Eljay

“”don't think I quite understand what you mean by asking for proof that the people within the Bible did not exist without there being documentation outside of the bible. We have the writtings of Josephus which spoke of many of the people in the bible “”

Before my computer crashed I had the links that indicted that the writings attributed to Jesephus have been discredited. In fact there was some question as to whether Jesephus was actually what others proclaimed he was. I’ll try to find some of the links again.

“” - but why would we believe what he wrote any more than what Luke, or Mark, or Matthew wrote? “”

And you have any links that show the evidence that the apostles existed AND other than their own proclamations were who they said they were? In other words is there any verification beyond some text that says “Paul was here and he said”? Do we know who the Paul was that those texts refer to?


“”What's to say that the writings of Homer or Sophocles are any more authentic than the bible? How can we be sure that anything written about the crusades weren't fiction? “”
There is a massive amount of validated, collaborating, evidence that the crusades took place. Some of the stories may be embellished and some can not be proved, only hearsay or further embeleshment of another incident. But the evidence is available.

“”I don't quite understand the relevance behind your challenge to prove what is said in the bible by other means. “”

It was just a challenge intended to explain why a myth is a myth and not history.

“”We have the dead sea scrolls to substanciate Isaiah - about 700 bc (or bce for the politically correct) as to the original writing - but I don't think there were a lot of books written at the time to give us proof that Isaiah existed outside of the bible itself.””

Whoever wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, had a different perspective of what the Bible calls the teachings of Jesus. It’s obvious that this person had dealings with Christians or Jews/to be Christians, and therefore, mentioning anyone from that past faith would not substantiate it. It would be basically be the same thing as saying – Well we have the all these different versions of the Bible, isn’t that substantiation? NO!

“” So does that mean Isaiah was a mythical character? “”

People have lived on this earth a long time. We unearth their remains all the time, but what we know of them is what we know of their remains. Sometimes we find other information with the remains that may even have a link to information previously discovered and so on, until we have enough ‘evidence’ to prove ‘a fact’. It may be a simple fact or it may be a revelation.

When we consider the relevancy and majesty of some of the Biblical stories, we have to believe that there is evidence out there. Considering the thousands of years in which the Bible stories take place and the number of “major” events surrounding people considered by others to have such great status, it just seems likely that there would be some finds to support the events and the people.

After all, we DO KNOW Pilot existed – We also have access to much knowledge about him and how he lived and how he ruled. There is much written and currently archived about the people he had contact with, and conflict with – it just seems odd that something a major and mystical as the whole Jesus story would have been documented.

well of course jesus existed as a human being, as did pilot and all the emperors
most likeley there were multiple people over a series of ceturies saying what he said and what the previous "saviors" said. the same kinda collaborative legend as robin hood

oh and voil the 19 in my name comes from the dark tower stories by stephen king (19 is a magic number)

Is the Holy Bible the Word of God? All of us need to know. A person’s very salvation can depend upon it.

Numerous books have been written supposedly to prove its validity. Some try to demonstrate it through prophecy, others through doctrine, and still others resort to pure emotionalism. Emotionalism is weak evidence. But while the other factors can help demonstrate the Bible’s credibility, there is one major proof that predominates over all others. It is the witness of Christ himself. If Christ can be proved, that is, if proof can be shown that he was who he said he was, that will go a long way in proving the Bible itself. Let us look at this important proof.

Are the Gospels Truthful?
We wish to stress the importance of Christ’s witness in the matter of the Old and New Testament canon. The central proof of the Bible is Christ. How do we know that the Christ of the Gospels is divine—that he is actually the Son of the Living God, and especially that he was resurrected from the dead?

If the Gospels are reliable, then no further proof should be needed. But are the Gospels and their witness true? Frankly, they need to be put to the test. There is nothing irreverent in this at all (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We need to apply to them the same basic rules to which scholars subject all other literature in order to prove its reliability.

