavon]

The point being that the information in the Bible can be trusted

Yes... In the same way that we can trust Max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide or World War Z that a zombie apocalypse is going to happen soon...

You speak the language of bullshit, sir.

Dear frankiej, you are kindly invited to supply me with properly researched information that proves historical fact in the Bible wrong. as no information of value has been forthcoming that contradicts this claim of credibility. By putting forward information to support the trustworthiness of the Bible, I am only indicating to you that what is written in the Bible is not mere fable, but can be verified as truthful. This only contributes towards the credibility of the Bible as a historic document.
So what? My story is more accurate than yours and therefore my claim that the God of the Bible is the only true God is vindicated? If it was a case of becoming a Chistian based on factual analysis only, this will in any case just lead to you/me becoming a nominal Christian.
My point is basically then that, if we can trust the Bible in that which we can verify, is it not worthwhile considering the contents honestly?
Yes, a day of judgment is coming, but it is the will of God that none should perish:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
That is also the purpose of for instance evangelism - to bring people to Christ to receive salvation and not to judge. (This however does not mean to condone all behaviour, as the Bible is clear on that which God wants - and actually benefit us as we learn with time) This unfortunately is "modern trends" - where only the love of God is proclaimed and no reference to sin is made and no reference to the wrath of God. Both are true, but it is much easier to give people a "fuzzy, loving" feeling than to convince them of their sin. Nobody wants to hear that anymore, but if one is truthful, both must be procliamed.

[frankiej]

I'm not a historian, but I know a couple, and they would argue that the history in the bible directly conflicts with genuine history...

I'm not like theists... I don't claim to know shit about everything. I leave the people with the proper expertise to explain things. Theists are always coming across as if they are saying thatthey are experts in everything... Especially when they argue against history or science.

I could ask you to provide evidence outside the bible to back up historical events from the bible... Oh, wait... There isn't any

[Carnavon]

I'm not a historian, but I know a couple, and they would argue that the history in the bible directly conflicts with genuine history...

I'm not like theists... I don't claim to know shit about everything. I leave the people with the proper expertise to explain things. Theists are always coming across as if they are saying thatthey are experts in everything... Especially when they argue against history or science.

I could ask you to provide evidence outside the bible to back up historical events from the bible... Oh, wait... There isn't any

I am sorry if that is the impression that I created - trying to sound like Mr clever. I am not an expert on many, many fields - even history. But I do know that facts stated must be verified. I prefer truth and would really hate to know that I claim to believe in something that is built on lies and deceit.
The facts state in the Bible can be verified - not all as yet but nothing of any merit so far has been found to contradict the Bible. A little while back there was the story of having found Jesus' grave. That died with the next rain. You can now understand why I ask for proof. Not for my own benefit only, but also for people who are honestly seeking after truth.
If you are honestly seeking extra- biblical evidence, I will be happy to provide that and will draw up a little document in that respect, Will post the link within a couple of days.

[frankiej]

I'm sorry, you are the one with the radical claim... Surely, it is you who should be providing proof, so, yes, please provide this "extra" biblical evidence.

I prefer truth and would really hate to know that I claim to believe in something that is built on lies and deceit.

This coming from a Christian is hilarious.

[Carnavon]

I'm sorry, you are the one with the radical claim... Surely, it is you who should be providing proof, so, yes, please provide this "extra" biblical evidence.

I prefer truth and would really hate to know that I claim to believe in something that is built on lies and deceit.

This coming from a Christian is hilarious.

Yes, I have provided and will provide additional information and will enjoy doing so. If you do not agree, I do believe that you have to provide factual and solid reasons for your disagreement.
You have now made your own claim of Christians lying and deceiving. It will be quite easy to prove that there are some "Christians" that lie and deceive but you will find it extremely difficult (I would suggest impossible) to prove your point about Christians in general ? Looking forward to you backing up your claim with fact.
I am not trying to be funny, just getting us to discuss matters in a reasonable fashion.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Myabe Carnavon isn't getting something: he hasn't listed a single historical document with any more credibility than the Bible, to support the Bible. That's like picking two people from McDonald's at random, and asking them to support the claim that McDonald's is clearly better than Burger King. You know what they're going to say, whether it's true or not, so they can't be used as proof for everyone else.