Redemption: Being saved or born again

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have an excuse for everything huh?

The dating of the Book of Daniel is not my "excuse".

For someone who has not even read the bible that is pretty hilarious. Who do you think it was written for?

To use a phrase, "Here is one I wrote earlier"

No apologies for formatting it was written in Word.

From the entry on the Book of Daniel in HarperCollins Bible Dictionary [ed Paul J Achtemeir]

Chaps. 1-6 are stories set at the Babylonian and Persian courts, narrated in the third person. Chapters. 7-12 are apocalyptic revelations, narrated in the first person. The Greek translations include certain additions accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic church: the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children in chapter 3 and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon in additional chapters. Also, the oldest Greek translation has a text that differs greatly from the Aramaic in chapters 4-6, and that may be closer to the original in some respects. Even within the twelve chapters of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible there are signs of composite authorship. l: l; 2:4a and chapters 8-12 are in Hebrew; and 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic. The form of the text in the Hebrew Bible, part Hebrew and part Aramaic, is supported now by fragments of the book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The stories in Daniel 1-6 bristle with historical problems. Chapter. 4 tells of the transformation of Nebuchadnezzar into a beast. This story seems to have its origin in an episode in the life of Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king. A variant of the tradition has been found in the "Prayer of Nabonidus" among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Chapter. 5 represents Belshazzar as king of Babylon at the time of its destruction, although he was never actually king. Chapter. 6 speaks of a wholly unhistorical Darius the Mede, who is said to have been the conqueror of Babylon. Darius was the name of several later Persian monarchs. In view of these problems, the stories in chapters 1-6 must have been written a considerable time after the Babylonian exile.

The apocalyptic section of the book, chapters 7-12, can be dated more precisely. Chapter 11 contains a lengthy prophecy of history communicated to Daniel by an angel. No names are mentioned, but persons and events can easily be identified down to Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria and his persecution of the Jews, which began in 168 BCE. The prophecy goes on to predict, incorrectly, that the king would die in the land of Israel. We must infer that the accurate "prophecy" was written after the fact and that the actual time of composition was during the persecution, but prior to the king's death in 164 BCE. The persecution is also the focal point of the other apocalyptic revelations in chapters 7-12. By contrast, there is no clear allusion to it in chapters 1-6.

The composition of the book, then, can be reconstructed as follows: the Aramaic stories were traditional tales that probably took shape in the third century BCE. Chapter. 7 was added in Aramaic after the outbreak of the persecution. Chapters 8-12 were then added in Hebrew, perhaps for nationalistic reasons. Chapter 1 was either translated from the Aramaic or composed in Hebrew as an introduction to the book.

Scholarly opinions vary on the details of this reconstruction, but there is a consensus on its main outline. Many conservative Christians, however, continue to defend the view that the whole book was composed in the sixth century BCE and that Daniel was a historical person.

And Daniel is not the only book in the OT that talks about resurrection, or the destiny of good and evil people. You might try reading what you keep trying to comment on.

The books of the Hebrew bible have not reached us in their original forms. All of them have been subjected to creative and repeated revision, addition, emendations, and editing across a long period of time. These changes reflect the shifting ideological interests of those making those alterations.

It is written by modern Jews.

The articles are by eminent scholars in the respective fields.

Why do you read modern works but refuse to go to the actual ancient source, the bible?

And how good is your Hebrew? What do you know about the development of Judaism over the past three millennia? How well trained are you in Talmudical studies? What are your qualifications in papyrology? How well do you read Koine Greek?

The answer to the above questions is that you know nothing or precious little about any of those topics. You have your particular English translation with all the attendant problems that arise from any translation into another language and assume that what you are reading is exactly "God's Word".

I think the actual source is closer to what the Hebrews and Jews actually believed than someone living thousands of years later telling you second hand what they believed. At least I am pointing you to ancient sources.

And I have given you informed opinion from those who have some training in and understanding of those "ancient sources".

You are not interested in knowing the truth, just in arguing.

What that comment really means is that you want me to simply agree with you.

Not that I can see. Maybe you can quote the part that says they no longer believe in physical resurrection?

Re-read the extract from The Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica

Only heretical Christians or cults like full preterists, or Christian Scientists (although I think even they do now). Maybe Universal Unitarians (they really have no doctrines at all so you are free to believe pretty much anything).
Believing in a physical resurrection of Christ and his followers is as I said an essential doctrine to Christianity right from the beginning. That is one of the reasons the Gnostics were considered heretics. They believed flesh was evil so we could only be with God if we shed our flesh.

