“The work of God”?

[Ban-jani]

we deserve the chance... again your asserting we've been given this by the deity
without one shred of evidence, you can't keep doing this, well you can because you have freewill ;-)

Again, I am explaining to you my opinion haha.

I think it’s true but you don’t have to, that free will thing ;-)

 

[BimboBob]

Fair enough. I’ve no problem with people disagreeing with it, I just can’t understand how angry some get about disagreeing.

The name point, if they were manufacturing the story, then they would have called Him “Emmanuel”, as that was the prophecy in the Old Testament.

St Paul’s letters and even the word of mouth accounts all say Jesus (well the translated version of Jesus), I think we can be pretty confident of the name.

Apart from he's never mentioned by the Romans. Ever. And the word of mouth accounts? I have no idea what this means. Word of mouth accounts written down 50 years later? How is that word of mouth?

You can't pull up historical evidence that a Jesus existed in Roman times as there isn't any. You can say that Jesus existed because people wrote about him 50 years later.

Until we find a document mentioning him dated correctly then there is no historical evidence.

 

[journolud]

End of. Blimey, Someone tell a joke

You’ll be wanting the joke thread for that

 

[Two Gun Bob]

You’ll be wanting the joke thread for that

Another lost sheep : /

 

[Ban-jani]

Apart from he's never mentioned by the Romans. Ever. And the word of mouth accounts? I have no idea what this means. Word of mouth accounts written down 50 years later? How is that word of mouth?

You can't pull up historical evidence that a Jesus existed in Roman times as there isn't any. You can say that Jesus existed because people wrote about him 50 years later.

Until we find a document mentioning him dated correctly then there is no historical evidence.

The Romans did mention him but it was after he died.

The word of mouth accounts are the stories about him, that eyewitnesses talked about.

In the ancient world, this is incredibly normal and illiterate people were incredible at remembering stories and retelling them in detail, due to the fact it was their only means of communicating.

It’s very common in the ancient world for information to be passed in this manner and the accounts of Jesus are more comprehensive than a lot of figures, we presume exist.

Most scholars view the Gospels as being biographical.

 

[citizen_maine]

The Romans did mention him but it was after he died.

The word of mouth accounts are the stories about him, that eyewitnesses talked about.

In the ancient world, this is incredibly normal and illiterate people were incredible at remembering stories and retelling them in detail, due to the fact it was their only means of communicating.

It’s very common in the ancient world for information to be passed in this manner and the accounts of Jesus are more comprehensive than a lot of figures, we presume exist.

Most scholars view the Gospels as being biographical.

How do you know they were "incredible at remembering" if there's no documentary evidence?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The Romans did mention him but it was after he died.

The word of mouth accounts are the stories about him, that eyewitnesses talked about.

In the ancient world, this is incredibly normal and illiterate people were incredible at remembering stories and retelling them in detail, due to the fact it was their only means of communicating.

It’s very common in the ancient world for information to be passed in this manner and the accounts of Jesus are more comprehensive than a lot of figures, we presume exist.

Most scholars view the Gospels as being biographical.

Assuming there were eyewitness accounts of miracles, why would you consider them trustworthy? There are eyewitness accounts of miracles in the present day, by groups of people. Go to India and hear the stories of magic gurus. Or speak to hundreds of witnesses at megachurches in America who swear that they saw a disabled person healed at the hands of a miracle healer. Why would the miracles of Jesus, even if we had contemporary firsthand accounts of it, be any more reliable?

 

[Ban-jani]

How do you know they were "incredible at remembering" if there's no documentary evidence?

There is, that’s the point.

Someone eventually writes it down if it’s worth it.

I recently watched a documentary on the ancient world and it went into detail on illiterate people.

 

[Ban-jani]

Assuming there were eyewitness accounts of miracles, why would you consider them trustworthy? There are eyewitness accounts of miracles in the present day, by groups of people. Go to India and hear the stories of magic gurus. Or speak to hundreds of witnesses at megachurches in America who swear that they saw a disabled person healed at the hands of a miracle healer. Why would the miracles of Jesus, even if we had contemporary firsthand accounts of it, be any more reliable?

Because several of His Apostles went to their deaths, often in agony and still refused to renounce it.

 

[citizen_maine]

There is, that’s the point.

Someone eventually writes it down if it’s worth it.

I recently watched a documentary on the ancient world and it went into detail on illiterate people.

"Eventually writes it down"?
So if I 'recalled' events passed on to me from 50 years ago and you wrote them down now, they'd be factual, and not some detailed bollox I'd made up?