No Contemporary References of The Following Historical Figures
Posted on: September 30, 2007 - 1:41am
Offline
No Contemporary References of The Following Historical Figures
Since the Good Ol' RRS appears to think that contemporary reference is required to prove that a historical figure existed, it is not. Here are some figures that have no contemporary references.
Gamaliel
Honi the Circle Drawer
Hillel
Shammai
Hanina ben dosa
Confucius
Buddha
Hannibal
- Login to post comments
What is even better about this is that the first five figures I list are all first century Jews. Jesus is a first century Jew. Claiming that they exist and that Jesus didn't is special pleading. You have a couple options.
1. Hold to the contemporary references requirement and throw out all eight figures I listed.
2. Or admit that the eight figures plus Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Strawman. What is requried is a provenance - evidence of the existence of a contemporary at some point in time.
If you can't even get this right, what value is there to your arguments?
Here is the the logical fallacy implied in this part of your argument: you are comparing a ordinary claim with an extraordinary claim.
So you have one strawman.
And a fallacy of equivocation.
Lame out of the gate.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No, your own argument is a weak analogy fallacy:
Hitler wore a mustache
Joe wears a mustache.
Ergo Joe hates Jews.
There is no special plead in claiming that ordinary figures existed, based on provenance for a contemporay account, and claiming an extraordinary person existed without ANY provenance for contemporary accounts.
You have a whole series of very, very bad arguments based on irrational thinking and ignorance.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
Again, you commit two errors here:
1) You argue against a strawman: the requirement is not for contemporary accounts, it is for evidence of the existence of any contemporary accounts.
2) Your argument is based on backwards logic: if the case for "jesus" is just as bad as the case for other historical figures, then we have to accept a real jesus?!
Please think before posting, you are wasting our time.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Though no historian uses the ECREE principle, I will accept it for the moment. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed is not extraordinary. This claim is separate from claims that he was divine, did miracles, or rose from the dead. And why don't you provide the evidence for these guys that doesn't exist for Jesus.
No, I am not claiming that since all these cases are bad, that Jesus exists along with the rest. I am claiming historians universally accept the existence of all these historical figures (including Jesus of Nazareth.)
If a guy named 'Jesus of Nazareth' existed and *wasn't* divine, then your whole case falls apart! You have a religion making false claims about an ordinary guy. Surely you're not going to defend Christianity by saying "Jesus is just this guy, you know?"
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
That isn't the subject. This forum is about denying the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Did he or did he not exist? If he did exist, then we can move from there.
You are right Natural, I would suggest a psychiatrist to combat the two heads of duplicity.
...I need a pan galactic gargle blaster.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Fine. Let us just accept that if Jesus existed, he had to be divine. ECREE is not used by any historian, and it should not be considered a reliable method of determining truth.
Hannibal Barca is discussed in letters from Gaius Terentius Varro during his ambassadorship to Africa. He was one of the Generals at Cannae. I would call that proof. The commentary was added to the official records in Rome with regard to the African expansion of 199BC. Further, those letters are referenced by Livy on several occassions.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Is Richard Carrier not a historian?
Richard Carrier is a historian, and he is a Jesus Mythist. Good for you. I have ten times the historians on my side.
And yet you fail to bring them up...
Let's have some historians (not apologists who masquerade as historians).
Personally, I don't give a damn about the topic at hand - just want you to put up something other than your assertion.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'd also like to see an admission of error for the Hannibal Barca claim. Yes, C-L-A-I-M.
I will list them. Do you seriously think that Jesus Mythism is mainstream? Doherty doesn't even have a doctorate, and he is the most explicit about is Mythism. Robert Price has never explicitly stated his Jesus Mythism, but seems to be agnostic about Jesus' existence.
I have made it a point to list only liberal scholars. These all believe Jesus existed. So bring up this many scholars and you win.
Andries G. van Aarde, D.D.
Valerie A. Abrahamsen, Th. D.
Martin L. Appelt
Richard L. Arthur, Th.D.
