Counting the number of manuscripts is “science” that is “sturdy”? You really have absolutely no idea what Science is. Science is based upon theory and experimentation. Science can be performed upon objects like the Shroud of Turin or a statue of Caesar to see if either object is actually old enough to be contemporaneous, but that is not the same thing at all.
So you not only think Science is Religion, you also think it is History? Anything else you want to throw in there?
Before I answer your post, I need to know that the post will still be there when I’m done and that my response post won’t be yanked as well, wasting my time. So I’m asking the religion moderator to determine if your post follows the guidelines of ecumenical threads — it has an antagonistic tone. I’m disappointed, because the discourse had been civil right up until then. If your post survives, I’ll respond to it.
Guidelines:
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
And because this is an ecumenical thread, also do not be antagonistic.
OK, it looks like your post, which the Religion moderator said was antagonistic, will survive; so it’s not a waste of my time to respond to it. I’ll try to respond to the actual questions and let the antagonistic tone go by, forgiven.
Provide any contemporary historic source about the life of Jesus outside of the Bible. There are none.
***Well, right off the top of my head, there was a circular letter put out by the Sanhedrin explaining that they killed this man, Jesus for blasphemy. Basically, even Jesus’s ENEMIES acknowledged that he made the claim to be equal with God. There is plenty more evidence, and since you don’t seem to be aware of it, I’ll point you to a few good apologetic books.
Note that the best place to start is right here on Free Republic, where a classic of the literature is being reproduced in whole:
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? (Chapt. 10)
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm ^ | 1959 | F.F. Bruce
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1981738/posts
Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:14:57 PM by blue-duncan
Then you can click on the “apologetics” keyword and topic index to discover a myriad of choices:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/apologetics-religion/index
In addition, there is the keyword Biblical Archaeology
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/biblicalarchaeology/index?tab=articles
Someone who has been reading through these apologetic resources right here on FR wouldn’t post what you just did. It would behoove you to come up to speed.
Some more books to recommend:
“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell
“More Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell
“The Stones and the Scriptures” by Edwin Yamauchi
“Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru” by Buell and Hyde
That’s just a starter. Once you’re up to speed, there’s a few more books to round out the education process on textual criticism and the science behind biblical archaeology and the historicity of Christ.
The first time Christ enters the historic record is 60 to 90 years after his death.
***Nope. Wrong. You’ve got some reading to do. Historians accept the gospels as part of the historical record, so you’re off by an entire generation.
1st Century writers write about Christians and what Christians believe. There are absolutely no contemporaneous records of his life, his writings, his image, his tax records, his execution order or anything.
***This is a very high standard, to throw out all contemporaneous records that are friendly — not one other historical figure would survive such a process in tact, and yet, we would still have Jesus being put to death for Blasphemy as claimed by his Enemies.
All we have is the Bible, is that not enough for you?
***There was a time when it was not enough for me.
Counting the number of manuscripts is “science” that is “sturdy”? You really have absolutely no idea what Science is.
***Looks like maybe you have some reading to do here.
Science is based upon theory and experimentation. Science can be performed upon objects like the Shroud of Turin or a statue of Caesar to see if either object is actually old enough to be contemporaneous, but that is not the same thing at all.
***Exactly. And it is the science behind such things that confirm the gospel records as reliable history. Also, the evidence from the enemies of Christ as well as indifferent sources adds to the scientific weight.
So you not only think Science is Religion, you also think it is History? Anything else you want to throw in there?
***This is classic mind reading, as well as straw argumentation. I can state categorically that what you claim I think is not what I really do think. At this point it bears out that we are spending a lot of attention on something that is outside of the purview of this thread. If you want to continue down this line of discussion, open your own thread on the historicity of Christ and invite me to it.