Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

originally posted by: cooperton
I never said "proof" I said "historical evidence". Documents from early 2nd century AD Christians referring to the year of Christ's birth is most certainly historical evidence of Christ's existence.

No. That's not historical evidence. That's people discussing a belief. Historical evidence would be a birth certificate. Historical evidence would be multiple sources from that time period discussing the event. People discussing the event 200 years later is not historical evidence.

The evidence of Christs birth are the gospel stories and what is said in them matching up to what was happening historically at that time. Names of places and people, discussion of customs, etc. That's it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Yeah .. it is. He estimated based on BELIEF and FAITH ... 500+ years after the fact.

You think he just blindly picked a number out of a hat?

Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Irenaeus of Lyon:
Still not proof that Christ existed.

Yet again, I said "historical evidence", which it most certainly is historical evidence when we have corroborating accounts from the 2nd century that refer to Christ being born around this time.

A calendar made up 500+ years after Christ lived is NOT proof that He lived. Having the crown of thorns with blood on it to be tested, and with an unbroken chain of ownership for 2,000 years ... THAT would be historical proof.

No the crown of thorns would be forensic/archaeological evidence. The shroud of Turin is forensic evidence. But here I am referring to historical proof.

But you calling a calendar 'evidence of Christ' IS.

Early church fathers attributing a date to Christ's birth is historical evidence. Serious question: what would count for you as historical evidence?

You're arrogant and not too bright

Stick to your sports flyers fan

a reply to: cooperton

I never said "proof" I said "historical evidence". Documents from early 2nd century AD Christians referring to the year of Christ's birth is most certainly historical evidence of Christ's existence.

Care to post links to that? Even the Bible says there were 4 Jesus' around at the time and it's well know it was a common name.

Many people shared the name. Christ’s given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus’ death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).

a reply to: cooperton

Stick to your sports flyers fan

I see you going for the moral high ground again Cooperton. Just like all the other bible quoting fantics here, you behave like children when someone doesn't accept faith as evidence or proof.
And these are the people who claim to have better morals and godliness compared to us heathens.
In my opinion FlayersFan seems to have a greater faith than most of you bible bashers, as they don't need to push pesudo-science to try and prove old wives tales as real history or ram scripture down people throats to show their devotion to cover their shaky belief.

originally posted by: Kurokage
Care to post links to that? Even the Bible says there were 4 Jesus' around at the time and it's well know it was a common name.

No he was definitely referring to Jesus of Nazareth

"for our Lord was born about the
forty-first year of the reign of Augustus"

link
Against Heresies, Ch 11

Comparing this with the Julian calendar we can get the approximate year of Christ's birth.

originally posted by: Kurokage
I see you going for the moral high ground again Cooperton. Just like all the other bible quoting fantics here, you behave like children when someone doesn't accept faith as evidence or proof.

Nah I am simply responding to the same condescension I receive from them. I know I should turn the other cheek, but God forgive me.

a reply to: cooperton

But still nearly 200 years after.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

But still nearly 200 years after.

It's a historical document lol, you all asked for historical evidence beyond the Bible, and there it is

a reply to: cooperton

It's a document written by a believer nearly 200 years after the fact, it's still a biased account of hearsay and nothing more. It's like saying 200 years ago there was guy who lived in London named Arthur. There's still no proof of the Jesus you're talking

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

It's a document written by a believer nearly 200 years after the fact, it's still a biased account of hearsay and nothing more. It's like saying 200 years ago there was guy who lived in London named Arthur. There's still no proof of the Jesus you're talking

This is a historical document that is evidence for the birth of Jesus. This is how history works

originally posted by: cooperton
It's a historical document lol, you all asked for historical evidence, and there it is

It's historical to it's time period as in it tells what the people of that time period believed. It is NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE and therefore it's not 'historical evidence' of Christ's birth.

Historical Document Read Here
Primary Sources Read Here

You are trying to claim secondary sources and tertiary sources are if they are primary sources and historical evidence of the event that they discuss. They are not. They are just commentaries on original sources, in this case the Gospels. The Gospels are the primary source and are the historical evidence - first hand eyewitness accounts. Your documents are secondary and only comment on the primary. They have no evidentiary value for the gospel narrative being true.

DItto the calendar. Secondary source. Maybe even tritiary. Not a primary source and therefore not 'historical evidence' of the gospels.

This is basic stuff. Every high school student understands this.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

You do know that BC/AD has been dropped don't you?

It's now BCE/CE

He forgot about it conveniently.

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: FlyersFan

You are trying to claim secondary sources and tertiary sources are if they are primary sources and historical evidence of the event that they discuss. They are not. They are just commentaries on original sources, in this case the Gospels. The Gospels are the primary source and are the historical evidence - first hand eyewitness accounts. Your documents are secondary and only comment on the primary. They have no evidentiary value for the gospel narrative being true.

I think the Football fan beat me to it for the reply Coop. Who would have thought someone missing their football would have a better understanding of what an historical document was than someone who thinks the bible is full of historical fact??