Robert Bater, Ph.D.
William Beardslee, Ph.D.
Joseph Bessler-Northcutt, Ph. D.
Edward F. Beutner, Ph.D.
Sterling Bjorndahl, Ph.D.
Anthony Blasi, Ph.D., Th.D.
Willi Braun, Ph.D.
James R. Butts, Ph.D.
Marvin F. Cain, Ph.D.
Ron Cameron, Ph.D.
Kathleen E. Corley, Ph.D.
Wendy J. Cotter C.S.J., Ph.D.
Jon Daniels, Ph.D.
Stevan L. Davies, Ph.D.
Jon F. Dechow, Ph.D.
Joanna Dewey, Ph.D.
John Dillenberger, Ph.D.
William Doty
Darrell J. Doughty
Dennis C. Duling, Ph.D.
Susan M. Elliott, Ph.D.
Robert T. Fortna, Ph.D.
Robert M. Fowler
David Galston
James Goss, Ph.D.
Heinz Guenther, Th.D.
Sakari Hakkinen
Maurice Hamington, Ph.D.
Walter Harrelson, Th.D.
Charles W. Hedrick, Ph.D.
James D. Hester, D.Theol.
C.M. Kempton Hewitt, Ph.D.
Jack A. Hill, Ph.D.
Julian V. Hills, Th.D.
Richard Holloway, D.D., D.Litt.
Roy W. Hoover, Th.D.
Benjamin J. Hubbard
Michael L. Humphries, Ph.D.
Margaret D. Hutaff
Glenna S. Jackson, Ph.D.
Arland D. Jacobson, Ph.D.
Clayton N. Jefford, Th.M, Ph.D.
Gregory C. Jenks, Ph.D.
Larry Kalajainen, Ph.D.
Perry Kea, Ph.D.
John C. Kelly
William Doane Kelly, Ph.D.
Chan-Hie Kim, Ph.D.
Karen L. King, Ph.D.
Ron Large
Paul Alan Laughlin, Ph.D.
Nigel Leaves, Ph.D.
Davidson Loehr, Ph.D.
Dennis R. MacDonald, Ph.D.
Loren Mack-Fisher, Ph.D.Francis Macnab
Shelley Matthews, Th.D.
Brian Rice McCarthy
Lane C. McGaughy, Ph.D.
Robin B. McGonigle, Dr. M
Edward J. McMahon II, Ph.D.
Daniel Marguerat
Marvin W. Meyer, Ph.D.
Darren Middleton
J. Ramsey Michaels, Th.M., Ph.D.
William R. Millar
Robert J. Miller, Ph.D.
Robert L'H Miller, Th.D.
Milton Moreland
Winsome Munro, Ed.D.
Culver H. Nelson, D.D., D.D.
Rob Parrott, Ph.D.
Stephen J. Patterson, Ph.D.
Richard I. Pervo, Th.D.
Anne Primavesi, D.Phil.
Howard Rice
Vernon K. Robbins, Ph.D.
John J. Rousseau, Ph.D., D.Rel.
Stan Rummel
Marianne Sawicki, Ph.D.
Daryl D. Schmidt, Ph.D.
Oswald Schrag
Bernard Brandon Scott, Ph.D.
Andrew D. Scrimgeour
Philip Sellew, Th.D.
Chris Shea, Ph.D.
Thomas Sheehan, Ph.D.
Lou H. Silberman, D.H.L.
Dennis Smith, Th.D.
Mahlon H. Smith, M.S.L.
Graydon Snyder
John Staten
Michael G. Steinhauser, Th.D.
Robert F. Stoops, Jr., Ph.D.
Jon Sveinbjornsson
Jarmo Tarkki, Ph.D.
W. Barnes Tatum, Ph.D.
Hal Taussig, Ph.D.
Barbara Thiering, Ph.D.
Joseph B. Tyson, Ph.D.
Leif E. Vaage, Ph.D.
James Veitch, Ph.D., Th.D.
