This is one reason why I gave my children unusual names, because it is such a pain to say, "No, not THAT Jennifer. That Jennifer Lawrence was the one who starred in Hunger Games. No, I am talking about Jennifer Lawrence from our old English Literature class who always popped gum behind me and stuck it to the bottom of her desk..." :0) Anyhew...I enjoy the lectures from Peter Williams very much, and have learned even more about language, names, and other historical tidbits, which he presents in a very user-friendly way. I wish he had better luck with audio. Of all of the speakers I have heard, he somehow has the most trouble being heard. It is worth straining to hear if the message is good, but I still pray that he and a great sound guy have found each other. May God continue to bless him on his teaching and speaking endeavors.
This guy is brilliant. I don't really understand the criticisms as the speaker deals with them in detail. As he said you can't prove anything 100 % but many of our beliefs are quite reasonable.
Wait, just a few seconds in he calls Tacitus someone we can rely on and then in the very next breath says that Tacitus was cynical about Christians (i.e. didn't believe their story). So, Tacitus is reliable and doesn't believe the Christian story. OK, lecture over. Next.
Marc: Why don't you research the issue on your own, so you can see for yourself just how "obvious" the fiction is. If you compare the Books of the Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Q, the Apocrypha (which has some interesting divergent properties from the Bible books proper), etc., together, then to other works considered historically accurate, then to mythologies, such as The Iliad, you might be surprised just how well the Bible stacks up against other works of antiquity, as well as how recent after the events the Gospel narratives were written, through the Bible itself, as well as from outside Biblical sources.
What a snake oil salesman. Although he did make the point that Tacitus would have been 8 years old when the events in Rome happened, he still presented Tacitus' entry as information that was commonly known in Rome in 64 AD. This is utter unproven nonsense, as Tacitus could just as easily, and most likely would have gained this information much later in life from much later sources (either written or verbal), closer to the time the "history" was written, which was around 116 AD, over 50 years after the event, and 90 years after "Christus" supposedly lived. This is how Christian apologetics work, through nonstop mis-information.
This is one reason why I gave my children unusual names, because it is such a pain to say, "No, not THAT Jennifer. That Jennifer Lawrence was the one who starred in Hunger Games. No, I am talking about Jennifer Lawrence from our old English Literature class who always popped gum behind me and stuck it to the bottom of her desk..." :0) Anyhew...I enjoy the lectures from Peter Williams very much, and have learned even more about language, names, and other historical tidbits, which he presents in a very user-friendly way. I wish he had better luck with audio. Of all of the speakers I have heard, he somehow has the most trouble being heard. It is worth straining to hear if the message is good, but I still pray that he and a great sound guy have found each other. May God continue to bless him on his teaching and speaking endeavors.
This guy is brilliant. I don't really understand the criticisms as the speaker deals with them in detail. As he said you can't prove anything 100 % but many of our beliefs are quite reasonable.
...So were you going to drop that comment off and get ready to debate someone, or did you just want to tick someone off?
Well done!
Great video keep them coming &)
Great video!
Wait, just a few seconds in he calls Tacitus someone we can rely on and then in the very next breath says that Tacitus was cynical about Christians (i.e. didn't believe their story).
So, Tacitus is reliable and doesn't believe the Christian story.
OK, lecture over. Next.
Its obviously fiction as a whole, but is there anything in it that is historical?
Marc: Why don't you research the issue on your own, so you can see for yourself just how "obvious" the fiction is. If you compare the Books of the Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Q, the Apocrypha (which has some interesting divergent properties from the Bible books proper), etc., together, then to other works considered historically accurate, then to mythologies, such as The Iliad, you might be surprised just how well the Bible stacks up against other works of antiquity, as well as how recent after the events the Gospel narratives were written, through the Bible itself, as well as from outside Biblical sources.
Fiction.
lol who doesnt like fiction??
What a snake oil salesman. Although he did make the point that Tacitus would have been 8 years old when the events in Rome happened, he still presented Tacitus' entry as information that was commonly known in Rome in 64 AD. This is utter unproven nonsense, as Tacitus could just as easily, and most likely would have gained this information much later in life from much later sources (either written or verbal), closer to the time the "history" was written, which was around 116 AD, over 50 years after the event, and 90 years after "Christus" supposedly lived. This is how Christian apologetics work, through nonstop mis-information.