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

It's a document written by a believer nearly 200 years after the fact, it's still a biased account of hearsay and nothing more. It's like saying 200 years ago there was guy who lived in London named Arthur. There's still no proof of the Jesus you're talking

This is a historical document that is evidence for the birth of Jesus. This is how history works

No much evidence exists the Jesus of the Bible ever lived and was a real person. Same is true for his alleged miracles and resurrection from the dead or that he is the son of God. Christianity is more like a conspiracy theory and you need a great degree of irrationality to accept and believe the claims made in the Bible.

originally posted by: Kurokage
There's still no proof of the Jesus you're talking

As a person who believes in God and who has accepted the Jesus narrative I'll say it clearly so that there is no mistake ...

The proof of Christ is the gospels and new testament scripture. The proof of Christ is personal experience. The proof of Christ are the miracles that are investigated and authenticated. There is archaeological and historical proof that some of the places and people mentioned in the gospels existed and that certain events happened (like a solar eclipse at the time period of Christs death, the census, etc). This is enough for many and those people choose to believe it. For others it's not. All things considered, it's understandable that people choose not to believe it. There is a lot of deception in the world and I understand being careful.

As far as I'm concerned, trying to come up with more proof is just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I understand people get excited about faith but it just ends up looking desperate when things are invented like 'the calendar proves Christ existed'.

So that's the proof. Enough for some ... not enough for others.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: cooperton
It's a historical document lol, you all asked for historical evidence, and there it is

It's historical to it's time period as in it tells what the people of that time period believed. It is NOT a PRIMARY SOURCE and therefore it's not 'historical evidence' of Christ's birth.

Historical Document Read Here
Primary Sources Read Here

You are trying to claim secondary sources and tertiary sources are if they are primary sources and historical evidence of the event that they discuss. They are not. They are just commentaries on original sources, in this case the Gospels. The Gospels are the primary source and are the historical evidence - first hand eyewitness accounts. Your documents are secondary and only comment on the primary. They have no evidentiary value for the gospel narrative being true.

DItto the calendar. Secondary source. Maybe even tritiary. Not a primary source and therefore not 'historical evidence' of the gospels.

This is basic stuff. Every high school student understands this.

Secondary sources are still evidence though. There are also the primary sources of the New Testament, and a few secular accounts that are considered primary sources.

originally posted by: FlyersFan like 'the calendar proves Christ existed'.

Stop making up words for me. I said it is "historical evidence", which it is. Secondary sources are still evidence.

originally posted by: Kurokage
I think the Football fan beat me to it for the reply Coop.

Hockey hun. (I"m a girl, I can call you hun)

Who would have thought someone missing their football would have a better understanding of what an historical document was than someone who thinks the bible is full of historical fact??

cooperton doesn't know how to read the bible. The bible has history, teaching myths, poetry, parables, legends, prophecy, etc etc. Some is original. Some is "borrowed" and adapted by the Hebrews. It's a collection of 73 books by different authors in different time periods all with a different purpose. Its all supposed to be inspirational.

Now here's a rub ... cooperton also believes in the Book of Enoch which was condemned by those Catholics putting the bible together in 397AD. The Book of Enoch contradicts the bible and is just pseudopigrapha. But he believes it's historical. If one is historical, the other can not be.

originally posted by: cooperton
Secondary sources are still evidence though.

No, they are not historical evidence of the events. Read the information provided. This is high school stuff. You should know this.

There are also the primary sources of the New Testament,

Thats what I said. The ONLY primary source of information and therefore the only historical account is the gospels.

and a few secular accounts that are considered primary sources.

No. There are no primary source secular accounts.
The ONLY primary source eyewitness accounts are the gospels.
That's it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Now here's a rub ... cooperton also believes in the Book of Enoch which was condemned by those Catholics putting the bible together in 397AD. The Book of Enoch contradicts the bible and is just pseudopigrapha. But he believes it's historical. If one is historical, the other can not be.

Jude, a book in your Catholic (tm) approved Bible, quotes the book of Enoch:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Jude 1:14-15

Seems contradictory that you woud condemn the book of Enoch as heretical but have a quote from it in your approved Bible.

originally posted by: cooperton
Stop making up words for me. I said it is "historical evidence", which it is. Secondary sources are still evidence.

The calendar is not historical evidence.
It's secondary or tritiary .. not primary historical evidence.
Hang it up.

originally posted by: cooperton
Jude, a book in your Catholic (tm) approved Bible, quotes the book of Enoch. Seems contradictory that you woud condemn the book of Enoch as heretical but have a quote from it in your approved Bible.

The fact that there is a quote in the bible that matches closely to Enoch is IRRELEVANT to the fact that Enoch is CONDEMNED by Christianity because it is pseudopigrapha - written in the 200bc time period - and that it CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE. Both can't be true. It's got to be one or the other. It's just that simple.

Hang it up.