Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "If Jesus really performed miracles and rose from the dead, we would have more historical records referring to Him."
Monday, November 15, 2010
Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "If Jesus really performed miracles and rose from the dead, we would have more historical records referring to Him."
Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "If Jesus really performed miracles and rose from the dead, we would have more historical records referring to Him."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I assume you are aware that just because some of the writings of Tacitus, Livy and others are lost, does not mean we have any reason to assume that Jesus was mentioned in those lost writings.
ReplyDeleteIt’s weird that they would try to make that point given that Tacitus actually does mention Jesus, but not miracles. Are we assuming that Tacitus has a lost volume dedicated solely to Jesus’ miracles? Seems odd that he would have written The Annals of Jesus’ Miracles and not just mentioned those miracles when he referenced Jesus (and the “evil” he started) in the Annals.
And since Livy died before Jesus’ supposed ministry began, I’m not sure why he’s even brought up at all.
Pardon the pseudo-spam but here is a little FYI:
ReplyDeleteHere are 236 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 280 AD.:
http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/historical-jesus---three-centuries-worth-citations
Keep up the good work and the God work.
How many from 35 or 40 or even 50 CE?
ReplyDelete2 or 3. Remember the epistles and Mark?
ReplyDeleteI'll give you some of the Epistles (non-eyewitness testimony of course), but Mark would be around 60-70 CE.
ReplyDeleteNot according to the scholars who date Mark to 40 AD. We've been over this. You already conceded that some scholars do that.
ReplyDeleteSome scholars think 9/11 was an inside job. So?
ReplyDeleteWhy are you bringing up such an obvious emotional diversion? Kind of cowardly. Do you have any evidence that the scholars who date Mark as early 40 AD are wrong? If you can't then you need just admit that there is good historical evidence for Jesus and you just decide to reject it because of your own presuppositions.
ReplyDeleteSome scholars think the Holocaust didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteMy point is not to bring up an emotional diversion, but to point out that some scholars believe whacky things and you can't point to the position of a minority of scholars as proof of your position, best you can do is note that the minority exists.
You can't knock down a position just because you think it's a minority position. Remember that a heliocentric solar system used to be a minority position. Comparing dating Mark to 40 AD is not the same thing as saying that 9/11 was an "inside job" and nor is denying the holocaust. You are presupposing that the evidence for dating of Mark that early is as non-existent as denying the holocaust or the George Bush was behind 9/11. Prove it don't assert it.
ReplyDeleteMy point is you could find some scholar somewhere who supports just about any position, and tie all these whacky positions together to support anything.
ReplyDeleteYou're just cherry picking is what it amounts to.
How are you not "Cherry picking"? You have offered no proof. Nothing to substantiate that Mark was not written as early as 40 AD. What are you basing your own preconceptions on? How do you know that Mark is not reliable or written by an eyewitness? Scholars. And you admitted that not all scholars agree. So how do you know who's right? You cherry pick. Sad isn't it?
ReplyDeleteNothing to substantiate that Mark was not written as early as 40 AD.
ReplyDeleteExcept the consensus of most, yes most, biblical scholars.
So consensus of experts is your evidence? Okay. I take it that you believe the consensus is that Mark and the entire New Testament were all written within 70 years of the crucifixion? Good. Even without Mariano's 236 citation from the first 300 years of the common era, we still have more early manuscript evidence for Jesus than anyone from ancient times. How is that for consensus?
ReplyDeleteWe've been over this. The Gospel of Mark and Papius or Tertullian citing the Gospel of Mark does not two attestations make. Marino's number is inflated.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not going to debate how many scholars are there that agree that Mark was written before 50 AD. We have been over that. That is why I brought up the consensus that there is more evidence for Jesus in early nearest contemporaneous manuscripts than for any other person of antiquity even if you throughout all of the references that Mariano has. I disagree with your characterizations of those references. You can't seriously throw out all of them and it's just another way you run away from God.
