Thanks for popping in, SharazJek.

You will find on this Forum plenty of people prepared to discuss these - and many other - issues.

But it probably isn't a good idea to be quite so dogmatic and rigid, first time out.

>>RE: Lack of eyewitness accounts. The Book of John was written by the apostle of the same name, who was personally selected by Jesus. Can't get more eyewitness than that<<

Now, I am not a biblical scholar, but others are.

Here's one now.

"The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status."

That was Robert Kysar, Emeritus Bandy Professor of Preaching and New Testament, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary" pp 919-920

>>I believe I can satisfactorily refute any supposed Biblical contradiction you want to throw my way<<

I'm absolutely certain that you can. However, don't expect us to ascribe any particular credibility to your views. Especially when you say things like:

>>The Jewish historian Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus and confirms his existence<<

Nope. Josephus was born in 37 AD, a couple of years after the date when Jesus is generally believed to have been crucified. Hardly "contemporary".

Believe me, this is not intended to put you down or discourage you from participating in the forum. The more the merrier.

But equally, don't expect to get away with carelessly-phrased assertions.

Wobbles,

>>The Bible is NOT a historical document and contains no eyewitness accounts.<<

I must disagree with that. Although the Bible is not to be read as a historical book per se - in the secular sense; Christianity is a "spiritual revelation" well and truly embedded in thousand of years of history.

Biblical history is told and recorded by God's people, expressing their worldview and their historical journey. Biblical events cannot be divorced from the historical culture - as history is mentioned as a matter of fact – the writers empirical view of the world as it happened around them.

History and Archaeology could only prove the Biblical historicity – time and time again.

I don’t see where you are going with the ‘no eyewitness accounts’ = no Chritianity. No one can reject the historicity of Jesus as reported – internally (Gospels) or externally (secular) –

No matter how many would like to disagree, His historical birth has split time to BC/AD. Doesn’t this fact alone tell you something?

Pericles,

>>“Nope. Josephus was born in 37 AD, a couple of years after the date when Jesus is generally believed to have been crucified. Hardly "contemporary".<<

Are you saying that a historian born in say the 1970s cannot encapsulate WWII' history as accurately if not better than someone who was there?

Since when is history solely linked with eyewitness? Can you deny "it" happened because “you” weren’t there? Can’t a true story be told with integrity “after the facts”?

“Contemporary” does not need to mean 'in-real-time' by a residing eyewitness. Josephus (Like Dr Luke’s Gospel account) had hundreds of remaining contemporary eyewitnesses that he could interview and cross reference to satisfy any judge or court.

I said “remaining” eyewitnesses because ironically most were tortured and executed for propagating and/or believing what they had witnessed.