• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
paximperium said:
I know you don't read anything of worth...even your own Bible, but here is a nice little pdf and nice articles for you that present the evidence that Eusebius forged and added things into Josephus' writings and others:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/4869
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut3.htm
Click to expand...

These are nice complicated hard to follow theories by mostly anti religion websites. But even "if" Eusebius added some historical information to a work. That doesn't mean that historical information was false. Remember they didn't have newspapers or CNN back then. Information was scarce. If a copyist had additional new information that was true, I personally would would welcome all the additional new information I could get. And even "if" Eusebius might have not have been perfect that has no relation to the teachings of Christ or all the works of the New Testament. Eusebius has nothing to do with the actual bible.

And regarding Josephus who was mentioned in the articles. Josephus had 2 passages that mentioned Jesus. In one of those passages that mention Jesus, Josephus writes:

Jewish Antiquities, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus..."

So here we have the non-Christian Josephus reporting on a person named Jesus who was called the Christ. This passage is considered an authentic work of Josephus and Eusebius had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
These are nice complicated hard to follow theories by mostly anti religion websites. But even "if" Eusebius added some historical information to a work. That doesn't mean that historical information was false. Remember they didn't have newspapers or CNN back then. Information was scarce, if a copyist had additional new information that was true, I personally would would welcome all the additional new information I could get. And even "if" Eusebius might have not have been perfect that has no relation to the teachings of Christ or all the works of the New Testament. Eusebius has nothing to do with the actual bible.
Click to expand...


Ah, so when you cite a religious apologist with an agenda (particularly against atheists), we have to assume he is correct, but when we cite someone with an agenda, you get to assume it is incorrect.

Interesting double standard there.

And if Eusebius added information to someone else's work without mentioning the fact, it is called dishonest. In other words, "lying for Jesus".
 
DOC said:
So here we have the non-Christian Josephus reporting on a person named Jesus who was called the Christ. This passage is considered an authentic work of Josephus and Eusebius had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Right. Now quote the bit where Josephus describes Jesus wandering around again after his death.


*Crickets*
 
DOC said:
These are nice complicated hard to follow theories by mostly anti religion websites.
Click to expand...
So? I only see hand waving bigotry, "Oh atheist wrote it therefore it is not valid."

It isn't really all that complicated if you actually read those papers.

But even "if" Eusebius added some historical information to a work. That doesn't mean that historical information was false. Remember they didn't have newspapers or CNN back then. Information was scarce. If a copyist had additional new information that was true, I personally would would welcome all the additional new information I could get. And even "if" Eusebius might have not have been perfect that has no relation to the teachings of Christ or all the works of the New Testament. Eusebius has nothing to do with the actual bible.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha...first an attempt to justify Eusebius's obvious fraud and then he goes about stating that it doesn't matter even if he did.

You obviously don't even know your Church History and as to the role that Eusebius played in the creation of the man-made book called the Bible. Eusebius was one of the major players in the Council of Nicea. He helped create the Bible.
And regarding Josephus who was mentioned in the articles. Josephus had 2 passages that mentioned Jesus. In one of those passages that mention Jesus, Josephus writes:

Jewish Antiquities, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus..."

So here we have the non-Christian Josephus reporting on a person named Jesus who was called the Christ. This passage is considered an authentic work of Josephus and Eusebius had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Nope. The part "who was called Christ" is an interpolation and added in a latter date.

The text is obviously an amazing confirmation from a Jewish contemporary of the apostles, who was not a Christian, but still confirms Jesus as the Messiah (the Christ) and the resurrection. However, it is too good to be true. It is just unlikely that a man like Josephus (not a Christian) would write this about Jesus. Therefore the vast majority of scholars agree that the basis of the text is genuine and originally from Josephus, but that likely over the centuries Christian sources have added the statements about Christ and the resurrection. The text accepted as original is underlined in the above quotation, and it still confirms that:
Click to expand...
http://www.windmillministries.org/CH15-2.htm
and this is from a Christian Apolegetics site.

Talk about lame.
 
Oh yeah DOC, what was your point about the "soul"(as defined by DOC) again?

I'm on record...so I'm waiting.
 
paximperium said:
You obviously don't even know your Church History and as to the role that Eusebius played in the creation of the man-made book called the Bible. Eusebius was one of the major players in the Council of Nicea. He helped create the Bible.
Click to expand...