And who is to say that those groups were/are "heretical"? We are back to mere opinions that developed over two centuries or thereabouts and would later became established as orthodoxy via legal edicts. Nothing more.

[Sparko]

My apologies. I should have said do you believe all of written history. Your answer is of course no. But the bible, now that's another story, I mean who wouldn't believe a historical account of 6 thousands of years of miracles and illogical crazy stuff, (Noah's ARK) (Jonah and the whale.)to mention just a few. That's the history that you find reliable? 🤔 Not to mention much of which was written was written by unknown Authors. I'd hate to think of what it takes for you to not find the history reliable.

And yet you do the same thing. You accept written history as accurate, but rather than deciding which is accurate and which is not by the actual evidence, you decide by merely choosing to reject accounts you don't WANT to believe. The NT is written as a historic account. Where is can be checked for accuracy by comparing to other historic documents and archeology, it has passed with flying colors. So if they are accurate as to places, people and events that can be corroborated, we have no reason to claim the parts we cannot directly check are inaccurate.

Oh stop with the fear tactics Sparko I don't concern myself with such nonsense. It is what it is regardless of what anyone believes. You belong to a cult, that's all just like you believe all other religions throughout history to be, to have been, cults.They're all meant to keep you in line and they all promise you an ultimate reward for being a good boy. That's not to say that cult like religions are necessarily bad things, but are just human constructs meant to maintain order in society and such. You might tag them as a being a necessary evil in that respect being that though they help to keep order though they do so by filling ones head with falsehoods.

There you go, choosing to reject God and salvation again. You have no excuse when you face judgment.

Well, I think that is (generally speaking) undeniable. Not because of where that place is, but because of what that culture is, what the story is that's taught there.

And yet here in the US we have people who believe in dozens of religions, or none in your case. So that culture must not be as influential as you think.

Most people don't choose their cult or religious beliefs, it's fed to them at an early and naive, unquestioning age and quite often stays with them throughout life probably because they never do question it much thereafter. And even if they do, it's more natural for people to defend their Long held beliefs, than it is for them to determine whether they be true or not.

Then why aren't you a Christian JimL? Why wasn't I until I was in my 40s?

Wow, sounds pretty good to me. I hear that a lot though, the serving god part. What do you mean by that? I mean you're right, doesn't sound like something I'd be into, but what exactly do you mean by serving god?

Worshiping him, following his guidance and rules, doing what he asks of us.

Yippee!! Sounds kinda like slavery to me!

I am sure it does to you. Which is why he is not going to force you to do anything you don't want and will let you be your own boss. In hell. CS Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from the inside.

You don't know? How come you don't know? How does the bible describe it's misery and suffering?

It describes it as a lake of fire, a place where your soul is destroyed, as a place of separation from God, as a pit. As outer darkness where people gnash their teeth. And it is eternal. Some of that is likely metaphorical. At least I hope it is for your sake. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/he...hell-like.html

That's sounds great really, Sparko. But I wouldn't tell too many people that. You wouldn't want that to get out, I think a whole lot of the congregation might say bye bye!!

I think you will be disappointed JimL. It isn't going to be a party. Right now you enjoy the benefits of God's love for all of mankind even though you reject him. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike. But in hell, there will be nothing from God.

No, you're punished for not believing, because so long as you believe you are not punished. You try to hard rationalize your belief instead of accepting it's true meaning.

Again, if you are going to be punished for murdering someone and you reject a pardon, the punishment you suffer will be because you murdered someone. You just rejected a helping hand by your own choice so you will suffer the punishment you originally were meant to endure. It is entirely your fault: both the murder and the rejecting of the pardon.

Romans 2:⁵ But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, youre storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. ⁶ God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”^[a]7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ⁸ But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. ⁹ There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; ¹⁰ but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹¹ For God does not show favoritism.


Yeah yeah, I know, the fear and the reward tactic used on the naive to get them to believe. Religions are pretty much all the same in that respect.

Your words will haunt you. You KNOW and yet you reject. Your choice. So going to hell will be because of your own choice. Don't blame God.

¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) ¹⁶ This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

I see, so you're saying, Paul is saying, that people don't have to believe in Jesus or God at all just so long as they're perfect sinless human beings.But, if they don't know or believe in In god or jesus they would have to be perfect and sinless in order to go to heaven, right?

sure JimL, If you never sin you won't need Jesus since you have nothing to pay for. But that isn't you is it? So you need Jesus.