Wesley Hiram Wachob, Ph.D.
William O. Walker, Jr., Ph.D.
Donna Wallace, Ph.D.
Robert L. Webb, Ph.D.
Theodore J. Weeden, Sr., Ph.D.
James E. West, Th.D.
John L. White, Ph.D.
John L. White, B.D.
L. Michael White
Walter Wink, Th.D.
Sara C. Winter., Ph.D.
Good job. I was in error about Hannibal. However, the rest of those figures still have no contemporary references to them. Do you believe they existed?
Appeal to authority much?
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Actually no. I was responding to this
You've listed the names of a bunch of people with PhDs who believe a historical* Jesus existed. Care to cite their proof that Jesus really lived, or is this just a listing of smart people who believe?
Also, let's say someone proved the existence of a Nazarene who went by the name Jesus. They'd have to prove he was divine, keeping in mind his existance in and of itself is insufficient - he may have been as ordinary as Brian of Nazareth.
If Jesus DID exist, but was an ordinary, non-divine man, then 3/4ths of the American population and roughly a third of the world population are little more than overzealous fanboys.
*American English FTW!!!1!one!
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Both Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus. I have heard the objections to both. Go ahead and object.
So did I. What's your point?
I'm not even gonna go into detail about how neither were contemporaries of Jesus, there's no historical record of Herod's infanticide, etc.
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Sure, neither were contemporaries. Is historical knowledge really lost that quickly? And none of the people that I listed in my first post had contemporary references (except for Hannibal, I made an error there. In fact, most of those Jewish teachers are not referenced until the Talmud) Jesus was just a mythological creation, then after a few decades everyone forgets? And the historians forget too?
As for the infanticide, Bethlehem was probably a very small village, and probably had very few infants, as in four or so. Herod was already known to be cruel, and a small killing as this would not turn the heads of everyone.
Please site where we said this? I recall several comments made here where we said that contemporary evidence is not required. However almost all of these figures can be said to be myth. Buddha, Confucius, Hillel, etc...are probably just literary inventions.
So you really think there is no contemporary evidence for Hannibal?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Good. Are you ready to take the second step?
Do you have any instance where they said as much (about a belief in a historical Jesus)? Or did you just pull names from a list?
Pull from the Ph.D's please - I know the holders of Theology, Divinity and Ministry degrees believe in the history and the divinity of Jesus - they wouldn't have gotten them otherwise.
I'll warn you now - I'll check them out.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Members of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar is about reconstructing a historical Jesus. Unless people believe in a historical Jesus, then they are not going to try to reconstruct him. Do you really think scholars are split on the historicity of Jesus?
All these Jewish teachers are mentioned first in the Talmud. As for Hannibal, I corrected myself on that one later in the thread. Are you denying the historicity of these figures? Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I interpreted your comment.
The historical knowlede has to exist in the first place before it can become 'lost.' If Jesus existed, and was as popular as the bible says (people coming from far and wide to hear him preach, turning water into wine, healing the sick and crippled, etc. ) there should be SOME contemporary writings about him. The fact that nobody who ever wrote about him was even BORN until after he was (supposedly) nailed to some wood and basically turned into jerky "for our sins" is telling.
There should, at minimum, be a firsthand account of the crucifiction by Longinus - y'know, THE GUY WHO IMPALED JESUS WITH A SPEAR.
There would be a written account of him giving the order in the first place, regardless of whether people would have looked twice at such an act. I wonder why no such record exists? Could it be that Herod never gave the order?
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
I just want to make sure you're not just name dropping.
Personally, I believe there were probably hundreds of Yeshuas and more than a few probably claimed to be Messiah.
Is there a Jesus/Yeshua who did the things claimed in the Bible? Can't see it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Why? Can't you see that even if he existed, he rather was just one of the many spiritual leaders of that time, that made it to being glorified so much, that some people began calling him son of god? Even if there was evidence of his existence, that doesn't mean at all that he was devine.
"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993
And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...
Kabane, the Jesus Seminar was only 200 scholars, all of them had different ideas on the nature of Jesus. Robert M. Price and Frank Zindler were also part of the Seminar and they did not think Jesus existed. Others as well participated. Claiming, as you falsely do, that scholarship is certain of his existence, only makes you look foolish. Every word that comes out of your mouth is ridiculous.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
My guess is it isn't just name droppong - it's name dropping AND listing alot of names.
It's the Arguement to Authority and the Arguement to Popularity at the same time:
"Look at ALL these SMART people who believe in JESUS! Their (sic) can only be ONE reason for this! The reason is that JESUS died on the cross for our SINS! Why would SO MANY SMART people believe this if it wasn't true? ALL those SMART people say JESUS lived because He lived!"
I'm pretty sure the above paragraph sums up Kabane's post.
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Arrgghhhh!!! Earlier someone said that if I defend the historicity of Jesus, then whether he was divine is the same issue. You are saying the opposite. What do you want me to say?
Didn't I tell you why I was listing scholars? I listed them because someone wanted me to list the names. Okay?
Longinus is a product of legend. He is first recorded in the apocryphal Acts of Pilate. As for Herod, uh, since when does he record all his own little orders, even the ones that cast him in a poor light?
Notice how I omitted Price's and Zindler's names? It is consensus that he existed. Could you please provide the statistics which demonstrate that historians are split as you say on the issue?
He had to transmit the order to his subordinates by some means; and when his lackeys went around killing babies, they would have needed something proving that they were acting on the behalf of the governor.
I don't know whether or not Herod himself was the person who put pen to paper when giving orders. However, somebody had to have written it down. Thats what leaders of countries (and divisions thereof - states, provinces, prefectures, etc. ) do - their actions are usually recorded for posterity.
As for Longinus, I grant you it was only legend. But:
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Okay, so even if this action was recorded, what leads you to believe that it would have been preserved? This isn't something meant to be read by a lot of people. It would not have been copied. There would be no reason for anybody to preserve it until Christianity got popular, which is over fifty years later.
1. They did not record crucifixion orders. Give me ONE example from within that time period where they did.
2. Perhaps because Acts of Pilate was recorded over a hundred years after the events, while the Gospels were recorded 30-40 years afterwards? And the crucifixion of Jesus is multiply attested in secular sources.
And then I asked you to cite examples where these people say what you claim (to show that you weren't just pulling names from lists).
You going to take that nest step?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
First:
Why WOULDN'T they preserve it? They preserved other records of Herod, including the fact that he was a governor. And the order WAS meant to be read - by the people who would carry out the order.
Second:
If they did not give crucifiction orders, how would they know which means of execution to use on the condemned? According to wiki, it was considered the worst way to die, reserved exclusively for the worst criminals.
Third:
Why weren't the gospels recorded during Jesus' lifetime? Or even within 5-10 years after his death? Why did they wait 30 years to begin writing about him?
These 'secular sources' you mention - when were they written, and by whom?
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
1. Uh, this is a little order which you say was recorded and given to those carrying out the order. Why would they preserve their little papyrus sheet that said that?
2. They gave oral orders, not written orders. I will repeat my challenge once more. Please cite just one instance of a written crucifixion order from around that time.
3. Because it was common knowledge. All Christians knew what he said. It was later, when the original church began to die out, that the Gospels were written.
Here are two secular sources-
Josephus and Tacitus, both known among historians to be VERY reliable.
Should anyone really rely on Josephus for anything. Somehow this guy is the only survivor of Masad. He convinces the Romans that he is a good guy and writes some seriously biased works based on who was feeding him at the time.
I think this is the equivalent of using a quote from Bill O'Reilly as a modern proof of some subject. That guy would shove his who head up Bush's ass if requested. Josephus was much the same, per his writings.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Nero.....(sigh)....while I agree with your basic point--Josephus is biased--I must correct you on a few things.
a. Josephus was not a survivor of Masada, although he was a general in the Israeli army and did abandon his army when he knew all was lost.
b. Bill O'Reilly is so not a supporter of Bush. He is quite critical of Bush on a daily basis. A better choice would be Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
First, thank you for the lesson in right-wing assholes. I get them confused because they all spew bullshit and do a fair amount of lying.
*sighs* *drums fingers* *performs other snotty signals that he finds the conversation as pedestrian as Irrespective did* As for Josephus, he places himself in the fortress when it is taken. He writes that he knows precisely what happened in the last hours before the Romans came through the gates. He does not mention other survivors. So, he is either lying about the knowledge of those final hours, or he was there. Either way, he is not a great source of information.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I agree that Josephus must be used with caution...certainly not as absolute truth about that period.
Okay, but was Josephus a Christian? No. No motivation to write about Jesus if he never existed. (I do accept that the Testimonium does have SOME interpolations)
1. Once again, I ask you why they would not preserve this sort of thing. They preserved the details of Julius Caesar's assassination, the laws passed by antient Egyptians, and so on. Historians of any given era tend to preserve as much as possible for future generations.
2. Okay. I'll admit you kinda got me there. I cannot find any examples of crucifixion orders. However, if you read the link I posted (here it is again) you'll notice there are references to firsthand accounts of crucifixions - including Josephus.
Lots of firsthand testimony of poeple watching other people getting crucified, but one such execution remains conspicuous by its lack of such accounts.
3. You're saying nobody wrote down a single thing about Jesus until at least 50 years after he died, if not as much as 300 years. It's as if we were reading an article written in 1867 about George Washington's twin brother Raoul, and this article is the oldest account anyone has about Raoul Washington.
No contemporary accounts, not even a description of what Raoul looked like, just stuff written by "historians" about a guy who lived in a real place during real important period of history. Would you believe it was Raoul, not George, who was the delegate from Virginia at the signing of the Constitution, even if the first account of this was written in 1993?
I hardly think that a non-Christian writing about Jesus constitutes proof that he existed. If it did, then the very fact of the Minnesota Vikings' existence proves the Norse gods exist(ed) .
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
1. Okay firsthand accounts of crucifixions. Sure, some people have them, but by no means all. We do have firsthand accounts of the resurrection however.
2. Julias Caesar was huge. He was known about everywhere. OF COURSE his death account. The Egyptian Laws applied to huge amounts of people. OF COURSE they preserved those. But Herod? Okay, it was a piece of papyrus, given to a couple men who killed three to four infants. Those men WERE NOT historians. Their purpose was not to preserve history. It was to do what Herod said. It is your job to prove HOW and WHY this event would be preserved outside of one source (Luke)
3. Jesus lived thirty three years, and was only ministering for three of them. The first thirty years of his life, he was a nobody. The next three, he was somebody, but by no means extraordinarily popular. This leaves an extremely short period of time for contemporary references. Once Jesus began to become better-known, secular scholars recorded him.
You have to refute my original point, where I listed figures that are accepted as historical, yet have no contemporary references. In fact, the first reference we have of them is over a century later.
Really? What firsthand account of this part of the bible do you have?
You do know that using the bible to prove the bible is circular reasoning, right?
HOW - By not destroying the original document with the orders to kill the babies, by making more than one copy 'just in case,' etc.
WHY - Something called "independent verification." How do you prove that the infanticide mentioned in one source (Luke) happened if all you have is that one source?
How do you go about proving that that one particular bible story is true without using the bible?
Once again, there was plenty of opportunity for the people who crucified him to write SOMETHING about it. Surely there's a reason for their collective silence about something that important?
And your arguement that Jesus wasn't that popular is self-refuting if you're trying to prove that his life story, as told by the bible, is true. The bible says people came from far and wide to hear him preach.
It's an asociation fallacy. Your premise is that Budda and Kong-Fuzu existed, despite a lack of firsthand accounts; your conclusion is that Jesus, for whom there exists no firsthand accounts, existed.