How many of the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament did Eusebius write?

ETA: For those who might not know the answer is 0.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
How many of the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament did Eusebius write?
Click to expand...
I thought you said it,
But even "if" Eusebius added some historical information to a work. That doesn't mean that historical information was false. Remember they didn't have newspapers or CNN back then. Information was scarce. If a copyist had additional new information that was true, I personally would would welcome all the additional new information I could get.
Click to expand...
So why should you care if he added some things into the Bible? Since you seem to be for "all the additional new information" that could've been added, why do you care?

Don't tell me it actually matters for a scholar to NOT add crap into a preexisting text based on their own beliefs?
 
DOC what are your thoughts about the Josephus quote you provided but have been shown to be completely and utterly wrong and an addition made by Christian writers?
 
Hokulele said:
Which ones? Those that are appropriately attributed, or the forgeries that made the cut?
Click to expand...
Or what role did he play in preventing some of the non apocryphal books from making it into the Bible?..Wow, imagine some "true words of god" being left out of the Christian holy book because of of a fraud and politics.
 
paximperium said:
DOC what are your thoughts about the Josephus quote you provided but have been shown to be completely and utterly wrong and an addition made by Christian writers?
Click to expand...

You must be talking about the other quote of Josephus, not the one I brought in dealing with James the Just. And even the other quote has never been proven to be "completely" and "utterly wrong". You're trying too hard and your accuracy suffers as a result.

ETA: And if the other quote is partially an interpolation by a copyist, that doesn't mean the information in that partial interpolation is wrong. It could very well be completely accurate.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
You must be talking about the other quote of Josephus, not the one I brought in dealing with James the Just. And even the other quote has never been proven to be "completely" and "utterly wrong". You're trying too hard and your accuracy suffers as a result.

ETA: And if the other quote is partially an interpolation by a copyist, that doesn't mean the information in that partial interpolation is wrong. It could very well be completely accurate.
Click to expand...


Well, it certainly completely avoids mentioning the resurrection.
 
DOC said:
You must be talking about the other quote of Josephus, not the one I brought in dealing with James the Just.
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm talking about BOTH of them. Where in the original text does it ever mention that this is James the Just?

And even the other quote has never been proven to be "completely" and utterly wrong. You're trying too hard and your accuracy suffers as a result.
Click to expand...
Completely true, I overstated.

The quote is true in the sense that it mentions a James and Jesus, both extremely common names at that time. It is obvious fraud when Christian writers add in words to make it seem that this is the same James and Jesus in your book.

ETA: And if the other quote is partially an interpolation by a copyist, that doesn't mean the information in that partial interpolation is wrong. It could very well be completely accurate.
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing off your complete and utter lack of any intellectual integrity. Fraud is obviously justified if it agrees with your beliefs. The ends justify the means.

Have you ever wondered how much interpolation and modification is your Bible? Do you actually wonder if the Bible is even the real original works? But what do you care about the accuracy of your holy book.
 
Hokulele said:
Well, it certainly completely avoids mentioning the resurrection.
Click to expand...
As I said before, why would Josephus, who owed much to the Romans and lived in Rome, want to build up and advertise a threat to the Roman empire and the Roman gods. This would most likely not make his Roman superiors happy. We know what happened to the Roman gods once the masses found out about Jesus.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
As I said before, why would Josephus, who owed much to the Romans and lived in Rome, want to build up and advertise a threat to the Roman empire and the Roman gods. We know what happened to the Roman gods once the masses found out about Jesus.
Click to expand...


So you agree, it isn't evidence for the resurrection.

Got it.
 
DOC said:
As I said before, why would Josephus, who owed much to the Romans and lived in Rome, want to build up and advertise a threat to the Roman empire and the Roman gods. We know what happened to the Roman gods once the masses found out about Jesus.
Click to expand...
Translation: "The lack of evidence is evidence of the resurrection."
 
DOC said:
ETA: And if the other quote is partially an interpolation by a copyist, that doesn't mean the information in that partial interpolation is wrong. It could very well be completely accurate.
Click to expand...
that's a rather amusing euphemism "partially an interpolation".
a clearer way to say it would be "made up".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom