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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RobRoy said:
Care to buy some peices of the True Cross from my website?
Click to expand...

''But isn't this relic matter a little overdone? We find a piece of the true cross in every old church we go into, and some of the nails that held it together. I would not like to be positive, but I think we have seen as much as a keg of these nails. Then there is the crown of thorns; they have part of one in Sainte Chapelle, in Paris, and part of one also in Notre Dame. And as for bones of St. Denis, I feel certain we have seen enough of them to duplicate him if necessary.'' Mark Twain-The Innocents Abroad
 
dafydd said:
''But isn't this relic matter a little overdone? We find a piece of the true cross in every old church we go into, and some of the nails that held it together. I would not like to be positive, but I think we have seen as much as a keg of these nails. Then there is the crown of thorns; they have part of one in Sainte Chapelle, in Paris, and part of one also in Notre Dame. And as for bones of St. Denis, I feel certain we have seen enough of them to duplicate him if necessary.'' Mark Twain-The Innocents Abroad
Click to expand...


So what are you saying?
 
DOC said:
-The empty tomb is a fact.
Click to expand...


joobz said:
What tomb?
Click to expand...

DOC said:
The tomb that is either under or very close to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher that most historians and archaeologist believe is exact area where Jesus was Crucified and placed in a tomb. This was all shown in the Archaeology thread.
Click to expand...

joobz said:
no it wasn't.
Click to expand...

DOC said:
Yes it was. The post and Website is in that other thread.
Click to expand...

joobz said:
I"m sure you linked to websites that claimed what you say, but that's not the same as providing evidence. It's simply links to assertions and logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"

"Unlike many historical sacred sites, which often turn out to be based more on pious tradition than historical fact, most historians and archaeologists say the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ. The most important supporting evidence is as follows: [1]

1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)

Based on the above factors, the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes: "Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes."

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-church-of-holy-sepulchre.htm

So then you believe the Oxford Archaeological guide and most historians and archaeologists are illogical to make the claims they do?
 
Last edited:
'Likely' and 'Very probably'. Hmmmmm. Who are these 'most historians and archaeologists'?
 
dafydd said:
'Likely' and 'Very probably'. Hmmmmm. Who are these 'most historians and archaeologists'?
Click to expand...

It looks like the Oxford Archaeological Guide was written by one of Joobz' favorite authors Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. And he believes Christ's tomb is "very probably" under the Church of the Holy Sepluchre.


"The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford Archaeological Guides) by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (Paperback - Mar 20, 2008)"
 
DOC said:
It looks like the Oxford Archaeological Guide was written by one of Joobz' favorite authors Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. And he believes Christ's tomb is "very probably" under the Church of the Holy Sepluchre.


"The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford Archaeological Guides) by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (Paperback - Mar 20, 2008)"
Click to expand...
So why do you accept this claim and not his claim that Luke was wrong?
 
DOC said:
1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.-So?
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).-So?
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.-So?
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)
Click to expand...
What weak "evidence". Could be, claimed to be, tradition blah blah blah.
 
paximperium said:
So why do you accept this claim and not his claim that Luke was wrong?
Click to expand...
Well there is several pieces of evidence that Luke could have very easily been correct about the census (one piece according to Sir Ramsay):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

And I'm having trouble finding exactly what O'Connor said about the census. And please don't refer me to that article written on a business website where the author talks about what O'Connor said on video and the video is no longer available on the net according to joobz.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well there is several pieces of evidence that Luke could have very easily been correct about the census (one piece according to Sir Ramsay):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

And I'm having trouble finding exactly what O'Connor said about the census. And please don't refer me to that article written on a business website where the author talks about what O'Connor said on video and the video is no longer available on the net according to joobz.
Click to expand...

Only if you stop quoting from the bible to prove the bible is true.

Don't forget the slavery thread!

Slavery thread is underlined because it's a link that you can click on to open a window to that thread.

The slavery thread. That you asked for.
DOC said:
He should put up a thread about this [slavery].
Click to expand...
That quote is, in fact, from the slavery thread. That you asked for.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well there is several pieces of evidence that Luke could have very easily been correct about the census (one piece according to Sir Ramsay):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
Click to expand...
Who cares? What a cowardly dodge.
Why are you accepting THIS specific claim by O'Connor and rejecting his conclusions about Luke?
And I'm having trouble finding exactly what O'Connor said about the census.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares. Your inability to "find" contradictory information is well known. You have been presented this information multiple times. You have even attempted to assault O'Connor's credibility multiple times. So why are you suddenly changing your tune about O'Connor?
 
DOC said:
Well there is several pieces of evidence that Luke could have very easily been correct about the census (one piece according to Sir Ramsay):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

And I'm having trouble finding exactly what O'Connor said about the census. And please don't refer me to that article written on a business website where the author talks about what O'Connor said on video and the video is no longer available on the net according to joobz.
Click to expand...

If people believe that it is "likely" that the tomb was there, fine. I have no problem accepting that. It doesn't change the fact that the resurrection story is still impossible and that the biblical accounts are fully contradictory.
 
Only the members of the upper class of rich Jewish people were buried in tombs. Criminals and trouble makers were usually buried in a common grave which were sometimes dug up by hungry wild life and the contents consumed. Jesus was crucified, therefore more than likely buried in such a common grave. His immediate followers found this very unpalatable so this tale of some rich man allowing him to be buried in his family tomb was made up.
 
DOC said:
Well there is several pieces of evidence that Luke could have very easily been correct about the census (one piece according to Sir Ramsay):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

And I'm having trouble finding exactly what O'Connor said about the census. And please don't refer me to that article written on a business website where the author talks about what O'Connor said on video and the video is no longer available on the net according to joobz.
Click to expand...

RoboTimbo said:
Only if you stop quoting from the bible to prove the bible is true.
Click to expand...
Non Sequitur
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom