Is the Bible evidence of the existence of Jesus? Sept 2, 2007 22:50:07 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 2, 2007 22:50:07 GMT -4
Congratulations. You've quoted the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true history. Well done. Your logic is impeccable.
No, I quote two passages from two books both written by an author that identifies himself as Luke, compatriot and companion of Paul. The sooner you stop thinking of the Bible as a single work and realise that it is a entire library consisting of 66 distinct books written by 40 different authors, the sooner you'll start to understand.
So, 300 years later they took their 300 year-old original texts, bundled them together and voila, the Bible? And, yet the earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is from around the year 125 or later. You are making a lot of assumptions, here.
No, the earliest fragments we have are fragments of the books and letters that would become the NT. The NT wasn't the NT until The Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Until then there was no NT, there were the scriptures, which were the Jewish law and the Prophets (what we call the OT) and there were a number of letters and gospels that had been passed about the Churches for the previous 200 odd years. The most commonly used letters and gospels were collected and the Council determined by historical accuracy and consistency which letters and books would be considered cannon. Those were bundled together into what we now call the NT, and both were put together to form the Bible. It might help if you actually bothered to learn a little about history, or are you going to dispute The Council of Carthage's existence as well since we can't prove who wrote that history either.
You know, this is the third time you've referenced Apollo -- as if I am the hoaxer and you are the Apollo astronaut. As if comparing your case to the overwhelming evidence of the Apollo missions somehow gives strength to your claim. I hate to break it to you, but you are on the side of flimsy evidence and irrational claims.
And yet you're the one dodging and weaving, refusing to be pinned down on subjects, moving the goal posts, and arbitrarily declaring that evidence isn't enough all while relying on a double standard. Who's really acting like the HB here?