Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is there any historic proof that Jesus existed?

Page 8 of 8 [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,453
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Sep 2012, 11:00 pm

iBlockhead wrote:
This is going to take some time to please you, but I will eventually slog through all this.

First things first:

enrico_dandolo wrote:
I know how the Bible was made. The canon was established at Nicaea (or was it Chalcedon?) from various ealier texts. Important Greek scholars decided which were inspired by God, and which were not. As such, all books should be understood as a different document from the others. Don't patronize me. I know my stuff (kind of).


They never talked about the books of the Bible at the First Council of Niacea. See here. I don't think you want the Wikipedia article on the Council given how you are framing your posts. It took a while and a long time to make the Bible...well, at least one Bible, there is that problem of which one is actually correct given all the different denominations.

This is your turn to prove me wrong. As well as Kraichgauer and AngelRho if they want.

Explain to me what evidence you need for the anti-Semitism claim. You don't think the whole Jewish mob wanting Jesus' head is good enough?


You are actually correct. I took AngelRho as to mean by the time of the council of Nicaea, the books of the New Testament had already been compiled, rather than meaning it had been compiled at the council.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



piroflip
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 352

05 Sep 2012, 5:24 am

There is no mention of his coming in any history book.

The only mention of the event is in books of fiction like the bible.

Could it be that the whole thing is a huge fake?

Could millions of very gullible people be wrong? :) :)


.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Sep 2012, 5:26 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
iBlockhead wrote:
This is going to take some time to please you, but I will eventually slog through all this.

First things first:

enrico_dandolo wrote:
I know how the Bible was made. The canon was established at Nicaea (or was it Chalcedon?) from various ealier texts. Important Greek scholars decided which were inspired by God, and which were not. As such, all books should be understood as a different document from the others. Don't patronize me. I know my stuff (kind of).


They never talked about the books of the Bible at the First Council of Niacea. See here. I don't think you want the Wikipedia article on the Council given how you are framing your posts. It took a while and a long time to make the Bible...well, at least one Bible, there is that problem of which one is actually correct given all the different denominations.

This is your turn to prove me wrong. As well as Kraichgauer and AngelRho if they want.

Explain to me what evidence you need for the anti-Semitism claim. You don't think the whole Jewish mob wanting Jesus' head is good enough?


You are actually correct. I took AngelRho as to mean by the time of the council of Nicaea, the books of the New Testament had already been compiled, rather than meaning it had been compiled at the council.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Doh!! ! I was confusing Nicaea with the Council of Trent.

The fact remains that the Trent Canon was more of a formality, though. The canon itself dates as early as the 300s with the commissioning of the Vulgate, and the gospels/epistles were in circulation by the end of the first century. The LXX was already in use by the time Jesus came along. The main reason for the Trent canon was a response to the Protestant Reformation. Acceptance of the Bible pretty much as we have it now was essentially a done deal by the time of Augustine.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Sep 2012, 5:51 am

AngelRho wrote:
]
Doh!! ! I was confusing Nicaea with the Council of Trent.

The fact remains that the Trent Canon was more of a formality, though. The canon itself dates as early as the 300s with the commissioning of the Vulgate, and the gospels/epistles were in circulation by the end of the first century. The LXX was already in use by the time Jesus came along. The main reason for the Trent canon was a response to the Protestant Reformation. Acceptance of the Bible pretty much as we have it now was essentially a done deal by the time of Augustine.


The LXX was commissioned by Jews in Alexandria Egypt. The LXX was written for Jews who give up Hebrew and spoke and read only Greek. The LXX was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and had nothing to do with the Gospels.

ruveyn