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

[joobz]

So you have personal knowledge and proof that God exists because you have talked to him.

Why is it that it seems that only you missed the point of my relaying god's opinion?

*Homer simpson voice*
Hearsay is unreliable as it is easy to completely make it up.....

 

[arthwollipot]

There are 14,000 full or partial manuscripts that say Christ lived, Whereas there is only 7 manuscripts of Plato's works. Historians Tacitus and Josephus mention Christ.

Do these 14,000 manuscripts say that Christ lived, or do that say that Christians believe that Christ lived?

Are they documentary evidence of Christ, or of Christians?

 

[paximperium]

There are statues of Greek and Roman gods. Does that mean you have physical evidence of them. Also, I've heard there is no known signature of Julius Caesar. That seems odd. You would think a signature of the supposed first Roman emperor would be a collector's item. This could be a definite argument he never existed. And a person can put anything they want on a coin. One could argue it is hearsay that he ever existed.

Despite your ignorance of Roman history. So?

Hey, let's say he was made up. Let's say he was a Roman fairytale that never ever existed.

So?

There are 14,000 full or partial manuscripts that say Christ lived, Whereas there is only 7 manuscripts of Plato's works. Historians Tacitus and Josephus mention Christ.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Back to that dishonest lie again?

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.

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

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

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?

 

[paximperium]

Do these 14,000 manuscripts say that Christ lived, or do that say that Christians believe that Christ lived?

Are they documentary evidence of Christ, or of Christians?

This has been clearly told to DOC about a half dozen times in this thread alone and he even conceded that Josephus' writing may have bee DOCtored.

His continued use of this argument repeatedly is evidence to his delusion, blatant dishonesty and/or mental retardation. Personally, I would not insult the mentally retarded by the equation.

 

[paximperium]

This argument would help to explain why the Gospels have no signatures.

So?

 

[DOC]

Actually it makes perfect sense, since Joseph was portrayed as one who believed. The same was true of Nicodemus in John's gospel -- he sticks up for Jesus later in the work after their earlier conversation.

The reason behind having him put into a tomb -- and it had to be someone well enough off to have a tomb -- was to counter the ready claim that he was never buried, so that the resurrection story could even be possible. Crucified criminals were generally left for the dogs to eat or put into a mass grave. Their bodies were not released to their families or to strangers.

Joseph would have to have been rich and powerful in the story to explain how he could have pulled off the feat of getting the body of a crucified criminal in the first place. So he would have to be, for story purposes, in the Jewish elite.

As Geisler's book points out, if Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy) didn't really bury Jesus the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. The Jews never denied the story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found.


bold added

 

[paximperium]

As Geisler's book points out, if Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy) didn't really bury Jesus the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. The Jews never denied the story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found.


bold added

 

[joobz]

As Geisler's book points out, if Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy) didn't really bury Jesus the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. The Jews never denied the story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found.


bold added

Is that the same book that gave us the ironclad argument christian martyrs prove christianity true but other religious martyrs do not prove other religions true because christianity is true?

 

[Hokulele]

As Geisler's book points out, if Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy) didn't really bury Jesus the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. The Jews never denied the story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found.


bold added

Let's say the story of Jesus' burial were true (stop laughing joobz and six7s!). It is still not evidence of his resurrection, it is only evidence of his death.

Once again for the hard of reading...

It. Is. Not. Evidence. Of. The. Resurrection.

 

[six7s]

Let's say the story of Jesus' burial were true (stop laughing joobz and six7s!).

Dunno about joobz, but I can read that without laughing... I find it fascinating and eagerly (naively) anticipate a meaningful response






Imagine a world where there were no hypothetical situations

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

As Geisler's book points out, if Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy) didn't really bury Jesus the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. The Jews never denied the story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found.

Is that the same book that gave us the ironclad argument christian martyrs prove christianity true but other religious martyrs do not prove other religions true because christianity is true?

So you respond to a quote with a different subject matter. And what is the exact quote from the book you're talking about. Or at least give the post you're referring to.

