Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
You have to remember that Josephus (a former Jewish general in an army crushed by the Romans) was in the hip pocket of the Roman elite and owed them a lot. It doesn't really make sense to build up and advertise a threat to the Roman empire and the Roman gods. It is logical to assume this would not make Josephus' Roman superiors happy.
Last edited:
Well you could read pages 275 to 297 of this as a start
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA275,M1
Then read the 358 messages I've left in this thread.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
And if you had read ANY of the other posts in this thread, you would see:
1.) Many of us had read Geisler's laughably bad book.
2.) The arguments he presents wouldn't be acceptable in a remedial logic course taught to 5 year olds. Why would we accept them from him?
So, why should we think that the authors told the truth vs. simply trying to start a cult?
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
You've got a right to your opinion. My 358 posts are out there for everyone to read and then they can make up their own mind.
Professor Thomas Arnold and Dr. Simon Greenleaf would disagree with you that there is a lack of evidence for Jesus.
From the website: "The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction" by Dr. Terry Watkins
"Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts. Professor Arnold, stated, "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29)."
http://www.av1611.org/resur.html
Last edited:
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
So? Where is this "evidence"? This is not a matter of opinion, you can't magic Jesus into existence by claiming that because some people have an opinion (no matter their credentials) based on fantasy that is somehow magically becomes real. Your entire line of reasoning is based on this nonsense.
Nearly 400 posts in this thread and people are still waiting for you to produce anything to support your claim.
So then I would assume it is your position that the black civil rights activists -- the Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Reverend Al Sharpton (not to mention President Obama) were wrong to embrace Christianity.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I'd say more forgiving and moral than their supposed savior.
You call it fantasy; Thomas Arnold of Oxford calls it history, and Dr. Simon Greenleaf of Harvard calls it legal evidence.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
I am the truth.
On a serious note, what I think DOC is trying to say is that the willingness of early Christians to die for their beliefs is evidence that Christianity is true. Because Christians were persecuted. Therefore the fact that people became Christians despite the persecution is evidence that Christianity is true.
However, in DOC's logic, this applies only to Christians and not to other cults/sects/religions.
Of course, all it really shows is that some people believed strongly enough to die for their cause. It does not show the cause to be true, merely that people believed it so. If I believed I was a billionaire, my bank account would still not have a billion dollars in it.
Further, there has been more than ample evidence presented in this thread that the willingness of people to sacrifice and/or die for beliefs is well known, and in no way lends evidence to the veracity of their beliefs.
And none of this is proof that the New Testament writers told the truth. We're still waiting for that.
X:
Oh, so it only applies to Christians? If a Christian is ready to die for his faith, that proves that his faith is true? But if a Muslim (or a Shinto, or a member of any other faith) is ready to die for his faith, that doesn't prove that his faith is true?
"... the fact that people became Christians despite the persecution is evidence that Christianity is true."
Muslims are being persecuted because of the absurd power struggle over oil in the middle east. Yet more people are becoming Muslims every day.
"I think what Doc is trying to say is..."
Maybe you'd better stop trying to help Doc. He was doing better without you.
Or is that your point? Are you an atheist mole?
It's a simple fact of human experience. People who are not of the same religion as the ruling class are persecuted. If that proves that their religion is true, then there are many, many true religions. Including the hundreds of Native North American religions, whose members were persecuted, burned alive, separated from their families, and oppressed until their religions were exterminated -- by Christians.
Oh, so it only applies to Christians? If a Christian is ready to die for his faith, that proves that his faith is true? But if a Muslim (or a Shinto, or a member of any other faith) is ready to die for his faith, that doesn't prove that his faith is true?
"... the fact that people became Christians despite the persecution is evidence that Christianity is true."
Muslims are being persecuted because of the absurd power struggle over oil in the middle east. Yet more people are becoming Muslims every day.
"I think what Doc is trying to say is..."
Maybe you'd better stop trying to help Doc. He was doing better without you.
Or is that your point? Are you an atheist mole?
It's a simple fact of human experience. People who are not of the same religion as the ruling class are persecuted. If that proves that their religion is true, then there are many, many true religions. Including the hundreds of Native North American religions, whose members were persecuted, burned alive, separated from their families, and oppressed until their religions were exterminated -- by Christians.
Last edited:
- Status