Christianity is Ridiculous...

[Anguspure]

A poor example, because Alexander the Great was written about by contemporaries. Jesus wasn't.

What evidence do you have that Jesus wasn't written about by contempories?
Peter wrote:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2 Peter 1:16 (NIV)

There is no evidence what so ever to suggest that this statement is anything other than true.

[Chris the Chees]

What evidence do you have that Jesus wasn't written about by contempories?

Where to begin?

Firstly, let's deal with Peter. Scholarship on the authorship of the two books has shown that the author of book 1 and book 2 were not the same person. Furthermore the epistle was written between 100-150 Ad, precluding the possibility of it being written by an actual eye witness.

For your edification:

2 Peter

And of course the accounts of Jesus' life are the gospels, widely held by Christians to be eye witness accounts, with the exception of the author of Luke who informs us elsewhere that he is an historian. Of course, in reality, we know that none of the gospels are eye witness accounts because of the dates in which they produced. Mark is, without doubt, the first of the gospels to have been produced, we know this because the others plaigarise Mark, Matthew in particular.

Scholarly analysis of Mark shows that the book was written at some point during, or after, the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, precluding a date of before 70 A.D. This relies on us believing that an eye witness be several decades older than the typical life expectancy of people living in the region during that period. We can also see, through reading Mark, that the author clearly has no grasp of the geography of Palestine that you would have us believe he travelled with Christ.

Gospel of Mark

So Mark wasn't written by an eye witness, we know that Matthew is based on Mark, so the author wasn't a contemporary either. Luke, also the author of Acts, freely admits to being a historian, and John was written a good 90/100 years (at the earliest) after the events it described, so not a first hand account either.

There is no evidence what so ever to suggest that this statement is anything other than true.

While you may believe that, reality suggests otherwise. See above.

[finder]

A poor example, because Alexander the Great was written about by contemporaries. Jesus wasn't.

Mark, Peter, Matthew were all contemporaries.

[Chris the Chees]

Mark, Peter, Matthew were all contemporaries.

I debunked this in my previous post.

[finder]

I debunked this in my previous post.

Site your source or you haven't debunked a thing, you merely stated unsubstantiated opinion.

[Anguspure]

Where to begin?

Indeed, where to begin?

And of course the accounts of Jesus' life are the gospels, widely held by Christians to be eye witness accounts, with the exception of the author of Luke who informs us elsewhere that he is an historian. Of course, in reality, we know that none of the gospels are eye witness accounts because of the dates in which they produced. Mark is, without doubt, the first of the gospels to have been produced, we know this because the others plaigarise Mark, Matthew in particular. Scholarly analysis of Mark shows that the book was written at some point during, or after, the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, precluding a date of before 70 A.D.

Besides the well known idea that Mark was conveying Peter's story of Jesus doing nothing to dispel the contemporaneous nature of the account, wouldn't the fact that the events that occured in 70 AD are not confirmed, inspite of the oblique prophetic references, indicate that the writing of the account took place before these events could be confirmed.

The ignorant have attemted this sort of thing with the writings of Daniel and Isaiah before and it looks silly.

The fact that Mathew uses similiar methods and constructs to convey the same message does nothing to dispel the contemporaneous nature of his account either after all the early beleivers :

were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Acts 4:32-33 (NIV)

It is only to be expected that the various accounts, aimed at different audiences contain strong similarities where they are in agreement but conversely, and in line with the genuine nature of the Authors, also contain differences of perspective.

We can also see, through reading Mark, that the author clearly has no grasp of the geography of Palestine that you would have us believe he travelled with Christ.

So now in order to convey the importance of Christ Crucified and ressurected one must be geographically adept. Does that also disqualify James May from talking about carrots to you.
Besides this, is an author expected to fill in all of the details of all the geographic movements of the people in their story before it may be considered as a true account. It would seem that you are confusing truth with completeness. The gospels do not claim to be a complete account:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25 (NIV)

but rather a true account:

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
John 21:24 (NIV)

Firstly, let's deal with Peter. Scholarship on the authorship of the two books has shown that the author of book 1 and book 2 were not the same person.

Peter was reported to be blind at the time of his crucifixion. Perhaps different people wrote in his name, conveying his intentions at different times.
This does nothing to dispel the authority under which the letters where written, nor does it dispel the truth of the claims made.

