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

[Hokulele]

It's one thing to be caught and go to jail for a few years, it's another to be crucified, beheaded, or put in boiling water.

True, but it still isn't evidence for the New Testament being true. As has been pointed out innumerable times, people do stupid things for stupid reasons. Welcome to humanity.

 

[joobz]

It's one thing to be caught and go to jail for a few years, it's another to be crucified, beheaded, or put in boiling water.

To be seperated from one's children. To be arrested and jailed are not small puishments.

And even if we are to use your logic as valid, it would argue that judaism is the one true religion. Afterall, history has MULTIPLE MULTIPLE examples of jews being killed for thier beliefs. Even at the hands of christians, that you claim to be the true faith.

Plus those men who are practicing polygamy get a lot of immediate fringe benefits if you know what I mean,

No. I don't. What do you mean.

whereas St. Paul and Peter were getting beaten and thrown in jail (not to mention the constant risk of being killed) for their beliefs with no immediate benefits.

I don't know. Look at the cults that exist today. Are you saying being the leader of these cults doesn't carry benefits? At the very least, it's a big boost to their ego and that whole persecution complex. It makes someone feel very special indeed.

 

[arthwollipot]

So the odds of something being true are directly proportional to the willingness of someone to die for it?

That has been DOC's contention all along.

To be seperated from one's children. To be arrested and jailed are not small puishments.

Playing devil's advocate here, but they are small compared to being tortured to death.

 

[DOC]

So the odds of something being true are directly proportional to the willingness of someone to die for it?...

Strawman.

The fact that Christianity was able to spread in a very repressive environment such as the Roman Empire where you are risking your life for your beliefs is just one more piece of weight to add to the scale of evidence. I never said this fact in and of itself proves the truth of Christianity, but it makes one wonder what was the driving force behind the movement. Especially coming from people like Peter and others who demonstrated cowardness and uncertainty before the supposed Resurrection.

 

[DOC]

So the odds of something being true are directly proportional to the willingness of someone to die for it?

That has been DOC's contention all along.

This is false of course. See post 1744.

 

[six7s]

I never said this fact in and of itself proves the truth of Christianity, but it makes one wonder what was the driving force behind the movement.

Yeah?

I wonder, too...

Aaaand we're back at page 1 .

DOC, how did you manage to miss the posts that point out the martyrs of other religions? Does the fact that the suicide bombers of 9/11 chose to die for their faith mean that it's fundamentalist Islam's view of Abrahamic religion that's true?

Déjà woo?

 

[DOC]

Aaaand we're back at page 1 .

DOC, how did you manage to miss the posts that point out the martyrs of other religions? Does the fact that the suicide bombers of 9/11 chose to die for their faith mean that it's fundamentalist Islam's view of Abrahamic religion that's true?

Once again, I never said martyrdom in and of itself proves a religion true. But it is a factor to take into consideration, especially in the case of Christianity where many of the martyrs actually knew and walked and ate with Jesus; and also knew of his death and resurrection.

 

[Mojo]

Plus those men who are practicing polygamy get a lot of immediate fringe benefits if you know what I mean

No. I don't. What do you mean.

Multiple mothers-in-law.

 

[politas]

Once again, I never said martyrdom in and of itself proves a religion true. But it is a factor to take into consideration, especially in the case of Christianity where many of the martyrs actually knew and walked and ate with Jesus; and also knew of his death and resurrection.

Though, of course, the only evidence that they did so is from the same source as the evidence for Jesus himself. If we don't trust that source, then other information in that source cannot improve our level of trust.

 

[cj.23]

Though, of course, the only evidence that they did so is from the same source as the evidence for Jesus himself. If we don't trust that source, then other information in that source cannot improve our level of trust.

I'm confused? Which source of evidence for Jesus? If you mean the Bible, most of the martyrdoms that DOC refers to are not known from that source. I can run through the sources if you are interested though, I have some spare time today, in that I have an important report to type up so any distraction is welcome!

cj x

 

[politas]

I'm confused? Which source of evidence for Jesus? If you mean the Bible, most of the martyrdoms that DOC refers to are not known from that source. I can run through the sources if you are interested though, I have some spare time today, in that I have an important report to type up so any distraction is welcome!

cj x

Any information about martyrs that "walked and ate with Jesus" has to be from the Bible, since there aren't any other sources which clearly describe his companions and their relationship to him.

You may find a mention of an early Christian being martyred, but the only "evidence" of that person meeting Jesus is from the Bible.

 

[cj.23]

Any information about martyrs that "walked and ate with Jesus" has to be from the Bible, since there aren't any other sources which clearly describe his companions and their relationship to him.

You may find a mention of an early Christian being martyred, but the only "evidence" of that person meeting Jesus is from the Bible.

AH I see! Nope, there is plenty of evidence of the apostles knowing Jesus extra-biblically. Have a look At Eusebius for instance. Writing far later, he records many of the traditions of the Early Church about apostles, including the fact they were apostles, obviously enough. Are these sources reliable? Probably not, but the point is that the deaths of the martyrs that DOC refers to are actually non-biblical, but from often second century accounts. The deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome seem to be attested very early as I recall, possibly as early as 90, which is not to say they are relaible in nay way. Yet there is a considerbale literature about the disciples which stands entirely independent of the Biblical accounts, and asserts things about their relationship with Jesus, and even without the Bible (some elements of ewhich may postdate said traditions) we would know of the apostles and Jesus through said traditions.

Hope clarifies.
j x

 

[joobz]

Strawman.

The fact that Christianity was able to spread in a very repressive environment such as the Roman Empire where you are risking your life for your beliefs is just one more piece of weight to add to the scale of evidence.

DOC,
an argument either supports something or it doesn't. Using "willingness to risk life" either support the truth of a belief or it doesn't.

If the supposed martyrs and supposed early christians support the truth of christianity, than you must conceede that the jewish faith is likely more true. Afterall, their is much more evidence (on a much grander scale) of thier persecution and willingness to die for thier faith.

I never said this fact in and of itself proves the truth of Christianity, but it makes one wonder what was the driving force behind the movement. Especially coming from people like Peter and others who demonstrated cowardness and uncertainty before the supposed Resurrection.

Tirdun didn't say that you claimed that fact alone proved christianity. Amusingly, you used a strawman in order to call his argument a strawman.


But besides that fact, Let's contemplate the driving force for early christians. We would need to look at the driving force of current modern cults to answer that question. Why do people join scientology? Why did people follow Jim Jones? Why did people join the branch davidians?

To get an understanding of why people would put themselves at risk to join a cult, let's consider the typical ways in which cults work.
http://www.howcultswork.com/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/cult.htm
Here's a video that describes some of the more common methods used to recruit into cults.




Personally, I see cults today. I see how people join them, giving up so much of thier life and risking so much for so little. I see how easy it is for cults to make normal, healthy people do horrible horrific things for seemingly little reward. I see how easy it is for cults to become a respected religion over time (mormons and possibly scientology).


In fact I see that many of the reasons you use to say that the bible writers were telling the truth, I see as characteristic signs of people who were brainwashed in a cult.
Don't beleive me?

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

Just like how cultists will give stories of thier horrible past before finding the truth in the cult.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

The leader should make difficult and contradictory statements regarding morality and increase the complexity of the message as he goes along. YEt always claim simplicity. This keeps the people dependant upon the leader(s) for proper interpretation of what proper behavior is.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

Look into what it takes for a scientologist to become "clear". Christianity has nothing on them for "very demanding sayings".

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events:

Such is the way of cults. listen to l ron hubbard desrcibe his many miracles that he's performed. They sound like every day things.'

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

Just like cult followers. Don't believe me?
Ask the jim jones cultists...

 

[Mitchell314]

Once again, I never said martyrdom in and of itself proves a religion true. But it is a factor to take into consideration, especially in the case of Christianity where many of the martyrs actually knew and walked and ate with Jesus; and also knew of his death and resurrection.

With all the different martyrs in history seem to show is that there are people willing to die for whatever they believe. Christian martyrs don't make Christianity any more special than any other major religion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Strawman.

The fact that Christianity was able to spread in a very repressive environment such as the Roman Empire where you are risking your life for your beliefs is just one more piece of weight to add to the scale of evidence. I never said this fact in and of itself proves the truth of Christianity, but it makes one wonder what was the driving force behind the movement. Especially coming from people like Peter and others who demonstrated cowardness and uncertainty before the supposed Resurrection.

For the umpteenth friggin' time, the Roman Empire was not a repressive environment at all times and in all places even for early Christians. Risking life for faith can only be attested as regards Christianity for specific regions at specific times. There simply was no ongoing persecution and there was no Empire-wide Roman persecution of Christians in the first century. You simply have a very distorted view of history, so please let it go.

But, even it there were an Empire-wide persecution, this does not add much to any evidence. It would imply that people are willing to die for faith. We already know that, and that does not provide any clear evidence that the faith reflects reality.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Once again, I never said martyrdom in and of itself proves a religion true. But it is a factor to take into consideration, especially in the case of Christianity where many of the martyrs actually knew and walked and ate with Jesus; and also knew of his death and resurrection.

How would these apocryphal disciples knowing this equally apocryphal holy man make their alleged martyrdom a "factor to take into consideration" in the argument about whether or not your religion is true?

Your "argument" (if you want to call it that) has some rather large holes in it.

 

[politas]

AH I see! Nope, there is plenty of evidence of the apostles knowing Jesus extra-biblically. Have a look At Eusebius for instance. Writing far later, he records many of the traditions of the Early Church about apostles, including the fact they were apostles, obviously enough. Are these sources reliable? Probably not, but the point is that the deaths of the martyrs that DOC refers to are actually non-biblical, but from often second century accounts. The deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome seem to be attested very early as I recall, possibly as early as 90, which is not to say they are relaible in nay way. Yet there is a considerbale literature about the disciples which stands entirely independent of the Biblical accounts, and asserts things about their relationship with Jesus, and even without the Bible (some elements of ewhich may postdate said traditions) we would know of the apostles and Jesus through said traditions.

But these second-century writers were believers. They accepted the Bible as historic truth, and used it as part of their source material. They took some sketchy information about an early Christian, decided that they must be the person referred to in {blah} bit of the Bible, and fleshed out the story.

You're talking like these people were serious modern historians! They weren't. They were apologists and prosyletisers.

 

[zooterkin]

Multiple mothers-in-law.

Mililfs?

 

[DOC]

But these second-century writers were believers. They accepted the Bible as historic truth, and used it as part of their source material. They took some sketchy information about an early Christian, decided that they must be the person referred to in {blah} bit of the Bible, and fleshed out the story.

You're talking like these people were serious modern historians! They weren't. They were apologists and prosyletisers.

But Joshephus was a serious historian and a "non-believer". He wrote a large piece about John the Baptist, who was very prominent in the New Testament and actually baptized Jesus according to several accounts in the Bible.

Joshepus also talks about James, the brother of Jesus {some translate this as cousin}.

From the article: "Josephus on James"

"...when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html

James also by the way is known as the "First Bishop of Jerusalem". Also some scholars consider him the author of the Epistle of James which is in the New Testament... The above passage by Josephus where he mentions "Jesus, who was called the Christ" is considered authentic by historians.

 

[politas]

But Joshephus was a serious historian and a "non-believer". He wrote a large piece about John the Baptist, who was very prominent in the New Testament and actually baptized Jesus according to several accounts in the Bible.

But not according to Josephus. In fact, Josephus wrote very little about Jesus, which seems quite strange to me, if Jesus actually did the things the Bible claims.

Joshepus also talks about James, the brother of Jesus {some translate this as cousin}.

From the article: "Josephus on James"

"...when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html

James also by the way is known as the "First Bishop of Jerusalem". Also some scholars consider him the author of the Epistle of James which is in the New Testament... The above passage by Josephus where he mentions "Jesus, who was called the Christ" is considered authentic by historians.

Wikipedia says "Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers."

The idea that the words "who was called Christ" are a Christian insertion is not unbelievable.

I'm not convinced by the "most scholars" thing. "Most scholars" includes a hell of a lot of Christians who assume that the New Testament has at least some historical basis.