but a man is only born once, not ten years apart. we are examining your infallible n.t., not some later historian's work, unless you are now accepting the obvious answer that the books were written hundreds of years later. you can not have it both ways. if one gospel disagrees with another, then one of them is wrong. your premise is that, somehow, these books come from a perfect God instead of a group of bishops trying to rush things to please an emperor. make up your mind. If there really were a messiah, and his birth was heralded by all the events indicated, there would be some documentation. if God was behind it, the details would "click". if it were a patchwork thrown together 400 years later, there would be a lot of disagreements, since it was a rush job. Theodosius - do you even know who he was? do you care? your anecdote does not hold water, since you are defending the supposed word of God. I took nothing out of context.

Amazing that others still find it hard to believe that jesus's earliest followers, who as writers under the Inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT, are taken to be either liars or else confused of any of their historical facts, yet we continue to buy into the "truths" odf other religious writtings, who were all wriitem much further from the actual time of allenged events recorded, and who have no eyewitness documentation able to match Gospels of Christ...

ALL of the NT documents can be shown from historical evidences to have been produced during the first Century , and that the Church used stringint requirements in accepting them as being valid and truthful accounts of life of the Lord Jesus...

Christianity ultimately rests upon this foundation, bedrock.... Is Jesus of Nazareth the Promised messiah, and did he fulfuill the prophecies of OT recorded hundreds of years before His birth? And did he die on the Cross as Atonement for Mankind, and did He actually raise up from the Dead? Ant NOT just a "spritual" resurrection, but raised up in bodily form...

Interesting that the 20 Century critical/liberal scholarship has tried to convice us that jesus did none of this, yet there was NEVER a doubt from earliest followers of His that He was the Messiah, and was resurrected back again as the Lord and Saviour of all mankind... Therer NEVER were ANY other Gospels known and recognized as being valid andlegit except the 4 received as of today, and that there was NEVER any other account found ANYWHERE that disputed that jesus was born, said and did miraculus stuff, died on a Cross, and was claimed to have been risen by God from the dead...

No, the claims made by critics against the traditional viewpoints concerning the Gospels/NT/Christ are what are on trial here, and it is forced upon those critics to prove their assumptions, as from the earliest there has been a consistent flow of documentation that jesus was believed by His followers to have been the Messiah of Isreal, and that He was also the Messiah for both Jews and Gentilkes alike..

Agreed-thanks for proving my point further.

I would be happy to refute your post, point by point, but with your belief system, my words would be inspired by Satan. I have never read anything sadder or father from truth or logic.

A great many of the scholars hold that the gospels were not around until after the first or second decade of the 2nd century and believe (by external evidence) that Luke and Acts did not come into being until after the mid 2nd century. Even so, when was Jesus born, we have early churchmen stating that he was born before Herod the Great and lived until well into his 80s, we also have a 10 year discrepancy between the two gospels reporting his birth. If he was born prior to Herod, then even at the beginning of the 2nd century the gospels would be written over a century after the fact. Point of interest, in the 19th and early 20th century, no one questioned that the gospels were a product of the 2nd century, it wasn't until after the advent of the most recent Evangelitical movement (1920-1930s) that the 1st century was even pushed as the period of their creation! Makes you wonder doesn't it!

Once this cancer spread throughout the Church scene,

Not because it is better than what was taught and beklieved first 18 Centuries of Christianity

Just stating that there is good, credible factual evidences that can support the traditional beliefs concerning jesus, Bible, and Christianity..

And I am saying that no "good, credible evidence" exists to support ANYTHING about the existence of Jesus. The Bible and Christianity are other issues but international scholars have long agreed that much of the Bible, with emphasis on the New Testament have been corrupted, edited and added to. The beliefs of Christianity merely EXIST but their foundation can neither be proven or logically supported.

Only the most fervent liberal/critical scholariship refuses to even acknowledge that Jesus actually existed, and majority of even they have the NT portions of the Bible fully completed as original documents no later than beginning of the second Century, and several liberal scholars even concede that bulfk of the entire NT was written down before end of first century... No way do we get NT books that were wriiten houndred's of years after the events that were recorded...

why does a critical scholar need to be liberal? It is obviously far more liberal to accept things on the basis of faith. The timing of the creation of the gospels is not a great issue, rather, their content and intent are of high suspect. They are, after all, written by unknown personalities who are acting as scribes with third-hand information and copying one from another (with the exception of John) and somehow through that process they become sacred and absolute truths.


All can be traced back to Critical schaolars over in europe, especially in 1930's like Rudolph Bultman, who wanted to force a division between the Historical jesus, and the Jesus of faith...

There exists a Jesus of faith and without that Jesus would not exist at all since there is no evidence to support the existence of a "historic Jesus."

Basically all of the Jesus Seminar and like ilk have done is to update and expand upon Anti-Supernatural biases people of earlier times, and they still refuse to see that the main problem that they will encounter is that Jesus of History is the same jesus of faith, as there is sound reasons to believe in and trust the validity of the NT in showing and revealing to us the man jesus Christ...

This is all good evangelist rhetoric but it does little to influence the factual study of Christianity and its basis. Again the reference to the "Jesus of History" remains only part of that rhetoric and is not supported here or anywhere else with evidence in any form.

So no Satan for me, but belief that faith and facts go hand in hand, and that the tradtional viewpoints concerning work and person of Christ fit best the factual evidences available to us at the present time...