Furthermore the epistle was written between 100-150 Ad, precluding the possibility of it being written by an actual eye witness.

If you are a balanced reader you will also be aware of reputable scholars who strongly disagree with this assertion.

When the New Testament was written is a significant issue, as one assembles the overall argument for Christianity. Confidence in the historical accuracy of these documents depends partly on whether they were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to the events described, as the Bible claims. Negative critical scholars strengthen their own views as they separate the actual events from the writings by as much time as possible. For this reason radical scholars argue for late first century, and if possible second century, dates for the autographs [original manuscripts]. By these dates they argue that the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, contain mythology. The writers created the events contained, rather than reported them.
Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)

The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former account' of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1). The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah,' and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.

If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:
Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

It would appear that once the reality of different perceptions is examined the truth remains.

[Americanbychoic]

You:

"that humanity cannot explain the circumstances of the virgin birth, or Christ's rising does not challenge in any durable way that such happened."

And again... This is that which is said to be the action of the Creator of Nature... Thus there's nothing super-natural about it. Your claim is that because you didn't see it, or that you've seen no evidence of it, that such is impossible.

I'm saying that your ingnorance of something does not negate it's existence... that's hardly a debatable point.

Given what you allege him to have done, it should do. St. Paul didn't do any of the things claimed of jesus, he was just an itinerant preacher who lived and travelled in the same region as Jesus is alleged to have done, and we have plenty of evidence for him.

Well I guess when ya kill'em before they can really get traction... ya tend to cleanse 'em. My guess is that where they decided to kill him, they did so as a means to 'get rid of him'... I can't see that they'd then go through a ton of effort documenting what he did.

It follows that such was in large measure the reason for the writing of the gospels. Which you reject as evidence.

See THE PROBLEM...

But you and I aren't deities walking among humanity, casting out demons, healing the sick, feeding the masses, predicting the future, formers of a major religious sect, political and religious radicals, and defiers of death.

It is quite a hard act to follow, and very odd that nobody, not one of the chronicnlers of the day who lived in the same region, thought to make even a passing note of it.

Well we don't know that a chronicler didn't chronicle such... we only know that thus far such chroniclin' hasn't been found. It follows that where the Emporer fashioned himself a deity, such would be resistent to the idea that there is another deity running around out in the desert doing things he can't do... odds are that he wouldn't appreciate those chronicling such; which given their power, chronicling such was likely not treated with the same respect such would get today. I'm sure you'd have nothing but the HIGHEST regard for the modern chronicler that chronicled such 'miracles'.

[Americanbychoic]

I debunked this in my previous post.

Did ya?

I didn't really see much in the way of evidence, looked more like baseless assertions to me.

No doubt you'll follow up with sound references from valid resources...

[iolo]

Hmmm,

Now Genesis seems to be the topic... So I think its appropriate to ask about the striking similarities between the genesis of Genesis and the the theory known as "The Big Bang".

" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light...."

In otherwords, there was darkness; God commanded the light and "BANG" ... light. And it was good...

Now some might write it differently, particularly those whose understanding is advanced through 5000 years of human experience... but in essence, it is remarkably close to that which Einstein concluded...

How are the Anti-theist dealing with this these days?

What does this typical tribal creation-myth have to do with Christianity though?

[iolo]

I think an extraordinary number of Americans make a huge category-mistake and confusedly suppose the interesting - indeed fascinating - collection of documents contained in the Bible as having the same sort of 'meaning' as experimental science. This is, actually, a fairly modern heresy, and I wish I could recall its name. Surely we should read old documents for what we can get out of them in terms of decent behaviour?

[Americanbychoic]

What does this typical tribal creation-myth have to do with Christianity though?

Oh, just noting how the typical tribes got so close to Einstein's thesis, that's all...

Which is not too shabby for a bunch of hay-seed goat-herders making crap up; assuming of course that such is one's point of view.

[Americanbychoic]

I think an extraordinary number of Americans make a huge category-mistake and confusedly suppose the interesting - indeed fascinating - collection of documents contained in the Bible as having the same sort of 'meaning' as experimental science. This is, actually, a fairly modern heresy, and I wish I could recall its name. Surely we should read old documents for what we can get out of them in terms of decent behaviour?

Yeah... stuff like sound principle. Things like that. Principle not being subject to antiquity and all...