So kinda contradictory and confusing good old Paul is. Which is it, do you have to believe in Jesus, or do you just need be perfect and sinless?

Two ways to get into heaven: Be perfect, like Jesus was, or accept Jesus' perfection and sacrifice being credited to your "sin account"
The bible says no human (except Jesus) is sinless. So we all need Jesus to save us. It's simple and easy. Just accept Jesus as your savior and Lord and ask him to save you and forgive your sins.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And yet you do the same thing. You accept written history as accurate, but rather than deciding which is accurate and which is not by the actual evidence, you decide by merely choosing to reject accounts you don't WANT to believe.

As do you.

The NT is written as a historic account.

The NT was not "written" it is an anthology of various texts. And those texts were certainly not composed as dispassionate historical records.

Where is can be checked for accuracy by comparing to other historic documents and archeology, it has passed with flying colors.

Arrant nonsense.

So if they are accurate as to places, people and events that can be corroborated, we have no reason to claim the parts we cannot directly check are inaccurate.

Tolstoy's War and Peace references real people, real events, and real places.

Does it follow that the Rostovs are all real people and the internal narrative of that work detailing their lives and their relationships are all historical events?

[Sparko]

As do you.

The NT was not "written" it is an anthology of various texts. And those texts were certainly not composed as dispassionate historical records.

Arrant nonsense.

Tolstoy's War and Peace references real people, real events, and real places.

Does it follow that the Rostovs are all real people and the internal narrative of that work detailing their lives and their relationships are all historical events?

Arrant nonsense.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Arrant nonsense.

It is always amusing when you find yourself unable to present a coherent reply. You so often resort to imitation or puerility.

[Sparko]

It is always amusing when you find yourself unable to present a coherent reply. You so often resort to imitation or puerility.

Just using your own tactics against you by tossing your own words back in your face.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Just using your own tactics against you by tossing your own words back in your face.

Evidently because you could not provide a cogent response.

[Sparko]

Evidently because you could not provide a cogent response.

I gave my response. You were the one unable to respond and just tossed out "arrant nonsense"

I know what Christians believe because I am one. You are free to disagree but since you are not one of us, and have never read the bible in context, you really have no idea what Christians believe or why. You get all your "knowledge" second hand by reading books by atheists or former Christians with grudges.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I gave my response. You were the one unable to respond and just tossed out "arrant nonsense"

I know what Christians believe because I am one. You are free to disagree but since you are not one of us, and have never read the bible in context, you really have no idea what Christians believe or why. You get all your "knowledge" second hand by reading books by atheists or former Christians with grudges.

Your comments were ludicrous . The NT was not written as you alleged. It is a much later selected anthology of various texts that had been composed at different times.

And this is nonsense.

Where is can be checked for accuracy by comparing to other historic documents and archeology, it has passed with flying colors.

The various texts mention some real people, some real events, and assorted real places but there is very little history in the bible.

[Sparko]

Your comments were ludicrous . The NT was not written as you alleged. It is a much later selected anthology of various texts that had been composed at different times.

You are simply wrong and taking the opinion of critics of the bible. There is no actual evidence that the NT was written as late as you claim.

Your statement is nonsense. The bible has been used by archeologist for decades to find locations and people. Even when critics question certain people like Pilate, archeology has come through and shown he was a real person and prefect during the time of Jesus.

Where is can be checked for accuracy by comparing to other historic documents and archeology, it has passed with flying colors.

. Skeptics claimed Nazareth did not exist, archeology proved them wrong and confirmed the bible. Until 1968 no archeological evidence of Roman crucifixions existed, and again skeptics said it was made up in the bible, then archeology confirmed the bible again. Caiaphas (high priest) was confirmed by archeology when they found his ossuary. The Pool of Siloam was uncovered. Synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus preached was uncovered.

The various texts mention some real people, some real events, and assorted real places but there is very little history in the bible.

That may be YOUR Opinion, but it is not true. Generally when various things that can be checked line up with a historical document, historians will accept the parts they cannot check as accurate until proven otherwise. That's how history works. In fact, historians rely on written accounts to piece together events in the past. Primary written records by those who lived during the events are considered the most reliable historic records available.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are simply wrong and taking the opinion of critics of the bible.

