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

[I Ratant]

If the census could be true, then so could the slaughter of the innocents. Such an event would surely be recorded outside of the N/T.
Please provide proof of this event.

.
Such as the lack of playmates of his age.

 

[RobRoy]

.
Such as the lack of playmates of his age.

Well, only in his graduating class.

 

[amb]

Paul wrote around the 50s, Mark's gospel around 70s, Mathew and Luke around the 80s John's probably around the end of the century. Now all the copies we have came about probably between 150-300 AD. Copied dozens of times with each copying the author placing/subtracting what he wished to convey for the people he aimed this tale at.

For at least the first 30 years this tale was oral tradition until Paul decided to put pen to paper. Has anyone ever played telephone as a kid? Telephone is when a group of maybe a dozen kids sit in a circle and the first kid tells his immediate neighbor a short story, it could be just one sentence. By the time the message goes around the circle and comes back to the originator the sentence has been completely changed and could mean something entirely different. Such are the 27 books of the N/T.

 

[DOC]

I'm not sure what this is referring to.

Does this mean that you will continue to use the Bible to prove the Bible is true?

I was referring to post 5299. I don't believe your statement had anything to do with my quote. And in which post did I uses the Bible to prove the bible true?

 

[Akhenaten]

I was referring to post 5299. I don't believe your statement had anything to do with my quote. And in which post did I uses the Bible to prove the bible true?

None of them. That's why the thread is still going.

 

[DOC]

No.
Once again, you do not realize the context of the time.


First of all, the Jewish clergy? They did not care about Christianity. It would be until at least 80 C.E. that Christians would be expelled from the Synagogues.
If they knew about Jesus at all, they probably considered him as a local folk hero that was killed by the Romans for his defiance against their occupation.


But really, NOBODY cared about Christians or knew much about them.

John 5:15-18:

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

 

[zooterkin]

And in which post did I uses the Bible to prove the bible true?

As Akhenaten says, you haven't proved it, but you keep referring to the bible to attempt to prove it true. As, for example, in your very next post:

But really, NOBODY cared about Christians or knew much about them.

John 5:15-18:

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

 

[joobz]

John 5:15-18:

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

DOC, would you want me to quote star wars to show that the Jedi were decreasing in numbers prior to the great clone wars?

 

[Simon39759]

I was referring to post 5299. I don't believe your statement had anything to do with my quote. And in which post did I uses the Bible to prove the bible true?

John 5:15-18:

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

Oh, irony, thy name is DOC.



That being said, even if this passage was true, they were punishing Jesus for breaking the law and being a blasphemer, not for being Christians.
Christianity itself, as a movement, was simply not on the authority's radar.
Which is not to say that some of its member might never have been, for various reasons.

 

[DOC]

As DOC well knows, copies of Sir William's finds have been posted up and it is apparent Sir William's claims were ill founded, to say the least. Still, I daresay they earned him a chair at Cambridge.

What is ill founded by this claim by Sir William Ramsay (and the other one by Ernest Martin) in the article cited earlier?

From the article:


"The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held."

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census."

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

 

[DOC]

If the census could be true, then so could the slaughter of the innocents. Such an event would surely be recorded outside of the N/T.
Please provide proof of this event.

Why would it surely be recorded? That's like saying the Germans would surely make public information about the Holocaust while it was happening and would also allow the Jews to publish articles about it while it was happening.

 

[DOC]

That being said, even if this passage was true, they were punishing Jesus for breaking the law and being a blasphemer, not for being Christians.
Christianity itself, as a movement, was simply not on the authority's radar.
Which is not to say that some of its member might never have been, for various reasons.

So you are saying Jewish authorities did not approve of the Jewish Paul (before being converted) persecuting and arresting (not on the radar) Christians and even going into their houses to do so? And they did not approve of the stoning to death of Stephen (as recorded by Luke, who has been called a great historian by Sir W. M. Ramsay)?

 

[six7s]

Why would it surely be recorded? That's like saying the Germans would surely make public information about the Holocaust while it was happening and would also allow the Jews to publish articles about it while it was happening.

That's like saying the German authorities and the German-authority-controlled-Jews were the only ones capable of recording what was happening... which is aburd - just like ALL of your arguments and so-called "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."

 

[joobz]

Why would it surely be recorded? That's like saying the Germans would surely make public information about the Holocaust while it was happening and would also allow the Jews to publish articles about it while it was happening.

Do you believe only public records are available to archeologists?

BTW, the Nazis did keep records of the holocaust. Similarly, it is likely that a genocide described in the bible would have equally been recorded. How else do you keep track to make sure you finished the job?

 

[DOC]

Do you believe only public records are available to archeologists?

BTW, the Nazis did keep records of the holocaust. Similarly, it is likely that a genocide described in the bible would have equally been recorded. How else do you keep track to make sure you finished the job?

Even if on the chance it might have been written down by the Romans it would likely be destroyed in all the wars (e.g. when the Muslims invaded) or just simply lost or thrown out over time. Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.

 

[joobz]

Even if on the chance it might have been written down by the Romans it would likely be destroyed in all the wars (e.g. when the Muslims invaded) or just simply lost or thrown out over time. Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.

Right you are. So, all we do have (outside the bible) is a census that doesn't match up with Jesus' birth in a region that wasn't a part of the Roman Empire.

 

[Simon39759]

So you are saying Jewish authorities did not approve of the Jewish Paul (before being converted) persecuting and arresting (not on the radar) Christians and even going into their houses to do so? And they did not approve of the stoning to death of Stephen (as recorded by Luke, who has been called a great historian by Sir W. M. Ramsay)?

And where to we hear these stories?
Right, the Bible, without ANY other confirming sources.

Even if these stories were true, the martyrdom of Stephen
a) Was the act of an angry mob, not of authorities
b) would only mean that a particular Christian manage to piss people of, it does not, in itself, means that Christianity itself was the target of persecution.
c) Considering that we know that the Christians were allowed to use the Synagogues until at least 80C.E (and sometime as late as 400 C.E), the idea that Christians were systematically rejected and persecuted by the Jewish authority seems ludicrous.

 

[six7s]

Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.

Let alone anything penned by your messiah... was he illiterate?

 

[paximperium]

Even if on the chance it might have been written down by the Romans it would likely be destroyed in all the wars (e.g. when the Muslims invaded) or just simply lost or thrown out over time. Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar.

Sure, hence the complete and utter failure and lack of evidence to support the title of this thread. Did you have a point?

 

[Hokulele]

So you are saying Jewish authorities did not approve of the Jewish Paul (before being converted) persecuting and arresting (not on the radar) Christians and even going into their houses to do so? And they did not approve of the stoning to death of Stephen (as recorded by Luke, who has been called a great historian by Sir W. M. Ramsay)?

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you using the bible to prove that the bible is true again?