Talk:Phlegon

Quotes should be considered separately

The page currently seems to be saying that the second quote is the "full version" of the content referenced in the first quote. This doesn't make much sense, as the first one talks about Jesus' predictions, knowledge of future events, and Phlegon's confusion between things ascribed to Peter instead of Jesus.

The second, direct quote does not mention predictions, knowledge of future events, the name Peter, or the name Jesus.

Thus, it's unlikely that the second quote from Phlegon is the same one being referenced in the first one. In other words, they are separate (from what I can tell), so should be treated as separate on the page. Venryx (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Why Phlegon is evidence for the events of the New Testament

According to an article on Encyclopedia Britannia about the Chilean Earthquake of 1960, “The fault-displacement source of the earthquake extended over an estimated 560–620 mile (900–1,000 km) stretch of the Nazca Plate, which subducted under the South American Plate.” So a large Earthquake 900 km away from Jerusalem would have been felt in Jerusalem. So Phlegon’s reference to an Earthquake and a Solar eclipse happening at the same time during the fourth year of the 202nd olympiad [32 CE] around the time Christ was crucified, is clear evidence for the Earthquake and darkness in the New Testament. ^{— Unsigned, by: 66.30.39.206 / talk}

The crucifixion narrative is a difficult one, theologically as its unknown authors have differing accounts, and their original works are unusual (eg. Zombies in Jerusalem). Also, I thought Jesus was killed in the year 33. But, then, even the Gospels can’t get years right.^{— Unsigned, by: 78.148.73.209 / talk / contribs}

This site explains the supposed Contradictions. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.compellingtruth.org/amp/resurrection-accounts.html. And Jesus’ death was estimated to be around the year 33 so it could have been 32. ^{— Unsigned, by: 78.148.73.209 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Spud (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

If Jesus existed, which there is little to know evidence that he did, the Bible would still be an unreliable source for that claim. Further, the existance of Jesus, the claims that he had magic powers, the claims that he rose from the dead, the claims of an eclipse, the claims of an earthquake, the claims that God exists, the claims of an afterlife, and the claims of the dead rising, are all separate claims that require separate pieces of evidence. Further, since many of the these claims are extraordinary in nature they require extraordinary proof that they're even possible before anyone can go into whether they actually happened. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The obvious flaw in the OP BoN’s argument is that just because an earthquake was felt at a certain distance in a completely different hemisphere, it does not follow that the particular earthquake described by Phlegon could be felt in Jerusalem. The distance from its epicentre at which an earthquake can be felt is obviously influenced by several factors, especially the earthquake’s magnitude, the depth at which it occurs and the geology of the area. So, the OP BoN’s argument is clearly spurious, because there is no reason why we should assume that the circumstances of the 1960 Chilean and Phlegon’s Bithynian earthquake are directly comparable. Also, the New Testament, or, to be more exact only the Gospel of Matthew, doesn’t simply describe an earthquake “being felt” in Jerusalem, but one strong enough to split rocks (as per Matthew 27:51). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)