Provide some attested historical evidence that demonstrates I am "simply wrong"?

There is no actual evidence that the NT was written as late as you claim.

I never gave a date. I noted that the anthology of texts was put together much later.

The first evidence of the list of books in the NT as we now have it is from the late fourth century.

. Skeptics claimed Nazareth did not exist, archeology proved them wrong and confirmed the bible. Until 1968 no archeological evidence of Roman crucifixions existed, and again skeptics said it was made up in the bible

What nonsense.

We know from other sources that in the Roman world crucifixion was a common form of execution for the lower orders and slaves.

We know that the Carthaginians also practised it.

Julius Caesar was captured by pirates when he was a young man. After his ransom had been paid he raised a fleet, captured the pirates, and had them crucified. Horace talks of crucifixion in his Satires and Epistles; and in his Satyricon Petronius relates the crucifixion of a group of robbers who are guarded by a soldier to ensure that their relatives do not come and steal the bodies.

then archeology confirmed the bible again. Caiaphas (high priest) was confirmed by archeology when they found his ossuary.

And?

I have noted that real people are mentioned in the bible Nebuchadnezzar II was real so were the emperors Augustus and Tiberius. King Omri is attested on a Moabite stele. On the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III are images and names of conquered kings paying tribute. One of those depicted making full proskynesis is Jehu of Israel .

The Pool of Siloam was uncovered.

The Pool of Silwan was excavated in the late 1800s.

Synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus preached was uncovered.

A fourth century synagogue has been excavated. The first century building beneath it has yet to be identified.

That may be YOUR Opinion, but it is not true.

And why are you claiming that your opinion is true?

You are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian who believes in an inerrant and literal bible. That hardly makes you overly objective about these texts.

Generally when various things that can be checked line up with a historical document, historians will accept the parts they cannot check as accurate until proven otherwise. That's how history works.

No it is not.

We do not say, Well we have no evidence to prove the veracity of X so therefore X must be correct. If a source or event cannot be proven it remains an unsubstantiated textual comment.

However, the texts of the NT are historical documents only in the sense that they are copies of ancient texts. Those texts are not dispassionate historical accounts. and furthermore most of the NT texts are letters/epistles.

In fact, historians rely on written accounts to piece together events in the past.

We rely on a great deal more than that for the ancient world.

Primary written records by those who lived during the events are considered the most reliable historic records available.

Not automatically. It also depends on the nature of the text and the historical period.

Obviously for more recent history texts can be cross referenced with a large amount of extraneous contemporary information and the closer we come to the present day the more evidence is available.

For ancient texts the sources need to cross-referenced with other contemporary evidence, such as coins, epigraphy, other extraneous textual references, and archaeological evidence

Unfortunately there are no extraneous corroborative contemporary sources for any of your NT texts.

[Sparko]

Provide some attested historical evidence that demonstrates I am "simply wrong"?

You first.

I never gave a date. I noted that the anthology of texts was put together much later.

And you are wrong.

The first evidence of the list of books in the NT as we now have it is from the late fourth century.

What does that have to do with when the books were actually written?

What nonsense.

Yes you are full of that.

We know from other sources that in the Roman world crucifixion was a common form of execution for the lower orders and slaves.

. So now you are accepting written evidence as long as you agree with it? No evidence of any actual crucifixion before 1968.

We know that the Carthaginians also practised it.

Bravo for them.

Julius Caesar was captured by pirates when he was a young man. After his ransom had been paid he raised a fleet, captured the pirates, and had them crucified. Horace talks of crucifixion in his Satires and Epistles; and in his Satyricon Petronius relates the crucifixion of a group of robbers who are guarded by a soldier to ensure that their relatives do not come and steal the bodies.

What you are accepting written documentation without having the original manuscripts? Who wrote about Caesar being captured by pirates? Plutarch? Was he there? Why do you believe these written accounts?

I have noted that real people are mentioned in the bible Nebuchadnezzar II was real so were the emperors Augustus and Tiberius. King Omri is attested on a Moabite stele. On the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III are images and names of conquered kings paying tribute. One of those depicted making full proskynesis is Jehu of Israel .

So what? You seem to accept written historical documents as long as they are not the bible. Color me surprised. You are not helping your case with that.

The Pool of Silwan was excavated in the late 1800s.

A fourth century synagogue has been excavated. The first century building beneath it has yet to be identified.

Yes, all confirming details in the NT.

And why are you claiming that your opinion is true?