ReplyDeleteIt's still very much the minority position.
ReplyDeleteSo Marcus, I still think you are saying "I want to believe Mark was written before 50 CE and because some scholars think that is true I am justified in my belief".
ReplyDeleteTo that, I'll just say again that you can't point to the position of a minority of scholars as proof of your position, best you can do is note that the minority exists.
And to be fair, I'm not saying Mark was definitely written after 8-70 CE, just that most people who dedicate their careers to the the subject think it was. Also note that this is not me committing the 'appeal to authority' fallacy as you can appeal to an authority all day long so long as what you are appealing to falls into that authority area of expertise. Appealing to William Craig on matters of physics or biology would be an example of the fallacy.
@Ryan Anderson
ReplyDeleteSo Marcus, I still think you are saying "I want to believe Mark was written before 50 CE and because some scholars think that is true I am justified in my belief".
To that, I'll just say again that you can't point to the position of a minority of scholars as proof of your position, best you can do is note that the minority exists.
Nope. I'm not saying that. I'm saying scholars who have spent their careers studying Mark have come up with different dates for dating Mark. Do you know why those who date if before 50 AD think it should be? Here's a hint: It isn't because they just want to believe that. Why should they be thrown out.
And to be fair, I'm not saying Mark was definitely written after 8-70 CE, just that most people who dedicate their careers to the the subject think it was. Also note that this is not me committing the 'appeal to authority' fallacy as you can appeal to an authority all day long so long as what you are appealing to falls into that authority area of expertise. Appealing to William Craig on matters of physics or biology would be an example of the fallacy.
Oh, you believe consensus only when it fits your position. The Majority of scholars - believers and non-believers - agree that Mark was written before 87 AD. I don't and haven't claimed authority of scholars outside of their fields of expertise. In matters of physics, I don't need William Lane Craig because of my own training and background. What about you?
Marcus; you are not an authority in physics. Or in theology.
ReplyDeleteNo offense.
I didn't claim to be an authority. All I'm saying is that I've been studying these subjects for years. I have degrees from a great secular university in Physics and Engineering. No one but God is an authority in anything. However I'm more than qualified to speak on matters of Physics, Theology, and computer science. I'm also more than capable of reading something someone has written or look at data and judge it value on just about any subject. That's what graduate school is supposed to be for. What have you got? No offense.
ReplyDeleteI have an MS and MBA, not that that's important in the least, but you asked.
ReplyDeleteI'm also more than capable of reading something someone has written or look at data and judge it value on just about any subject.
Granted, but from reading your blog for a while now, I think you aren't that capable of sorting through your own biases, for exactly the reason I stated above.
I think you are so blinded by your own biases and suppressing the knowledge of God you can't see straight. If your MS isn't in science or engineering, I don't think it counts....according to your definition of appealing "to an authority all day long so long as what you are appealing to falls into that authority area of expertise."
ReplyDeleteThe more you comment the more you just prove Paul was right in Romans 1.
No offense.
ReplyDeleteCounts for what? It's in Finance.
ReplyDeleteAnd no offense taken, I can't count the times some christian has referenced Romans 1 to me. Very much a cop out.
Actually, Romans 1 just shows that God had you and your attitude pegged 2000 years ago. I sure hope you don't end up fulfilling the part of the reprobate mind also. Romans 1 is only a copout if it's not true. I don't think you ever read it or even unbiasedly asked if it is describing you. It is.
ReplyDeleteCicero made some good observations 2000 years ago too.
ReplyDeleteBut was Cicero personally right about you? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteCicero wrote a lot, it's been years since I've read him. I'm sure he hit the nail on the head once or twice.
ReplyDeletePaul however, not so much.
See, That is exactly what I mean. You are too blinded by tour own presuppositions to see that Paul was talking about you.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of what he was saying. He was starting a cult, so I disagree.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteRight Marcus, well said... Nanny Nanny boo boo
ReplyDelete