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

[Simon39759]

Let me give you some examples from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from the 10 "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

And, as people mentioned before:
-It is pretty much accepted that Josephus reference had been modified by later Christian scribes, it is very likely that no such reference existed to begin with.
-Similarly, there also are some doubts about Tacitus historicity
-At any rate, he wrote three generations after the alleged facts and only mentions that they were a sect of Chrestians [sic] that originated from Judea that everyobody hated and that were blamed for the fire of Romes. We already knew that the Christian churches existed at the time, so it's pretty useless.
-Celsus wrote even later, in the third century. Once again, he only states the existence of Christians at the time, but we already knew that, and mentions how Jesus was not divine and in fact, just a cover-up story for the adulterous Mary. I guess that being such a reliable witness, we should accept these claims too.


So, until you are arguing against somebody that believe Christianity was founded after 200, these 'evidences' are irrelevant.

 

[DOC]

Well, let's take this one step at a time. Earlier, you defined "good" as being "what god wants". Is this true?

Which post did I do this in?

 

[Hokulele]

Which post did I do this in?

Last night, you quoted Billy Graham here:

Billy Graham says Sin {wrongs} is anything contrary to the will of God. God can't sin as long as he does what he wills. And by punishing God shows he takes sin seriously and is not flippant about it.

I was paraphrasing for the purposes of determining the logical conclusions of your comment, "And you can't have goodness and holiness without the opposite of evil existing."

If you do not want to define "good" as "what god wants", then please define "good" and/or "holiness". If you cannot or will not define your terms, your entire statement is meaningless.

 

[Paulhoff]

Let me give you some examples from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from the 10 "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.
So the story goes.
2) He lived a virtuous life.
So the story goes.
3) He was a wonder worker.
So the story goes.
4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.
So the story goes.
5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.
So the story goes.
6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
So the story goes.
7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
So the story goes.
8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
So the story goes.
9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.
So the story goes.
10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
So the story goes.
11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.
A fact.
12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.
So the story goes.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Repeating something by another belief systems is nothing new, it doesn't make it valid or facts, as it is no more valid by posting it here on this forum.

And one out of 12 does not a fact make.

Paul

 

[Simon39759]

By the way, I went and did like DOC couldn't be bothered to do with the misleading quote about Peter Singer, I went out and check things out.
Geisler's book can be found online.
It is, in my opinion, quite a piece of dreg.

They do mention 10 non-Christian (and even anti-Christian) names but the only ones I could find were in this chapter Josephus, Celsus, Tacitus and the Talmud.


As I already wrote about the first three, let me post this about Jesus in the Talmud.
Basically, for people in a hurry, we have no mention of Jesus corresponding eve roughly to the time period (the closest is about one century late).
None of these treat in any length of the person in question. The only reason they were associated with the person of Jesus to begin with is because they held the name Yeshu or a variant thereof. There is no evidence that the name was indeed a translation of Jesus, and the name 'Jesus' which was very common in first century Palestine, so that would be pretty inconclusive anyway, as it could always be a mention of another Jesus (after all, if I mention my grand-dad 'Bob', would you automatically assume I am related to Robert McNamara?)


Also, from the list of 12 admitted 'facts' I can only see roughly half of them being mentioned in the quotes, and that is, in the dubious Josephus quotes.
Pretty shoddy scholarship if you ask me.

 

[joobz]

You're flooding the thread again with your slavery issue; I've already responded to this issue in posts:

2752, 2705, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100.

You need to come up with something new or go find another topic.

Certainly you commented on it, but you haven't addressed slavery.

God never rejects the practice and the bible describes how it is supposed to be handled. therefore, God is immoral.

And you can't have goodness and holiness without the opposite of evil existing. The good new is God gives us the great gift of Free Will not to choose evil. Unfortunately some choose evil which is why the world is where it is now. Read the paper.

As I said before:
1.) We do not permit slavery
2.) We do not permit genocide
3.) We do not permit sexism
4.) We are improving on gay rights.
These are all improvements above the bible. I'm glad we do not derive our morality from the bible. and I'm glad christians don't either.

 

[DOC]

Last night, you quoted Billy Graham here:




I was paraphrasing for the purposes of determining the logical conclusions of your comment, "And you can't have goodness and holiness without the opposite of evil existing."

If you do not want to define "good" as "what god wants", then please define "good" and/or "holiness". If you cannot or will not define your terms, your entire statement is meaningless.