Let me clarify a little. You're assuming that those historical fiures are members of {Real People} despite not being members of {People For Whom Contemporary Accounts Exist} ; therefore Jesus, who is also not in the second set, belongs in the first.
Raoul Washington is also also not in the second set. Shall we add him to the first?
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Kabane, you are exactly right. There are even more ancient persons who did not have contemporary writers, but are nevertheless accepted as historical. You only listed a few. Historian Edwin Yamauichi stated that there is more evidence that Jesus existed, then there is for the founder of any other religion => Jesus Under Fire, by Moreland, chapter 7.
LUKE was an historian, and he was a contemporary of Christ, and he wrote the book of ACTS and a Gospel -- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. I believe this website is offering money to anyone who can prove Jesus had a contemporary writer. I will now prove Luke was a contemporary writer. I would argue that all the apostles were contemporaries, but I will only argue for Luke right now.
If ACTS was written before A.D. 70, while the eyewitnesses were still alive, then it has great historical value in informing us of the earliest Christian beliefs. What is more, if Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul, it is placed in the apostolic circle of the earliest disciples of Jesus. ACTS was written in 62 A.D. Jesus died in 33 A.D. The historian Luke records in ACTS the miracles (2:22), death (2:23), resurrection (2:24, 29-32), and ascension of Christ (1:9-10). Further, if Luke wrote ACTS, which he did, then his "former treatise" (1:1), the Gospel of Luke, should be extended the same credibility manifested in the Book of ACTS.
Roman historian Colin Hemer, numbers 17 reasons for accepting the traditional early date of Acts (during the lifetime of contemporaries of the events). These reasons strongly support the historicity of ACTS and, indirectly, the historicity of the Gospel of Luke (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1).
The first five of Hemer's arguments are sufficient to show that ACTS was penned by A.D. 62.
1. There is no mention in ACTS of the crucial historical event of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which places ACTS before the event.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish war in 66 or of any serious or specific deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews, which implies ACTS was written before that time.
3. There is no hint of the more immediate deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution of the late 60's.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62, recorded by Josephus (Antiquities, 20.9.1.200).
5. Since the Apostle Paul was still alive (Acts 28), it must have been written before his death (A.D. 65).
Also,
1. Primitive formulation of Christian terminology is used in ACTS, which reflects an earlier period ( Harnack lists a number of Christological titles: Iesous [Jesus] and ho kurios [ the Lord] are often, whereas ho Christos always designates "the Messiah," and not a proper name, and Christos is otherwise used only in formal combinations).
2. Rackham points to the optimistic tone of ACTS, which would not have been there is Judaism had been destroyed and Christians martyred in the Neronian persecutions of the late 60's.
3. The abrupt ending of the Book of ACTS is a factor. If Paul had died by then, for example, that would have been mentioned (2Tim. 4:6-8).
4. The "immediacy" of ACTS 27-28 comes into play.
5. The prevelence of insignificat details of cultural milieu of an early, even Julio-Claudian, date, shows evidence.
6. There are areas of controversy in ACTS that presuppose the relevance of an early Jewish setting while the Temple was still standing (see The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, 378-87).
Any book like ACTS that was written after the death of Paul (A.D. 65) or the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) would surely have mentioned these momentous events.
Based on the above facts, we see that ACTS was written by Luke, a contemporary of Christ, before 70 A.D. Luke also wrote the Gospel of Luke. He was a first-rate historian.
Mail me and I will give you my address so you can send me the check, for proving Christ had a contemporary writer and evidence. Thank you
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
By the way, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (four volumes) and THE BAKER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, both by Norman Geisler, are extremely recommened studies and complete refutations of all the arguments ever hurled against Christianity by atheists. I highly recommend them. They deal with every conceivable objection to Christianity, and completely demolish all atheistitic arguments.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
And all you have to do is read them under the preconception that they deal with every concievable objection to Christianity and completely demolish all atheistic arguments.
then the magic will work for you too.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin