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

[DOC]

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?

It proves that there are 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and/or Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar (the emperor of the Roman Empire) within the same time frame. And I contend the importance of that is self evident.

 

[zooterkin]

It proves that there are 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and/or Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar (the emperor of the Roman Empire) within the same time frame. And I contend the importance of that is self evident.

I deny your contention. Please spell it out for those lacking your perspicacity exactly what the importance is.

 

[DOC]

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.

Other than a possible interpolation in "one" of Josephus's 2 passages that mention Christ, which of the other 9 sources was a forgery (to use your wording)?

And your wording "blatant lie" and the last two lines of your reply above is a joke. Your shock words are a debating trick that are trying to win a debate on emotion rather than clear well explained reasoning. That debating tactic might work in a live oral debate but not in a format like this where one has the time to analyze it. When you imply info like this site --

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm


-- which I've already posted is not evidence for Jesus "at all" then I contend you and your highly emotional (shock word filled) language loses credibility.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

Taoism, Taosim, Taoism, Lao Tsu, Chuang Tzu, Tao te Ching, Taoism, Taosim, the Way. Better?

ETA: I almost forgot, does Tsing Tao count?

-- which I've already posted is not evidence for Jesus "at all" then I contend you and your highly emotional (shock word filled) language loses credibility.

It is not evidence of Jesus' divinity or resurrection at all.

 

[zooterkin]

Your shock words are a debating trick that are trying to win a debate on emotion rather than clear well explained reasoning. That debating tactic might work in a live oral debate but not in a format like this where one has the time to analyze it. .

 

[joobz]

And I contend the importance of that is self evident.

And I contend that your argument is self-evidently wrong.

 

[joobz]

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


So, am I to assume that the current argument is:

Since other "non-christian" sources (Outside the bible) state that Jesus existed and christian myths existed, that this equals "evidence for the New testament writers told the truth".

 

[paximperium]

Other than a possible interpolation in "one" of Josephus's 2 passages that mention Christ, which of the other 9 sources was a forgery (to use your wording)?

You are correct. Thanks for finally agreeing that your strongest passage from Josephus' that actually mentions Jesus is a forgery as it is obviously so. All the other sources non-Christian sources are nothing more than historical records that mention Christians and their beliefs AFTER the Jesus legend was established.

And your wording "blatant lie" and the last two lines of your reply above is a joke. Your shock words are a debating trick that are trying to win a debate on emotion rather than clear well explained reasoning. That debating tactic might work in a live oral debate but not in a format like this where one has the time to analyze it. When you imply info like this site --

Red herring. Your attempt to redirect the discussion and play the victim is to quote"...a debating trick that are trying to win a debate on emotion rather than clear well explained reasoning." You have not refuted the fact that you've persistently claimed that those "sources" are event relevant to your claim of your Jesus legend.

-- which I've already posted is not evidence for Jesus "at all" then I contend you and your highly emotional (shock word filled) language loses credibility.

Do you think people can't read this thread? You are a liar:

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.

No those sources do not. It mentions Christians and their beliefs decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

It proves that there are 10 non-Christian authors who mention Christ and/or Christianity within 150 years of his life and 9 non-Christian authors who mention Tiberius Caesar (the emperor of the Roman Empire) within the same time frame. And I contend the importance of that is self evident.

I've noticed the gradual change in your claim. The self evidence is that it proves that Christianity existed nothing more, nothing less. It is nothing more than continued dishonesty to claim that they are important in discussion concerning your claims in the opening.

If you will concede this point, that these Non-Christian sources are irrelevant to your claim that Jesus existed or add anything to your claim of divinity, I withdraw my claim that you are a liar and will apologize.

Will you do the honest thing? I wonder?

 

[joobz]

I've noticed the gradual change in your claim. The self evidence is that it proves that Christianity existed nothing more, nothing less. It is nothing more than continued dishonesty to claim that they are important in discussion concerning your claims in the opening.

This is exactly why I brought it back to his original OP.

It's rather clear that the geisler arguments are utter nonsense. It took less than a page to establish that. It was made worse when it was reveiled Geisler's special pleading argument (why martyrs prove christianity but not other religions) was nothing more than circular reasoning.


DOC has been forced to retreat the debate into a defense of the existence of Jesus.

 

[Cavemonster]

One more time, because DOC seems not to be getting it.

Only one of these sources (Josephus) states that Jesus rose from the grave and even your link contends that it was probably a later Christian edit.

The rest of them say essentially this.
"There are a group of people called Christians who worship Jesus (a guy who got executed) and think he did some special stuff"

I don't think anyone is denying that early Christians existed. How do you see 9 references to early Christians and one forged reference to Jesus as any kind of proof that Jeus is the son of God? I can easily find 9 early references from non practicioners on the existence of just about any religion, likely from those same writers, Josphus, Pliny etc. by your logic, does that make the claims of these religions true?