Holiness is doing God's will for your life. To do God's will for your life you must first know what it is. If you are separated from God by such things as atheism, drugs, other addictions, wrong belief systems, etc. you can't know his will for your life. So to know God's will you must first - accept Him, then sincerely repent of your sins, then allow him to come into your life. Then you must try to have a relationship with God through such ways as prayer, or by attending a bible believing church, or by reading His Word. When praying ask God about your life and what is His calling for your life. If you are persistent God will answer in your spirit.

 

[joobz]

Holiness is doing God's will for your life. To do God's will for your life you must first know what it is. If you are separated from God by such things as atheism, drugs, other addictions, wrong belief systems, etc. you can't know his will for your life.

God's will:
Psalm 137:9
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

 

[Paulhoff]

Holiness is doing God's will for your life. To do God's will for your life you must first know what it is. If you are separated from God by such things as atheism, drugs, other addictions, wrong belief systems, etc. you can't know his will for your life. So to know God's will you must first - accept Him, then sincerely repent of your sins, then allow him to come into your life. Then you must try to have a relationship with God through such ways as prayer, or by attending a bible believing church, or by reading His Word. When praying ask God about your life and what is His calling for your life. If you are persistent God will answer in your spirit.

After reading that, my right arm.......... never mind.

Which so-called god, and how come you guys always knows your belief is the right one.

"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them."

Mark Twain

Funny, over a hundred years later, some still don't get it.

Paul

 

[DOC]

Basically, for people in a hurry, we have no mention of Jesus corresponding eve roughly to the time period (the closest is about one century late).
None of these treat in any length of the person in question. The only reason they were associated with the person of Jesus to begin with is because they held the name Yeshu or a variant thereof. There is no evidence that the name was indeed a translation of Jesus, and the name 'Jesus'

This information is incorrect. From article "Pontius Pilate"

"Emperor Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 AD. This matches the biblical timeline that records Pontius Pilate ruling as governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD.

Cornelius Tacitus, a well-known first century Roman historian, also mentioned Pontius Pilate in one if his well-known texts:

“Christus, from whom the name {Christians} had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” (Annales, Historiae, Chapter 15, paragraphs 54 and 55)

Not only does Tacitus mention Pontius Pilate outside the biblical record, but he mentions him in the historical context of Christ (Christus)".

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm

Also notice he uses the Latin name Christus. No mention of Yeshu.

 

[Hokulele]

Holiness is doing God's will for your life. To do God's will for your life you must first know what it is. If you are separated from God by such things as atheism, drugs, other addictions, wrong belief systems, etc. you can't know his will for your life. So to know God's will you must first - accept Him, then sincerely repent of your sins, then allow him to come into your life. Then you must try to have a relationship with God through such ways as prayer, or by attending a bible believing church, or by reading His Word. When praying ask God about your life and what is His calling for your life. If you are persistent God will answer in your spirit.

So "good" is "what god wants". Agreed?

 

[Simon39759]

This information is incorrect. From article "Pontius Pilate"
"Emperor Tiberius reigned from 14 to 37 AD. This matches the biblical timeline that records Pontius Pilate ruling as governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD.
Cornelius Tacitus, a well-known first century Roman historian, also mentioned Pontius Pilate in one if his well-known texts:
“Christus, from whom the name {Christians} had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” (Annales, Historiae, Chapter 15, paragraphs 54 and 55)
Not only does Tacitus mention Pontius Pilate outside the biblical record, but he mentions him in the historical context of Christ (Christus)".
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm
Also notice he uses the Latin name Christus. No mention of Yeshu.

Why don't you quote my whole post, including the first sentence, where I precise that, having already said what I thought about the first three reference, I was going to summarize the long wiki entry about Jesus in the Talmud.

Why did you left out precisely the sentence that made your whole argument irrelevant?

As I already wrote about the first three, let me post this about Jesus in the Talmud.
Basically, for people in a hurry, we have no mention of Jesus corresponding eve roughly to the time period (the closest is about one century late).
None of these treat in any length of the person in question. The only reason they were associated with the person of Jesus to begin with is because they held the name Yeshu or a variant thereof. There is no evidence that the name was indeed a translation of Jesus, and the name 'Jesus' which was very common in first century Palestine, so that would be pretty inconclusive anyway, as it could always be a mention of another Jesus (after all, if I mention my grand-dad 'Bob', would you automatically assume I am related to Robert McNamara?)

 

[joobz]

Why did you left out precisely the sentence that made your whole argument irrelevant?

