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

[amb]

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.

The parents of the infants cries would be heard as far as Rome itself had this tale been true. Herod would be made to answer to Ceasar himself. The Romans were much more civilized than to allow a mad man to kill innocent infants.
Surely some historian of that time [and there were many] would have recorded such an event.

 

[amb]

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

May I answer for DOC? The chances of Jesus not been illiterate are 90% against. Only around 10% of the general population of those times were litterate.

 

[pakeha]

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, the officer's name is missing.
I don't know where 'could very well be' is good enough for an historical attribution.
The more we look into Sir William's actual findings, the dodgier the whole claim of this stele referring to Quirinius becomes, in my opinion.
'Could very well be' seems like an uncertain foundation for 'Luke's historical accuracy.
Curious that so long afterward, apologetists continue to use this discovery and you could be forgiven for thinking that smacks of bad faith.

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.

.

 

[DOC]

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

Paper wasn't even invented yet. Maybe he didn't want to lug around heavy rolls of papyrus during his constant trips throughout Judea and Galilee to preach to people, the great majority of whom couldn't read anyway.

 

[RobRoy]

Paper wasn't even invented yet. Maybe he didn't want to lug around heavy rolls of papyrus during his constant trips throughout Judea and Galilee to preach to people, the great majority of whom couldn't read anyway.

This doesn't answer the question. It's not even a clever dodge. The medium for capturing written language is not what is important. The question of literacy is, although only of passing interest to me.

 

[DOC]

DOC, the officer's name is missing.
I don't know where 'could very well be' is good enough for an historical attribution.
The more we look into Sir William's actual findings, the dodgier the whole claim of this stele referring to Quirinius becomes, in my opinion.
'Could very well be' seems like an uncertain foundation for 'Luke's historical accuracy.
Curious that so long afterward, apologetists continue to use this discovery and you could be forgiven for thinking that smacks of bad faith.

I find it ironic that some skeptics think Moses never existed and thus they don't believe Josephus' (not in the bible) report that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war against Ethiopia. But when it comes to Josephus' writing about a census, skeptics believe his writings must be completely accurate and encompass everything there is to know about the situation and thus they believe there can be no other explanation possible for the Luke census issue.

 

[paximperium]

Hey DOC, did Yeshua ben Joseph write anything down?

 

[paximperium]

I find it ironic that some skeptics think Moses never existed and thus they don't believe Josephus' (not in the bible) report that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war against Ethiopia. But when it comes to Josephus' writing about a census, skeptics believe his writings must be completely accurate and there can be no other explanation possible for the Luke census issue.

Sad little attempt at Equivocating Standards of Evidence. Unlike you DOC, people here have standards of evidence. Don't blame others for your lack of standards.

Josephus' has evidence for Moses and miracles that occurred hundreds of years before that he fails to mention
Vs.
Josephus documented things he saw in Rome

​

 

[joobz]

I find it ironic that some skeptics think Moses never existed and thus they don't believe Josephus' (not in the bible) report that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war against Ethiopia. But when it comes to Josephus' writing about a census, skeptics believe his writings must be completely accurate and encompass everything there is to know about the situation and thus there can be no other explanation possible for the Luke census issue.

You're equivocating.

The census was recorded at the wrong time.
It was in a independant Jewish Kingdom.
The birth stories in the bible conflict regarding his birth.
There is no historical evidence of a baby genocide.


If you want to disprove Father Dr. Murphy-O'Connor's statement that the census story was complete nonsense, you will need to attack the premises not attempt at a weak equivocation.

 

[DOC]

Okay, Josephus lied about the Roman Census. So? How does that make your single unverified claim stronger?
​

If Josephus was wrong about the census, or even if he was right but didn't report Quirinius' other census then there wouldn't even be a Luke census issue.

 

[joobz]

If Josephus was wrong about the census, or even if he was right but didn't report Quirinius' other census then there wouldn't even be a Luke census issue.

???

 

[DOC]

If you want to disprove Father Dr. Murphy-O'Connor's statement that the census story was complete nonsense, you will need to attack the premises not attempt at a weak equivocation.

Funny how O'Connor's statement can't be found anywhere other than in a article by a writer on a business website who says she saw it on a video. And the video can't be viewed.

