Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Blood, I am not an apologist, but basically an atheist & humanist and not religious in any ways. And I said it on the internet (under my own true name) and to my friends. My own studies on how Christianity started convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is a humongous fraud...

I think the History channels are getting desperate about finding new interesting topics. They are doing now programs on FUTURE history :consternation: :lol: , such as an apocalypse happening in 2060. Now, as it seems, because of a complete lack of evidence, they are going into (total) FICTIONAL hist...

I suspect Mt 12:16-21 to be an early interpolation (as for the two accounts of Jesus reappearances at the end of the gospel, including the so-called commission to the Gentiles). Mt 12: 16-21 appears also to be an out-of-context insertion. And why would "Matthew" digress here and write favo...

A few things I overlooked in Kapyong's post: These do seem to argue against a mythical Jesus, but they are, as you say, 'bits and pieces' - unclear and controversial. I think it is clear enough and the controversy comes from mythicists who cannot accept them because, by definition, these 'bits and p...

According to the flesh - remember what Doherty said - 2 characteristics of Christ - one in flesh, one in spirit, with the flesh being the sub-lunar realm. Doherty is not God and the final Word. In Galatians 4:29 Darby "But as then he [Ishmael] that was born according to flesh ['kata sarka', th...

Bernard Muller wrote: Myth 3: I think the mention of "the brother of Jesus, him called christ, whose name is James" in Josephus Ant. is authentic. Mythicists' attempts to explain it away do not make sense. Such explanations "do not make sense"? What kind of moron do you take you...

The ten myths are : Myth 1 - The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous Myth 2 - Jesus was wildly famous - but ... Myth 3 - Ancient Historian Josephus wrote about Jesus Myth 4 - Eye-witnesses wrote the Gospels Myth 5 - The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus Myth 6 - History confirms the G...

No longer can Acts be assumed to be historical unless proven otherwise. Rather, the burden of proof has shifted. Acts must be considered non-historical unless proven otherwise. This is the cumulative result of the accomplishments noted above. That's wishful thinking from the Acts Seminar. Actually,...

Here are two of my blog posts about the Acts Seminar conclusions: http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Historical-Jesus-Blo-b1/75-Did-the-author-of-Acts-knew-about-Paul-s-epistles-as-the-Westar-Acts-Seminar-contends-b1-p80.htm and http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Historical-Jesus-Blo-b1/76-Argum...

I don't believe in Q. I suppose you do. How would you convince a skeptic of Q? I have a webpage supporting Q as an independent document compiled from several authors around 80 CE. The Q people knew about gMark and a lot of Q is about rewriting, elaborating, extrapolating on, complementing and embel...