And i know what you're thinking, this is just one piece of evidence, Christianity has all this other stuff that you've mentioned. You imagine a meter rising up and up with the popularity of Christianity, the number of Bibles printed etc all adding up to a convincing truth. The fact of the matter is that you can stack up a huge amount of weak non evidence for anything.

My heart is a pepper
1) Both are red.
2) Peppers are very popular, most people with hearts eat them.
3) Doctors agree that they are good for heart health, like effects like.
4) I've never seen my heart so I don't know for sure
5) Just look at the shape! What other vegetable looks so much like a heart.
6) The medical establishment has been wrong about so many things!
7) Blood, which pumps through the heart is also red, like a pepper!
8) Why is energy refered to as "pep"? The heart pumps oxengenated blood to the muscles, supplying them with energy! Pep come from the pepper inside!

Do you see how no amount of "evidence" that isn't strong is ever going to prove something true? The kind of evidence you're supplying can be piled up high for any religion.

 

[tyr_13]

Also, by DOC's reasoning, paximperium supports DOC's claims because pax has quoted him (doc) and restated his position several times in this thread.

 

[paximperium]

Also, by DOC's reasoning, paximperium supports DOC's claims because pax has quoted him (doc) and restated his position several times in this thread.

Noooooooooo...

 

[Fitter]

One more time, because DOC seems not to be getting it.<snip>

The Dissembler Of Christ, or whatever that acronym is supposed to mean, doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. He has proven throughout his time on this forum that he is unable to recognize the validity of any argument that contradicts his beliefs. He will repeatedly bring up arguments that have been proven to be untrue and present them as fresh evidence. Toy with him to your heart's content but don't expect him to "get it".

 

[paximperium]

The Dissembler Of Christ, or whatever that acronym is supposed to mean, doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. He has proven throughout his time on this forum that he is unable to recognize the validity of any argument that contradicts his beliefs. He will repeatedly bring up arguments that have been proven to be untrue and present them as fresh evidence. Toy with him to your heart's content but don't expect him to "get it".

I have no delusion of convincing him. He is practice. He's a punching bag that is great to test out new debating styles and tactics. He's also a great stress reliever to smack down.

 

[DOC]

...I've noticed the gradual change in your claim. The self evidence is that it proves that Christianity existed nothing more, nothing less...

How about the evidence that a small group of scared apostles in a distant province who knew their leader was crucified and they would likely be next if they didn't keep quiet were able to cause the extinction of the Roman and Greek gods and eventually convert the Roman emperor -- with no radio, no TV, no newpapers, and no modern transportation. Doesn't that historical evidence seem to make one think that the apostles might have seen exactly what the four gospels said they saw.

 

[Hokulele]

No, they might simply be very good at public speaking.

Also, please provide evidence that the "extinction of the Roman and Greek gods" was solely due to the apostles, and not people relying on hearsay spread by people who heard the apostles.

 

[Mashuna]

Also, please provide evidence that the "extinction of the Roman and Greek gods" was solely due to the apostles, and not people relying on hearsay spread by people who heard the apostles.

Yes, sometimes hearsay just causes people to decide on deicide.

 

[DOC]

No, they might simply be very good at public speaking.

I agree here, seeing a resurrected man would make motivated and enthusiastic speakers even out of fishermen.

Also, please provide evidence that the "extinction of the Roman and Greek gods" was solely due to the apostles, and not people relying on hearsay spread by people who heard the apostles.

I didn't say "solely" and bottom line is the Greek and Roman gods are on the ash heap of history and Christianity is still going strong 2000 years later.

 

[DOC]

Yes, sometimes hearsay just causes people to decide on deicide.

Do you have first hand knowledge that Julius Caesar existed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How about the evidence that a small group of scared apostles in a distant province who knew their leader was crucified and they would likely be next if they didn't keep quiet were able to cause the extinction of the Roman and Greek gods and eventually convert the Roman emperor -- with no radio, no TV, no newpapers, and no modern transportation. Doesn't that historical evidence seem to make one think that the apostles might have seen exactly what the four gospels said they saw.

Let's look at the actual evidence.

The disciples were initially scared, yes. There was no chance that they were next. Jesus was crucified because he disrupted the peace. That is why the Romans went after him. His followers would not have been a target. People in the Roman Empire were not crucified for their beliefs as a matter of course by the government. Christians were not persecuted by the Roman government for their beliefs until the 4th century unless you want to over-interpret the charge of arson levelled by Nero or the local problem that Pliny recorded and asked Trajan about or the other local problem that involved Marcus Aurelius.

Best estimates are that the faith grew at a rate of approximately 40% every decade. The evidence supports that somewhere between 7-10% of the Empire were Christian in the 4th century when Constantine converted. Within 50 years of his conversion that percentage had climbed to approximately 50% because of patronage and other issues.

The evidence suggests contingency, not inevitability.

If the triumph of Christianity was inevitable, as the book of Acts suggests, then why was it stopped? Did God run out of steam?

By the way, it was precisely because there were no newspapers, radio or TV that Christianity was able to do what it did.