DOC frequently quote mines. I do not think he actually reads posts fully. He has, in the past, explained being too busy to read long posts. So, my guess is he simply skims what people write and finds something that he can riff on.

He did this most recently with my post regarding WHY he doesn't actually answer with a yes or no regarding wether or not he thinks all of the letters attributed to paul were actually written by paul.

 

[DOC]

God's will:
Psalm 137:9
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Actually it's the Psalmist's will: Psa 137:3

For there our captors demanded a song of us. Our tormentors requested a joyful hymn: "Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!"
But how can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill upon the harp.
May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I fail to remember you, if I don't make Jerusalem my highest joy.
O LORD, remember what the Edomites did on the day the armies of Babylon
O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!

He sounds like one highly depressed, angry, revengeful, Jewish slave of the Babylonians.

This Old Testament Jewish man (and everyone else of those brutal times) was in definite need of one Savior. Thank God we got one. And despite what Joobz says, I have a feeling Christ did not condone the suffering his ancestors (the Jews) experienced as Babylonian slaves.

 

[DOC]

Why don't you quote my whole post, including the first sentence, where I precise that, having already said what I thought about the first three reference, I was going to summarize the long wiki entry about Jesus in the Talmud.

Why did you left out precisely the sentence that made your whole argument irrelevant?

Whoops, I missed you were talking specifically about the Talmud only, sorry. I guess I"m getting tired.

 

[joobz]

O LORD, remember what the Edomites did on the day the armies of Babylon
O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!
He sounds like one highly depressed, angry, revengeful, Jewish slave of the Babylonians.

And it is in the bible as an example of the comfort god provides, the hope that one day he will kill the children of one's enemies. Very....moral..to be sure.

And despite what Joobz says, I have a feeling Christ did not condone the suffering his ancestors (the Jews) experienced as Babylonian slaves.

IF you can back up that feeling with evidence (perhaps a quote from jesus), I would be happy to admit error. Until then, I am left with the knowledge that Jesus used slavery as a parable, where he explained that it was acceptable to beat a slave for breaking an unknown rule provided the slave owner beats more severly the slave who knowning breaks a rule.

Let's repeat this: Jesus condones the beating of slaves.
Luke 12:35-48

 

[amb]

Holiness is doing God's will for your life. To do God's will for your life you must first know what it is. If you are separated from God by such things as atheism, drugs, other addictions, wrong belief systems, etc. you can't know his will for your life. So to know God's will you must first - accept Him, then sincerely repent of your sins, then allow him to come into your life. Then you must try to have a relationship with God through such ways as prayer, or by attending a bible believing church, or by reading His Word. When praying ask God about your life and what is His calling for your life. If you are persistent God will answer in your spirit.

The title under your forum name states illuminator. Boy is that a misnomer if I ever saw one.
It should read; '' bible thumper.''

 

[DOC]

And it is in the bible as an example of the comfort god provides, the hope that one day he will kill the children of one's enemies. Very....moral..to be sure.


IF you can back up that feeling with evidence (perhaps a quote from jesus), I would be happy to admit error. Until then, I am left with the knowledge that Jesus used slavery as a parable, where he explained that it was acceptable to beat a slave for breaking an unknown rule provided the slave owner beats more severly the slave who knowning breaks a rule.

Let's repeat this: Jesus condones the beating of slaves.
Luke 12:35-48

Do you think slavery would have ended sooner if Christ never came. Yes, No, or his coming had no effect on the ending of slavery?

ETA: And I assume you believe the Rev. Martin Luther King was wrong to become a pastor and to have a book of his sermons published, because his grandparents were slaves, and according to you Jesus condoned slavery.

 

[zooterkin]

Do you think slavery would have ended sooner if Christ never came. Yes, No, or his coming had no effect on the ending of slavery?

How about, too early to say? Or are you contending that slavery no longer exists? If you're talking about Western civilisation, then wow! It took only 2000 years to have an effect, imagine how long it might have been if an omnipotent being had not been involved?

ETA: And I assume you believe the Rev. Martin Luther King was wrong to become a pastor and to have a book of his sermons published because his grandparents were slaves, and according to you Jesus condoned slavery.

Well, as an atheist, clearly I believe that his becoming a pastor indicated he believed in something I don't believe in.

 

[Lothian]

Do you think slavery would have ended sooner if Christ never came. Yes, No, or his coming had no effect on the ending of slavery?

Sooner. As the 3rd most influential person in the world (obviously no where near as important as Muhammad or Issaac Newton but nevertheless) his endorsement of slavery would have been persuasive to many.