Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

Did Doc just argue that the small number of references is proof? Lack of proof is proof? Ok...I knew it would come back to that one soon enough.

But Jesus does have more non-Christian sources then the Roman Emperor Tiberius (see previous post).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But Jesus does have more non-Christian sources then the Roman Emperor Tiberius (see previous post).

I can only assume that you are just trying to be silly now.

Tiberius had four almost immediate major sources of his life -- Suetonius, Tacitus, Cassius Dio (admittedly later), and Velleius Paterculus -- with the latter writing during his life. Each of these men chronicled details about Tiberius' life and the political fallout from his decisions. Many of these portrayals are very negative; Seutonius and Tacitus were no fans of the man. Cassius Dio seemed convinced that Livia wanted to kill everyone in sight. Suetonius also mentions that he had read a brief autobiography that Tiberius had written.

Let's compare this with the writings of Jesus and of non-Christians about Jesus:


[crickets chirping]






Hmm, they don't say anything about him except that Christians say he died and that they thought he was a god.

Do you really want to make this comparison?


ETA:

Sorry, forgot to mention, are we to ignore the direct evidence as well -- the coins struck during his reign, the statues that still exist, etc.?

Were there coins struck in Jesus' name or statues of him that exist from the 1st century?

 

[paximperium]

But Jesus does have more non-Christian sources then the Roman Emperor Tiberius (see previous post).

No he/it doesn't.
Ichneumon already answered it.
We have multiple sources detailing similar events.
We have direct evidence of coins and statues.
What do you have? Contradictory stories written decades after the event.

But there is one big difference. No source claimed that the Emperor could do magic and was god now did they?

So which is more probable(since you like this word so much)? Roman Emperor who conquered chunks of Europe or a Jewish street preacher who was walking God incarnate?

 

[six7s]

Well then Tiberius Caesar (the Roman Emperor during the time of Jesus) must be more of a nobody than Jesus because <snip/>

So what?

Even if you were right about Tiberius (or any other historical figure), your 'argument' does not counter the notion that all tales of your messiah are a load of bollocks

The subject of this thread is 'Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth'. You got any?

 

[Hokulele]

That book should be retitled, "I Don't Have Enough Brains to be an Apologist".

 

[FireGarden]

No you don't, I felt not putting all 10 in would cause some people (who were serious about apologetics) to actually get this very good book. If you had gotten the book earlier you might not have made that error about a singularity being infinite mass that you made other thread. The clear scientific explanations in Geisler's book made me realize your definition didn't seem right. So there is a chance you might still think a singularity contains infinite mass if it wasn't for Geisler's book.

Joobz must make very few errors for this one to still be following him around like an albatross round his neck... Or something.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

That book should be retitled, "I Don't Have Enough Brains to be an Apologist".

I think Robert M. Price is working on a book with just that title.

 

[DOC]

So what?

Even if you were right about Tiberius (or any other historical figure), your 'argument' does not counter the notion that all tales of your messiah are a load of bollocks

The subject of this thread is 'Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth'. You got any?

I disagree, writings from famous historians like Tacitus and Josephus are not a load of whatever.

And I'll take the 10 non-Christian sources (and 33 Christian sources) versus 9 for the Roman Emperor. Not to mention the over 5000 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the most manuscripts of any ancient writings (Plato had 7 copies found, and Tacitus had 20 copies found)

And there was also many more thousands of handwritten Coptic, Arabic, etc. manuscripts found of the Bible or parts of it.

ETA

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

 

[Hokulele]

Lovely, how many of those non-Christian sources mention Jesus rising from the dead?

 

[DOC]

Lovely, how many of those non-Christian sources mention Jesus rising from the dead?

The Arabic copy of Josephus does, and Tacitus talks of a Christian superstition.

Also why would Roman historians want to give free advertising to an enemy of their own Roman Gods.

You yourself snipped two of my links in a previous reply. You obviously didn't want to give me free support to my argument so why should you expect more of Roman historians who have to worry about keeping the emperor and the powers that be happy. Josephus the former Jewish General obviously owed a lot to his Roman captors. It doesn't make sense to build up and advertise a competitive religion. Keeping the Roman masses ignorant of the resurrection would obviously make sense to the leaders. Look what happened when the masses eventually found out. Bye bye Roman gods.

 

[Hokulele]

The Arabic copy of Josephus does, and Tacitus talks of a Christian superstition.

"Talks of a Christian superstition" is the best the description of everything you have presented so far. In other words, none of the this is evidence of fact, but belief. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Also why would Roman historians want to give free advertising to an enemy of their own Roman Gods.

Enemy? This was not a religious conflict but a political one.

You yourself snipped two of my links in a previous reply. You obviously didn't want to give me free support to my argument so why should you expect more of Roman historians who have to worry about keeping the emperor and the powers that be happy. Josephus the former Jewish General obviously owed a lot to his Roman captors. It doesn't make sense to build up and advertise a competitive religion. Keeping the Roman masses ignorant of the resurrection would obviously make sense to the leaders. Look what happened when the masses eventually found out. Bye bye Roman gods.

Don't be absurd. I have explained to you before that I generally snip links when I quote someone so as to avoid the additional burden on the JREF server. Since I quote you directly, people can use the hyperlink back to your original post to find any links required.

Speaking of which, I strongly recommend you re-read Ichneumonwasp's previous post and respond to his comments on your "historical" sources. Oh right, you do not like to read long posts.