ETA

And even if it was true, O'Connor's opinion is just that, an opinion.

 

[paximperium]

If Josephus was wrong about the census, or even if he was right but didn't report Quirinius' other census then there wouldn't even be a Luke census issue.

Translating: In other words to DOC it does not make a difference.

 

[Simon39759]

I find it ironic that some skeptics think Moses never existed and thus they don't believe Josephus' (not in the bible) report that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war against Ethiopia. But when it comes to Josephus' writing about a census, skeptics believe his writings must be completely accurate and encompass everything there is to know about the situation and thus they believe there can be no other explanation possible for the Luke census issue.

Maybe because it's more likely to trust somebody's about events occurring in his father's lifetime than about events purported from, at least, 15 centuries prior?

 

[paximperium]

Funny how O'Connor's statement can't be found anywhere other than in a article by a writer on a business website who says she saw it on a video. And the video can't be viewed.

ETA

And even if it was true, O'Connor's opinion is just that, an opinion.

Funny how you ignored the core of Joobz post that completely demolished your sad attempt at Equivocation.

 

[joobz]

Funny how O'Connor's statement can't be found anywhere other than in a article by a writer on a business website who says she saw it on a video. And the video can't be viewed.

Are you implying that I lied about the statements? Are you implying that the article I provided also lied about the quote?

If you did a google search for "murphy-o'connor census complete nonsense"
The 4th link is another reposting of the video

Here you go.

ETA:

And even if it was true, O'Connor's opinion is just that, an opinion.

1.) It is true. I suggest you apologize for implying that I lied about the source.
2.) An opinion that is supported by evidence is called an argument. You can reject the argument or accept it, but to call it "just an opinion" is a dishonest attempt at minimization. I gave you the premises to the argument. If you can't reject it, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[DOC]

Sad little attempt at Equivocating Standards of Evidence. Unlike you DOC, people here have standards of evidence. Don't blame others for your lack of standards.

Josephus' has evidence for Moses and miracles that occurred hundreds of years before that he fails to mention
Vs.
Josephus documented things he saw in Rome

​

So you believe some of his writings (that are not in the bible) but then you don't believe some of his other writings (that are not in the bible)?

And what exactly did Josephus see in Rome that had to do with a census in Galilee and your source.

 

[joobz]

So you believe some of his writings (that are not in the bible) but then don't believe some of his other writings (that are not in the bible)?

And what exactly did Josephus see in Rome that had to do with a census in Galilee and your source.

So you believe some parts of the bible (that Jesus rose from the dead) but then don't believe other parts of the bible (that jesus condoned the beating of slaves)?

And why exactly do you doubt that Jesus used slave beating as a parable for how we should behave towards god?

 

[paximperium]

So you believe some of his writings (that are not in the bible) but then don't believe some of his other writings (that are not in the bible)?

Striked out to remove the pathetic insinuations. But to answer your question, yes.

And what exactly did Josephus see in Rome that had to do with a census in Galilee and your source.

Nothing. He just reported his views and it is most definitely biased and very well wrong in places.
You see he is reporting on something that is KNOWN to happen and happened WITHIN his lifetime. He was not reporting on something that is UNKNOWN to happen or happened CENTURIES in the past. Which should I believe?

 

[Simon39759]

So you believe some of his writings (that are not in the bible) but then you don't believe some of his other writings (that are not in the bible)?

And what exactly did Josephus see in Rome that had to do with a census in Galilee and your source.

Once again, if Bob told me if walked to work this morning, I'd believe him.

If Bob told me that his ancestor met King Arthur, I'd doubt him (because it was so long ago, how would he know?).
If Bob told me that he flapped his arms, took of and flew to work this morning, I'll also doubt him (because it goes against what I know about the laws of gravity, fluid mechanic and the like).
And then, if Bob told me that once his ancestor flew all the way to Camelot to visit king Arthur by flapping his arms, I would doubly doubt him.


For the same reason, when Josephus report on the Census, I believe him.
When he report about Moses 1500 years before his time, I doubt him.
If he reported about somebody flying around, I'd doubt him.
When he reports about Moses parting the sea 1500 years before his time, I'll doubly doubt him.


Seems to make sense to me.