 

[marksman]

would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity.

How could they? By the time the Christians started publishing the account, Rome had destroyed the Temple and begun the Diaspora. In the first century A.D., Rome was slaughtering Jews to put down the Judaean Revolt. After 70 AD, the Sanhedrin were a shell of its former self and weren't even in Jerusalem where any records could have been found to dispute the stories Christians were making up about Jesus.

Don't try to use "The Jews" as a basis for evidencing Christianity's truth. "The Jews" were there, and most of them didn't buy into the stories, which is why Paul of Tarsus urged Christianity to go and convert Romans and Greeks, which is what they eventually did. That's why Judaism is still around, but virtually nobody worships Zeus of Jupiter anymore.

The Jews never denied the story

Jews throughout history denied the entire account! Are they now required also to deny it chapter by chapter?

no alternative burial story has ever been found.

So what? Because only one fictitious account of Jesus' burial was discovered, that makes it more likely to be true?!

 

[DOC]

How could they? By the time the Christians started publishing the account, Rome had destroyed the Temple and begun the Diaspora. In the first century A.D., Rome was slaughtering Jews to put down the Judaean Revolt. After 70 AD, the Sanhedrin were a shell of its former self and weren't even in Jerusalem where any records could have been found to dispute the stories Christians were making up about Jesus.

What is your source that Christians were making up stories or is that an opinion.

ETA: I believe joobz even stated in this thread that he believed the NT writers believed they we're telling the truth.

And wouldn't you agree that there were already Christians being persecuted in Rome in the early 60s AD well before 70 AD.

 

[zooterkin]

How could they? By the time the Christians started publishing the account, Rome had destroyed the Temple and begun the Diaspora. In the first century A.D., Rome was slaughtering Jews to put down the Judaean Revolt. After 70 AD, the Sanhedrin were a shell of its former self and weren't even in Jerusalem where any records could have been found to dispute the stories Christians were making up about Jesus.

Don't try to use "The Jews" as a basis for evidencing Christianity's truth. "The Jews" were there, and most of them didn't buy into the stories, which is why Paul of Tarsus urged Christianity to go and convert Romans and Greeks, which is what they eventually did. That's why Judaism is still around, but virtually nobody worships Zeus of Jupiter anymore.


Jews throughout history denied the entire account! Are they now required also to deny it chapter by chapter?


So what? Because only one fictitious account of Jesus' burial was discovered, that makes it more likely to be true?!

What is your source that Christians were making up stories or is that an opinion.

Try to follow your own arguments, at least. You said the account couldn't be fictional because it would have been denied by Jews at the time. It has just been explained why that didn't happen. Therefore, you have not established that the stories are not fictional.

 

[DOC]

Try to follow your own arguments, at least. You said the account couldn't be fictional because it would have been denied by Jews at the time. It has just been explained why that didn't happen. Therefore, you have not established that the stories are not fictional.

Was it fictional that early Jewish authorities believed the body of Christ was stolen by the disciples or do you believe that was made up also?

 

[zooterkin]

Was it fictional that early Jewish authorities believed the body of Christ was stolen by the disciples or do you believe that was made up also?

And what is your source for this?

 

[DOC]

Try to follow your own arguments, at least. You said the account couldn't be fictional because it would have been denied by Jews at the time. It has just been explained why that didn't happen.

Yes I did get an explanation with no sources.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
Was it fictional that early Jewish authorities believed the body of Christ was stolen by the disciples or do you believe that was made up also?

And what is your source for this?

Justin Martyr and Tertullian

 

[zooterkin]

Yes I did get an explanation with no sources.

Do you dispute any of the facts mentioned in that post?

 

[DOC]

Do you dispute any of the facts mentioned in that post?

Well for one, what is your proof that no Gospels were written before 70 AD. Doesn't it seem odd that the Gospels don't mention such a huge event as the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Isn't that kind of like writing a book about the modern history of New York City in 2005 and not mentioning 911.