And I strongly suggest that you read "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions"
by T. W. Doane

Just for curiosity, what is your definition of a 'credible Biblical authority'?

The voice of understanding
I know what you mean.

According to what is passed around today as "credible" scholarship... It would those whose viewpoints tend to reflect an anti Supernatural bias, whose framework is within pure naturalism, and whose edict is that God does not exist, at least not the Judeo-Christian view of Him, Jesus could not be His Son, the Bible simply is another religious writting, full of myths and contridictions... Gospels were piecemealed together, no historical reliability to the texts, were corrupted, just propaganda to support a jewish Messiah, who may/may not have even existed...

Basically, a source that can acknowledge that all relions are either the same, or all equally valid, that God has never revealed Himself through either visitation or written Word, and who refuses to accept any type of predictive elements, miracles, resurrection...

And whose salavation resides not outside, from a God who gave His Son as a sacrifice to atone for our Sins, but internally, from our own works and efforts...

That is what qualifies, to many today, as a source reflecting "credible Biblical authority"...

Well reflect this Jesus is not the son of god and god is not his own son or his own father.

Jesus was not sacrificed to atone for our Sins but a elution was spread that a someone else would pay for your sins ..........God is Total justice not stupid to punish a innocent for the crimes of the guilty....wakeup to this..


Waite I already covered this ........well carry on dreaming with the son/god/father/holy spirit thing

its like a murderer being set free and the victims family being put in prison...does that make any sense.....Atone for your sins.........your joking right!

~"I turn and slowly pull another coke from the fridge break dancing back to my chair"~


Stop collaborate and listen, i is back with my coke and intension. With this discuss ever stop?..Yo I don't know, turn off the lights and I will glow!........and so on ...and so on.

One who not only knows Scripture but also the history of the Bible, the conditions of the times in which it was written, the peripheral characters who never appear in the Bible but who had a profound impact upon it, who has an equal knowledge of other religions and their relationships with the Bible and the subsequent relgions and sects stemming from them, the histories of other significant personalities from whom came other religions and sects, a knowledge of languages and their changing forms from epochs to epochs, who has personally examined early documents and has the ability to form opinions about their authenticity or if they have been corrupted. An expert should have first hand experience in visiting important geographic locations mentioned in the Bible, Apocrypha and even the pseudepigraphic writings. From this there can be an awareness of distances to evaluate journeys and their mentioned times. An expert should have a great familiarity with world museums and have personally viewed artifacts and stelas that have religious importance. The expert should have an awareness that his work and study are never-ending and that he has the obligation to form opinions only when they can be qualified.

Qualifications met in the sources I have used (and are required reading in college and seminaries all over the globe) ... and all quickly dismissed by Jesusfan. Oh well.

Yo, I don't know, turn off the lights and I will glow? LMAO! That is funny shizit man.

Agree with what was listed for "credible" bible authority sources, but the problem is that there ARE valid Evangelical sources to reference concerning the person of jesus, Bible, and beginnings of the early Church that are much superior to actually meet the conditions stated that those of much of current critical/liberal scholarship..

We can, and have, learned much from the critical studies evaluating the developement of the text and canon of scripture, as well as the updating of the standard Lexicons, word studies, grammers, but the problem was again is that once the sources of critical scholarship come to try to answer the questions of jesus, that is where it Sorely is found lacking.

One does not read into the text, historical information background, etc with an agenda to prove either there is sufficent facts to support/deny claims concerning Jesus, Bible, Church, but must allow for the facts to be analized, than conclusions drawn from them...
At best, all a liberal bible scholar will be able to say is that the Early Church believed, recorded, and taught that Jesus was the Son of God, Messiah, resurrected, and to come again... They they can say that of course its false, because of our Anti-Supernatural, naturalistic viewpoint, but not from the data presented in both the Gospels and in the Early Church...

So you have read the book which I suggest?

Let's assume that we were discussing Pontius Pilate, certainly a contemporary of Jesus' time. Now one might support Pilate and consider him a good leader. He did, after all, keep things pretty well under control during his time of service in Jerusalem. Another might oppose that idea and consider him to have been an abusive, inferior leader.

At their disposal would be the writings of Philo who called Pilate, "inflexible, merciless, and obstinate." Eusebius said on the authority of earlier writers, whom he does not name, that Pilate was known "to have fallen into great misfortunes under Caligula, and eventually to have committed suicide." They might even call upon the completely fraudulent "Letter of Pilate to Tiberius."
Physical evidence would be available such as the interesting limestone block with a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."
The Vatican Archives provide evidences that in A.D. 36 the governor of Syria brought serious accusations against Pilate, and he was banished to Vienne in Gaul.

The point is that the debate could be conducted and guided by evidences directly from the times of Pilate wtihout being accounts that were passed down through multiple generations.

In spite of the fact that Jesus has become far more memorable than Pilate, he cannot be discussed in the same controlled sense with supporting evidences for either side of the debate. NONE of the references to Jesus are historically reliable, NONE come from an original manuscript, NONE come from first-hand witnesses and NONE can be supported by any physical evidence.

In the light of that, I believe the Bible criticism can be justified and that it is good and healthy. By believing all things through faith, we learn nothing. Only by the curiousity of critics are new discoveries made and academic progress established. Who knows? Maybe one day a discovery will be made to verify the existence of Jesus and his ministry but when that happens, it will have been discovered by a critic.

No, but I am searching for it in Amazon.

No offense, but we haven't got any original manuscripts for Pilate either, and it is only guesswork by your "credible" scholars that claim they were not first-hand witnesses, nor historically reliable.

Regards, PA

Yep, that's what I thought.



I guess it doesn't hurt that none of these credible historians never come to the conclusion that it is real. Those that do obviously get thrown into the bias bin.

Truthfully dude, according to this information, many of the scholars that think of the Bible as true can fit into this description just as easily as those that dismiss it.

Just a thought.

Regards, PA