There are four major rules for proving the credibility of documents. One, was the writer of the document an eyewitness to the events he records or was he at least a contemporary that lived in the same area of the events? Two, were there other independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence? Three, did those witnesses continue to maintain their testimonies until death—even to the jeopardy of their lives? Four, were there also hostile witnesses who would have reason not to believe the evidence but still say the events occurred? If all of these four factors are in solid evidence, then reliability becomes very acceptable. With the New Testament documents, we have all four evidences in a firm position for credibility.

Let us apply the first rule that the author must have been an eyewitness to the events.

The Gospel of Matthew, for example, was composed not much longer than a generation after the death of Christ, at a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection were still alive. Matthew himself had lived through the events he describes. That is contemporaneity. And it guarantees to us reliable testimony. Let us see why.

Suppose a writer in the Year 1970 wrote that a major prophet less than forty years before had gone throughout New York State, working so many miracles that thousands followed him from place to place; and that in Times Square, on July 4, 1935, when huge crowds of people were present, that same prophet had been executed at the behest of the government and the people of New York.

If such a thing had happened back in 1935, there would still be many thousands of witnesses alive to attest to it.

But on the other hand, if such an event never happened, could any living historian, writer, or journalist invent such a fallacious story, send it to the people of New York City, tell them to depend on its veracity with their lives, and persuade them to believe it? Of course not!

But Matthew did not have to fabricate the life of Christ. According to ancient testimony, he wrote out his account and sent it to the people of Judea—the very people who had witnessed Christ’s activities—within forty years of His crucifixion. If these things really did not happen as Matthew said, then Matthew and the other Gospel writers were leaving themselves open to real and dangerous criticism.

The Jews of Judea, of all peoples, would have known whether thousands had followed Jesus around the country. They knew whether or not the people of Jerusalem had used pressure upon the Roman authorities to crucify Him. Yet many of them—especially those in Jerusalem—came to believe the Christian message. They even became willing to give their lives for its truth. This fact alone is strong critical reason for accepting Matthew’s Gospel as relating substantial truth.

Other Testimonies
The second rule involves the having of independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of an author.

The execution of Jesus Christ was not done in a corner with just a few witnesses around to testify to it. On the contrary, Josephus tells us that at least two million people used to gather every year around Jerusalem at the Passover season (the time when Christ’s crucifixion took place) (Wars, 6. 9. 3).

The more people there were to witness the event the more difficult it would become to invent and falsify matters. Christ’s death and his subsequent rejection by his own disciples became a well-known matter. The fact of many witnesses is a substantial safeguard to the veracity of the written records.

Now notice the importance of this. Not only was Matthew’s Gospel written when many thousands who could witness to its truth were still alive, but nearly twenty one other New Testament books were composed before 68 C.E.—within thirty-seven years of Christ’s death. Our World War I ended just over fifty years ago, yet thousands upon thousands of witnesses are still alive to testify to that holocaust. In 68 C.E. there would have been thousands of persons still living who had witnessed those earlier events in Jerusalem at the time of Christ.

Actually, with twenty-one of the New Testament books written within 37 years of Christ’s activities, we can call all these books contemporary records. These documents were written when there were still many witnesses to the events.

The Witness of the Apostles
The third rule concerns continued belief—even until death. Could any believe that the Gospel writers were consistently lying (a vice which they utterly condemned), yet they were remarkably willing to give up their lives for the "lies" which they were propagating? It might be imagined that one or two might lie (I am speaking humanly), but that every one of the apostles plus hundreds of others were liars is untenable.

It is related in the Gospel of Mark—a Gospel which was inspired by Peter’s preaching—as can be demonstrated—that Peter and all the apostles fled as cowards from the crucifixion scene. They did not remain anywhere in the vicinity of the Jewish and Roman authorities. And while we may doubt that they rejoiced to record their own cowardly display, this defection and flight of Christ’s key men was not a hidden matter. Let us see how their defection becomes an amazing testimony to the truth of Christ’s resurrection three days later.

The Law commanded the whole Jewish nation to celebrate three seasons with great solemnity: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Almost invariably, the same people who journeyed to Jerusalem at Passover would be back there for the next festival. Therefore, Christ had directed his apostles to wait in Jerusalem until the Feast of Pentecost. One reason was to have the same Passover crowd who earlier had been present at the crucifixion back in Jerusalem fifty days later.

This time, those multitudes were to witness something different. They were no longer to witness a cowardly flight of Christ’s disciples. This time the people in Jerusalem would observe a display of such power and conviction by those once-afraid disciples, that nothing could humanly account for it.

These disciples, who had been terrified of that same crowd just fifty days earlier, now stood in the midst of them, each man witnessing with assurance and dynamic conviction to Christ’s resurrection. None was fearful for his own personal life.

The Book of Acts makes this plain. And, should there be someone who would question the reliability of this document, it should be noted that the Book of Acts was written within forty years after the first Pentecost—an event which took place in the midst of thousands of people in Jerusalem. The Book of Acts, in regard to literary criticism, is a contemporary document—written at a time when thousands of witnesses were still alive. There can be no doubt that Luke’s record in Acts is definitely reliable.

What needs to be noticed is the change of attitude in Christ’s apostles in those fifty short days. These men no longer feared the Romans. They no longer feared the Jews. They no longer doubted Christ’s mission, nor the fact of his resurrection. All eleven of the original apostles were consistent in their teaching. Is it possible to believe that they were all lying? The understanding of basic human psychology suffices against our believing that eleven individual men could one after another deceptively tell a crowd they once feared that Christ was now alive from the dead. They were jeopardizing their lives before that crowd by preaching Christ’s resurrection.

The Church Begins
Historians agree that the Christian church began on that Pentecost Day in the First Century. It is also well known that the Christian message began to be preached not long afterward around the world. The growth of the Christian church gained strong momentum by the end of the First Century. Thousands upon thousands from all nationalities were beginning to accept the central truth of Christianity—the fact of the resurrection of Christ.

This rapid spread of belief in Christ’s resurrection can only be accounted for by the astounding enthusiasm that must have been manifested by the first propagators. Are we to imagine that the Christian message could have grown so quickly if the original witnesses to the resurrection showed no emotion nor real conviction in the matter?

Peter continued to live for at least thirty-five years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and so did many of the other apostles. Could the message have grown without all the apostles’ continued conviction in that resurrection? Of course not. One thing must be admitted if nothing else: the people were convinced that the apostles were convinced.

Paul tells us that not only were the original eleven apostles witnesses that Christ was resurrected, but also over five hundred others saw him as well (1 Corinthians 15:6). Paul put out the challenge to people in 55 C.E. to go to Jerusalem and look up some of those five hundred for themselves. Even after a period for reflection of twenty-four years (in 55 C.E.) there were many in Jerusalem who still believed that Christ rose from the dead. If what Paul wrote was a lie, then he was leaving himself wide open to censure.

The Apostle Paul
The fourth rule for reliability concerns hostile witnesses. Did those who wished not to believe the evidence—even though they were there when it happened—still admit that it was a fact? Paul, among others, was such a witness. What was his belief concerning Christ’s resurrection?

Paul himself figures very prominently in proving the fact of Christ’s resurrection. Since all scholars are prepared to accept at least ten of Paul’s Epistles to be genuine, let us bring him forth as a witness. The rules of literary criticism show him to be reliable, for Paul wrote at a time when many of his statements could easily have been checked for their accuracy and truth.

Now look at Paul. He was a chief, if not the chief, antagonist of the Church in its very beginnings. The High Priest (the top ecclesiastical man in the Judaic nation) had personally given Paul the responsibility for exterminating the Christian church. And Paul went about his task, according to his own words, with fanatic zeal. He could appropriately be called the Adolf Eichmann of his day in his effort to overthrow the Church.

In that first period, before Paul’s conversion, there was no one more convinced of the non-resurrection of Christ than he. No one was more determined to disprove it. Paul also had many of the elders in the Jewish nation behind him. All of them had "theological" arguments against Christ’s resurrection. The practical and logical evidences did not shake their "theological" minds.

At first, Paul was vehemently against the practical evidence. His mind was closed to any acceptance of it. He must have used every intellectual argument to dispute the possibility of the resurrection which thousands of humble, practical-minded Christians were accepting.

Yet, what was the final belief of Paul? This is where he becomes a vital witness to the truth of the resurrection miracle and the divinity of Christ.

Paul, according to his own later testimony, while on the road to Damascus with authority from the High Priest to apprehend Christians, had his mind changed. It was a miracle that did it, but in a single day, this man of lofty intellect came to believe the practical evidence. And when the practical side became evident, his well-trained mind finally came to accept the abundant "intellectual" proofs found in the Old Testament.

From that day forward, Paul never turned back. Until the day he was executed for his beliefs, he steadfastly maintained his faith in Christ and the reality of Christ’s resurrection. Although it took a miracle to open his eyes, Paul finally became its chief exponent and propagator.

With Paul’s uncompromising acceptance, the proof of the resurrection becomes overwhelming. Here was a man who understood Judaic theology thoroughly. And not only was he trained in Judaism, but being born and reared in Tarsus of Asia Minor, the center of Stoic philosophy, he was well acquainted with the classical works of Gentiles. With the world’s knowledge in his mind—and most of it would have been very critical knowledge—he would have been one of the most unlikely persons to accept the resurrection of Christ. Yet he did accept the practical and intellectual proofs of this greatest of miracles.

He became so fervent in this belief that it was said he "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Everyone who came in contact with Paul was certainly assured that he was convinced of this major proof of Christianity. Because of Paul’s firm conviction and that of the other apostles, the Roman world became convinced of the legitimacy of Christ’s resurrection in a short three hundred years.

Surely, all this provable history demonstrates that the evidence unanimously supports the fact of Christ’s resurrection. No wonder Christ gave the resurrection sign as a major sign to the world that He was the Messiah. This is the one event that is so provable, by all human standards, that it takes little faith to believe it.

What This Means Towards Proving the Bible
The foregoing evidence of Christ’s resurrection proves that Christ must have been representative of a power that we can only call the God of the Universe. He must have been divine. Once forced to that conclusion, we are also constrained, by sheer reason, to accept the validity of Christ’s statements.

Thus, when Christ defined for us that the Old Testament was composed of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44), His definition must be accepted. This is the exact division of the Old Testament that the Jews today accept as their official Scriptures. This means the Book of Esther (which many want to reject today) must be an inspired work because it occurs inside that Tripartite Division sanctioned by Christ. Esther is as inspired as Genesis or Isaiah.

Once Christ has been proved, then Joshua’s long day, the opening of the Red Sea and the creation of man must all be reckoned as having actually occurred. All of these events are in the Old Testament canon that Christ said was "the Scriptures" in Luke 24:45. All the books of that canon must be acknowledged as truthful once Christ has been proved.

Also, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament which witness to the truth of Christ’s resurrection must be acknowledged as containing essential truths.

The evidence of Christ and his divinity is not the only proof of the Bible, but it is the essential part.

i already argued with spider about that stuff so im not even going to start again and derail the topic, BUT your long post there only further proves my theory of multigenerational brainwashing

I don't see how feralcatlady's post could possibly be seen as a derailment. Her post directly addresses the topic at hand. The topic is "Could it be that Jesus Christ is another mythical god". Her post is speaking to the credibility of the Gospels, which if credible, they refute the theory that Jesus is just another sun god.

So....Good post feralcatlady!

lizard......God bless ya lad but you honestly don't have a clue.

Spider I hug and kiss your cheek.......

You know ppl Im not hear to fight....just give you what the Lord asks of me...What you do with it is up to you.......But remember it is not the Bible that makes you evil...It is however, Satan....and most people are playing right into his hands. So be it....your choice, that is why God gave man free will......

And again I say to you, if you beleve not in Satan then I respond with look around at the world, see the evil, know that when God banned Satan for 2000 years, he did so with a purpose only God knows. But guess what folks....he's back and on a mission to have your souls.....again your choice.....also I say to you....What do you have to loose.....but oh what you could gain.

Isn't it all just perspective?
If I want to prove a point I'll go and find anything to prove it, and by the same token find anything to disprove any counter argument.
It all depends on what I want to believe and what not.

FeralCatLady :
_____________________________________________________

It would be impossible to date the appearance of the gospels based on the extant manuscripts, since the autographs or originals were destroyed long ago, an act that would ny the way appear to be the epitome of blasphemy, were these texts truly the precious testimonials by the Lord's very disciples themselves.

Although a minuscule bit of papyrus (Rylands) dating to the middle of the second century has been identified speculatively as part of "John's Gospel" (18:31-33), the oldest fragments conclusively demonstrated as coming from the canonical gospels date to the 3rd century. The two verses of "John's Gospel," comprising only about 60 words, could easily be part of another, non-canonical gospel, of which there were numerous in the first centuries of the Christian era.

That such texts contained verses paralleling those found in the canonical gospels is known from the writings of Justin Martyr, for example, who quotes from a number of them.

In reality, the four gospels selected for inclusion in the New Testament do not make any appearance in the literary and archaeological record until the last quarter of the 2nd century, between 170 and 180 ce, and even then they are not much mentioned for a couple of decades. In this regard, Church father and archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) stated that the names traditionally attached to the canonical gospels were first designated at the end of the second century.

The orthodox dating, of course, attempts to put the gospels a century earlier, between 70 and 110 ce. However, it should be kept in mind that the current mainstream dating was heretical when first propagated, over 150 years ago, causing apoplexy in the faithful, who believed the texts were composed shortly after Jesus's death. Over the centuries, because of increasingly scientific scholarship, the date of the canonical gospels has been continually pushed to later decades, as it has long been accepted that there is absolutely no evidence, internal or external, for such an early date.

The early dating is mere wishful thinking on the part of those who truly believe that Jesus Christ existed and that his words, deed and life were faithfully recorded by eyewitnesses, i.e., his disciples. Such a scenario is not reality, however, and the most scholarship can offer in bending the dates to fit the alleged advent of Jesus Christ in the time of Herod is that the gospels were composed during the last decades of the first century. The internal evidence cited for this "late" a date is that the gospel writers were aware of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Therefore, Mark, considered by most mainstream authorities to be the earliest of the gospels, could not have been written any earlier than 70 ce. The others followed, with John appearing perhaps as late as 110 ce. That is where mainstream scholarship ends. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the gospels are conspicuously absent from the writings of the Church fathers and apologists until the end of the second century.

Also, keep in mind that average life expectancy before the health transition of the modern era is thought to have varied between about 25 years and 35-40 years. As a reference, life expectancy in the United States in 1900 was 47 years. It is therefore very unlikely any of your "thousands" of witnesses was still alive by the time the bible was actually written.
_________________________________________________

Skiddo.......

I was wondering where the heck you were...lol As I don't have time to point counterpoint ever issue of your thread right this moment...I will just say be ready cuz I will be back to do so later....

MUAHHHAAA

Redykeulous
_________________________________________

Horus'mother, Isis, was indeed married to Osiris. But after the authority of Thebes had risen, and made Amun into a much more significant god, it later waned, and Amun was assimilated into Ra. In consequence, Amun's consort, Mut, the doting, infertile, and implicitly virginal mother, who by this point had absorbed other goddesses herself, was assimilated into Ra's wife, Isis-Hathor as Mut-Isis-Nekhbet. On occasion, Mut's infertility and IMPLICIT VIRGINITY was taken into consideration, and so Horus, who was too significant to ignore, had to be explained by saying that ISIS BECAME PREGNANT WITH MAGIC, when she transformed herself into a kite and flew over Osiris' dead body.

Interesting imagery from Luxor Temple explaining this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LuxorAmenhetep.gif

Also, iconography provides some clues. Scholars believe that Isis worship in late Roman times was an influence behind Catholic development of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

>>>> Evidence suggests that this precisely allowed the Catholic Church to absorb a huge number of converts who had formerly believed in Isis, and would not have converted unless Catholicism offered them an "Isis-like" female focus for their faith.

Iconographically the similarities between the seated Isis holding or suckling the child Horus (Harpocrates) and the seated Mary and the baby Jesus are apparent. :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/MaryAndHorus.JPG

Late Roman beliefs regarding the attributes of Isis are almost identical to early Church beliefs regarding Mary. Though the Virgin Mary is not worshiped (only venerated) in Catholicism, her role as a merciful virginal mother figure has parallels with the role formerly played by Isis, while the absolute VENERATION of Mary in Orthodox and even Anglican tradition is often overlooked.

__________________________________

headaches and more headcahes

Inclusion of Facts That Only the Contemporaries of Jesus Would Have Known

We will confine our discussion to Luke and John, since these Gospels are the most generous in noting historical and geographical details.

As we said earlier, the Gospel of Luke was originally combined with Acts in a single work. The author, Luke the physician, was a careful and conscientious historian. The accuracy of Acts led one eminent archaeologist at the turn of the century—Sir William Ramsay—to become a believer in Christ. Through his extensive excavations in Asia Minor, Ramsay himself made many discoveries showing the historical reliability of Acts. Ramsay concluded,

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident.

One of many striking confirmations of Luke's accuracy is his use of titles. The many titles that he brings into his narrative would, if he were careless or uninformed, most certainly give rise to errors. He notes that when pagan opponents of Christianity rioted in Ephesus, there was more than one proconsul of Asia (Acts 19:38). Sergius Paullus appears in Luke's history as "proconsul of Cyprus" (Acts 13:7) and Gallio as "proconsul of Achaia" (Acts 18:12), although the province was ordinarily known as Greece. The local authorities in Ephesus are "Asiarchs" (Acts 19:31). The magistrates of Philippi are "praetors" and their assistants "lictors" (Acts 16:20, 35), but the magistrates of Thessalonica are "politarchs" (Acts 17:6). The chief official of Malta is protos—first man of the island (Acts 28:7). Herod Antipas, known to his subjects as a king, is designated a "tetrarch" (Luke 3:1). And Lysanias is called "tetrarch of Abilene" (Luke 3:1). All these names and titles have been verified as correct, in some instances by archaeological discoveries within the last century (7). Luke's accuracy is all the more remarkable when we consider the difficulty of his task. Roman political titles were in a constant state of flux. Moreover, a writer in antiquity could not check his facts by going to a local library.

Perhaps the most interesting book ever written on the historicity of Acts is James Smith's The Voyage and Shipwreck of Saint Paul, first published in 1848. Smith, himself a skilled mariner who retraced Paul's voyage from Jerusalem to Rome, showed that Luke's account of this voyage must be altogether authentic, for the writer is accurate in his use of nautical terms, and the events he relates correspond perfectly to ancient sailing methods, the capacities of ancient ships, and the conditions of wind and weather in the Mediterranean (8).

The only reasonable conclusions are (1) that the Book of Acts must have been written by an eyewitness of the events he reports, and (2) that the author was a stickler for accuracy. According to the traditional view that the author was Luke, the accuracy of the narrative is easily explained. The writer was an eyewitness of most events following chapter 16, and for prior events he took his account from the lips of Paul. If Luke is a trustworthy historian in the Book of Acts, he must also be a trustworthy historian in the Gospel bearing his name.