Because it is.

You are a fundamentalist evangelical Christian who believes in an inerrant and literal bible. That hardly makes you overly objective about these texts.

And you are a reprobate lesbian atheist troll who rejects God and the bible, that hardly makes you objective about these texts.

No it is not.

Rabbit Season.

We do not say, Well we have no evidence to prove the veracity of X so therefore X must be correct. If a source or event cannot be proven it remains an unsubstantiated textual comment.

If historians worked like that then we would not know anything about the past. You can prove things like buildings, cities, artifacts, and many times people, but how do you prove what someone actually did other than what was written about them? Before we had cameras and video recorders and such. Written documents were it.

However, the texts of the NT are historical documents only in the sense that they are copies of ancient texts. Those texts are not dispassionate historical accounts. and furthermore most of the NT texts are letters/epistles.

That incident you reported about Caesar and the Pirates? Plutarch didn't witness it and we don't have the original manuscript, only copies. In fact the bible has some of the earliest copies of original manuscripts than most other historic documents. I think the earliest copies of Parallel Lives dates to the 10th century. Nearly a thousand years after it was written.

We rely on a great deal more than that for the ancient world.

Not automatically. It also depends on the nature of the text and the historical period.

Obviously for more recent history texts can be cross referenced with a large amount of extraneous contemporary information and the closer we come to the present day the more evidence is available.

For ancient texts the sources need to cross-referenced with other contemporary evidence, such as coins, epigraphy, other extraneous textual references, and archaeological evidence

Unfortunately there are no extraneous corroborative contemporary sources for any of your NT texts.

Ah the old 'break the post up into a billion replies' tactic. Nice.

I am not going to get dragged into another one of your "flowery path" derails. I already know you don't believe the bible is reliable or accurate. If you did, you might actually be a Christian by now. You are forgetting that much of the bible was quoted by the early church fathers in the first and early second century.
The NT was written before 70AD.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You first.

You wrote this.

You are simply wrong and taking the opinion of critics of the bible.

Show me using attested historical evidence where I am wrong.

And you are wrong.

The first textual evidence for the books you now have in your New Testament comes from a Festal letter by Athanasius, dated to 367 CE/

What does that have to do with when the books were actually written?

The canon was put together at a much later date. Please don't tell me you think that the books that now make up your NT were in one volume in the late first century?

So now you are accepting written evidence as long as you agree with it? No evidence of any actual crucifixion before 1968.

No physical evidence because the corpses were generally left to rot and be scavenged, with the remains eventually dumped into a pit. Crucifixion was not a high status death.

Bravo for them.

It is likely the Romans got the idea from the Carthaginians. I assume you have heard of the Punic Wars?

What you are accepting written documentation without having the original manuscripts? Who wrote about Caesar being captured by pirates? Plutarch? Was he there? Why do you believe these written accounts?

Suetonius also writes of the incident and he was a contemporary of Plutarch, albeit slightly younger. No one disputes the account may be embellished with internal details, such was the style of ancient biography but given the problems of piracy in the Mediterranean in the early first century BCE it is not an unlikely event. Pompey the Great cleared the region of pirates in 67 CE

So what? You seem to accept written historical documents as long as they are not the bible. Color me surprised. You are not helping your case with that.

The fact is that we have no extraneous contemporary evidence for anything written in the gospels, not even the crucifixion. Although that is accepted as an actual event given the situation in the region at the time.

Yes, all confirming details in the NT.

A fourth century synagogue does not "confirm details in the NT". The older building has yet to be identified.

Because it is.

That is a remark I would expect to receive from a seven year old.
Your opinion is not automatically fact.

and you are a reprobate lesbian atheist troll who rejects God and the bible, that hardly makes you objective about these texts.

What relevance does my sexuality have concerning my ability to critically assess ancient texts?

Rabbit Season.
If historians worked like that then we would not know anything about the past. You can prove things like buildings, cities, artifacts, and many times people, but how do you prove what someone actually did other than what was written about them? Before we had cameras and video recorders and such. Written documents were it.

For the ancient world we also have archaeological evidence, numismatics, iconography, and epigraphic sources

That incident you reported about Caesar and the Pirates? Plutarch didn't witness it and we don't have the original manuscript, only copies.

Plutarch and Suetonius both refer to it.

In fact the bible has some of the earliest copies of original manuscripts than most other historic documents.