 

[zooterkin]

I disagree, writings from famous historians like Tacitus and Josephus are not a load of whatever.

And I'll take the 10 non-Christian sources (and 33 Christian sources) versus 9 for the Roman Emperor. Not to mention the over 5000 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the most manuscripts of any ancient writings (Plato had 7 copies found, and Tacitus had 20 copies found)

I think you are demonstrating your ignorance if you truly think that the existence of Tiberius is less well documented than the life of Jesus.

Granting you the numbers (and I have my doubts, but we'll put those aside for the moment), have you looked at what those 10 references actually say about Jesus compared with what the 9 say about Tiberius? Is there more than a passing mention in any of these 10 sources? What the supporting evidence for Tiberius is, too? Not only would the surviving documents have to agree, but there would have to be no surviving documents referring to whoever the real emperor at the time was, if Tiberius was fictional; in other words, the documentation of Tiberius is falsifiable, whereas that for Jesus is not. Some of the works were written in Tiberius's lifetime, others, written after his death, used primary sources available at the time. Whereas with Jesus, there is no corroboration, and nothing was written down until, at the very earliest, 30 years after his death; plenty of time for memories of what events there may have been to grow dim, and stories to have become embroidered with the telling.

 

[paximperium]

I disagree, writings from famous historians like Tacitus and Josephus are not a load of whatever.

Sure they are completely 100% valid historical documents.
How come they're not sources that support your claims at all?
Continuing to ignore valid criticisms and bull charging forward and making the same claim multiple times just shows your dishonesty.

And I'll take the 10 non-Christian sources (and 33 Christian sources) versus 9 for the Roman Emperor. Not to mention the over 5000 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the most manuscripts of any ancient writings (Plato had 7 copies found, and Tacitus had 20 copies found)

Lying and "argumentum ad large pile of unrelated crap" does not make your case stronger. It makes you look dishonest.

And there was also many more thousands of handwritten Coptic, Arabic, etc. manuscripts found of the Bible or parts of it.

So?

 

[paximperium]

I think you are demonstrating your ignorance if you truly think that the existence of Tiberius is less well documented than the life of Jesus.

Granting you the numbers (and I have my doubts, but we'll put those aside for the moment), have you looked at what those 10 references actually say about Jesus compared with what the 9 say about Tiberius? Is there more than a passing mention in any of these 10 sources? What the supporting evidence for Tiberius is, too? Not only would the surviving documents have to agree, but there would have to be no surviving documents referring to whoever the real emperor at the time was, if Tiberius was fictional; in other words, the documentation of Tiberius is falsifiable, whereas that for Jesus is not. Some of the works were written in Tiberius's lifetime, others, written after his death, used primary sources available at the time. Whereas with Jesus, there is no corroboration, and nothing was written down until, at the very earliest, 30 years after his death; plenty of time for memories of what events there may have been to grow dim, and stories to have become embroidered with the telling.

He has been told multiple times about his so-called sources and he continues to purposefully ignore those criticisms.

His blatant dishonesty is open for all to see. He is a great examples of Christian Apologists.

 

[DOC]

He has been told multiple times about his so-called sources and he continues to purposefully ignore those criticisms.

His blatant dishonesty is open for all to see. He is a great examples of Christian Apologists.

Bottom line there is 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar within the same time frame. Your comment about dishonesty is a desperate attempt to attack the messenger when facts don't go your way.

 

[DOC]

Lying and "argumentum ad large pile of unrelated crap" does not make your case stronger. It makes you look dishonest.

Name the "exact post" in which this alleged lie occurred and what exactly was the lie.

 

[zooterkin]

Bottom line there is 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar within the same time frame. .

Even assuming you are correct (and I don't think we've seen a list yet), exactly what do you think this proves, given the other facts already mentioned in this thread about the nature of the accounts, and other supporting evidence?

 

[paximperium]

Bottom line there is 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar within the same time frame.

Your continued lies are noted.

Your comment about dishonesty is a desperate attempt to attack the messenger when facts don't go your way.

Nope it is a conclusion. There is no message to attack.

 

[paximperium]

Name the "exact post" in which this alleged lie occurred and what exactly was the lie.

To Quote:

And I'll take the 10 non-Christian sources (and 33 Christian sources) versus 9 for the Roman Emperor. Not to mention the over 5000 handwritten Greek manuscripts, the most manuscripts of any ancient writings (Plato had 7 copies found, and Tacitus had 20 copies found)

Bottom line there is 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar within the same time frame. Your comment about dishonesty is a desperate attempt to attack the messenger when facts don't go your way.

A continued purposeful falsehood(ie. lie) since you have been corrected multiple times that these "sources" is composed of forgeries and many just mention your Jesus legend and what Christian believe and says nothing about Jesus. They are not evidence for Jesus at all. Repeating it repeatedly as some supposed evidence is a blatant lie.

Is that all you have? Lies? Are you arguments that weak and pathetic? Very sad indeed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Continuing to "discuss" this "issue" suggests the one of the interlocutors has some degree of standing in the discussion. When the number of sources that mention the followers of someone is used to equal the well-attested biographies of another, we have entered the twilight zone.

By this reasoning Heaven's Gate is more important historically than Taoism since the former has been mentioned several times in this thread and the latter only in this post.