The Gospel of John is likewise imbued with an accurate knowledge of circumstances. The author was obviously a Jew, for he had a thorough understanding of Jewish laws and customs (9). He was a Palestinian, for he had a good grasp of traveling routes and times (John 4:3-5, for example), as well as an exact recollection of many places, some of them quite obscure (10). These include Bethabara (John 1:28), Galilee (John 1:43 et al.), Bethsaida (John 1:44 et al.), Nazareth (John 1:45 et al.), Cana of Galilee (John 2:1 et al.), Capernaum (John 2:12 et al.), Judaea (John 3:22 et al.), Aenon near Salim, a place of "much water," an allusion to the many springs found there (John 3:23), Samaria (John 4:4 et al.), Sychar (John 4:5), Joseph's field (John 4:5), Jacob's well (John 4:6), "this mountain" in Samaria—that is, Mount Gerizim (John 4:20-21), the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2), the Sea of Galilee (John 6:1), Tiberias (John 6:1 et al.), the Mount of Olives (John 8:1), the treasury of the Temple (John 8:20), the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7 et al.), Solomon's Porch (John 10:23), Bethany (John 11:1 et al.), Ephraim (John 11:54), the brook Cedron (John 18:1), the garden where Jesus was arrested (John 18:1 et al.), the "palace" (better, "court") of the high priest (John 18:15), the door of the same court (John 18:16), Pilate's hall of judgment—literally, "the Praetorium" (John 18:28), the Pavement, or Gabbatha (John 19:13), the place of a skull, or Golgotha (John 19:17), the garden where Jesus was buried (John 19:41), and finally, the Sea of Tiberias—another name for the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1).

The author of John must have resided in Palestine before the wholesale destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, for in describing certain buildings that were later obliterated, he notices specific details. For example, he says that the Pool of Bethesda had five porticos (John 5:2) and that Pilate held court at an outdoor platform called Lithostrotos in Latin and Gabbatha in Aramaic (John 19:13). Although these assertions have not been absolutely confirmed by archaeology, they have survived the critical knife, and today they are regarded as very plausible.

Furthermore, the author of John was most certainly a contemporary of Jesus, for as he sketches the political environment of the Crucifixion, he furnishes information missing from the Synoptics. He tells us that in the year of Jesus' death, Caiaphas, the high priest, shared power with Annas, his father-in-law (John 18:13, 24). Luke, the only other Gospel writer who mentions Annas, says only that he was a high priest along with Caiaphas (Luke 3:1; Acts 4:6). The additional facts that John supplies are corroborated to some extent by Josephus's history of the period. Josephus, the great Jewish historian active in the late first century, records that Annas was a high priest with no less than five sons who succeeded him to the same office (12). It is probable that he means "son" in a sense inclusive of son-in-law. The continuing prominence of Annas's family suggests that Annas himself indeed retained his title and his influence for many years after he formally vacated the office of high priest.

I would also suggest to once again read the bible as to note the age of death of the men of bible. There life span was much greater then by now standards. Now also understand something else. God speaks to people now some 2000 years later so time isn't really a factor to the matter

And also for you to ponder:


Which I think pretty much blows your age theories out the door.

Longevity from Adam to Moses
Name Born at Fathering LifeSpan Died at...
Age
Adam 0 130 930 930
Seth 130 105 912 1042
Enosh 235 90 905 1140
Enoch 622 65 895 1290
Noah 1056 502 950 2006
Abraham 2008 100 175 2183
Isaac* 2108 60 180 2288
Jacob 2168 70 147 2315
Moses 2433 120 2553

Eljay,


I wrote:
"Faith is faith and fact is fact"


You wrote:
Ah.... the voice of reason. Your entire post - bravo! Thank you for bringing the thread back on track. Or at least for the attempt.

Thanks my friend.
... too bad no one else read it!!!

:)

feralcatlady i actually do know know what im talking about i just tend 2 distort it with my opinions n expieriences

Im the psychotic lefts evangelical! YEEEHAAAW!!!

feralcatlady i actually do know know what im talking about i just tend 2 distort it with my opinions n expieriences

Im the psychotic lefts evangelical! YEEEHAAAW!!!

no its not possible that christ is just another myth.

Rambutt, it is,
from where I'm standing it has to be.

Just stoppin by to say hello to my friends...

Spider...Love & respect as always

Lonely Walker

heart: Love & hugs to you

same to you ... El Jay...

Excellent post, Bro


Feral Cat Lady...

Love, respect & support to you too...


Hi Lizard King

Invisible

Vanessa