Only in scraps and fragments. The earliest scrap of papyrus for any NT text is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. it contains a few lines from verses thirty one to thirty three and thirty seven to thirty eight from the gospel of John chapter 18

That is it.

I think the earliest copies of Parallel Lives dates to the 10th century. Nearly a thousand years after it was written.

As I have noted to your best friend rogue06 other ancient texts did inspire the amount of copying in the later ancient world that the Christian texts did. And of course earlier copies have been lost to accident or time.

Ah the old 'break the post up into a billion replies' tactic. Nice.
I am not going to get dragged into another one of your "flowery path" derails.

Then why repeatedly reply to me on this topic?

You make several responses and then suddenly decide you are not going any further.

Might that be because you have no cogent argument given that this reply has deteriorated into personal attacks, childish responses, and remarks like this below about my potential for being saved etc.

I already know you don't believe the bible is reliable or accurate. If you did, you might actually be a Christian by now.

You are forgetting that much of the bible was quoted by the early church fathers in the first and early second century.

There were no ECFs in the first century and the "bible that was quoted" was the LXX . That is what early Christians deemed Scripture.

The NT was written before 70AD.

There was no New Testament prior to 70 CE. Who told you that nonsense?

Some of the texts that are now contained in that anthology were not written until the early/mid second century.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You wrote this.

You are simply wrong and taking the opinion of critics of the bible.

Show me using attested historical evidence where I am wrong.

The first textual evidence for the books you now have in your New Testament comes from a Festal letter by Athanasius, dated to 367 CE/

The canon was put together at a much later date. Please don't tell me you think that the books that now make up your NT were in one volume in the late first century?

No physical evidence because the corpses were generally left to rot and be scavenged, with the remains eventually dumped into a pit. Crucifixion was not a high status death.

It is likely the Romans got the idea from the Carthaginians. I assume you have heard of the Punic Wars?

Suetonius also writes of the incident and he was a contemporary of Plutarch, albeit slightly younger. No one disputes the account may be embellished with internal details, such was the style of ancient biography but given the problems of piracy in the Mediterranean in the early first century BCE it is not an unlikely event. Pompey the Great cleared the region of pirates in 67 BCE

The fact is that we have no extraneous contemporary evidence for anything written in the gospels, not even the crucifixion. Although that is accepted as an actual event given the situation in the region at the time.

A fourth century synagogue does not "confirm details in the NT". The older building has yet to be identified.

That is a remark I would expect to receive from a seven year old.
Your opinion is not automatically fact.

What relevance does my sexuality have concerning my ability to critically assess ancient texts?

For the ancient world we also have archaeological evidence, numismatics, iconography, and epigraphic sources

Plutarch and Suetonius both refer to it.

Only in scraps and fragments. The earliest scrap of papyrus for any NT text is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. it contains a few lines from verses thirty one to thirty three and thirty seven to thirty eight from the gospel of John chapter 18

That is it.

As I have noted to your best friend rogue06 other ancient texts did inspire the amount of copying in the later ancient world that the Christian texts did. And of course earlier copies have been lost to accident or time.

Then why repeatedly reply to me on this topic?

You make several responses and then suddenly decide you are not going any further.

Might that be because you have no cogent argument given that this reply has deteriorated into personal attacks, childish responses, and remarks like this below about my potential for being saved etc.



There were no ECFs in the first century and the "bible that was quoted" was the LXX . That is what early Christians deemed Scripture.

There was no New Testament prior to 70 CE. Who told you that nonsense?

Some of the texts that are now contained in that anthology were not written until the early/mid second century.

Corrected.

[JimL]

You are simply wrong and taking the opinion of critics of the bible. There is no actual evidence that the NT was written as late as you claim.




. Skeptics claimed Nazareth did not exist, archeology proved them wrong and confirmed the bible. Until 1968 no archeological evidence of Roman crucifixions existed, and again skeptics said it was made up in the bible, then archeology confirmed the bible again. Caiaphas (high priest) was confirmed by archeology when they found his ossuary. The Pool of Siloam was uncovered. Synagogue at Capernaum where Jesus preached was uncovered.

That may be YOUR Opinion, but it is not true. Generally when various things that can be checked line up with a historical document, historians will accept the parts they cannot check as accurate until proven otherwise. That's how history works. In fact, historians rely on written accounts to piece together events in the past. Primary written records by those who lived during the events are considered the most reliable historic records available.

And Noah's ARK was found on Mt Ararat!!!