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

[DOC]

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.

Well it took some time on my dial up but I was able to download this short video that you earlier had said was not available.

O'Connor (who by the way believes it is "very probable" Jesus' tomb is under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) opinioned in this cherry picked segment of a longer interview that Luke made a guess about how Jesus of Nazareth got to Bethlehem and he opinioned that Luke's guess was wrong. But he also opinioned that Matthew got it right and that Jesus' parents had a house in Bethlehem. So if this is true then he believes Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem -- and thus he would believe the prophesy that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem would be accurate.

And he opinioned that Judea was not part of the Roman Empire. Maybe on paper. But in reality Herod the Great was placed back on the throne by the Roman army after Herod went to Rome and asked the Romans to assist him. To believe this action by the Roman army came with no strings attached is unrealistic.

 

[joobz]

Well it took some time on my dial up but I was able to download this short video that you earlier had said was not available.

That's a strange apology. A simple, "Joobz, I apologize for implying that you lied" would have been sufficient.
FYI, this wasn't the same video that I had linked (Which is now dead). This is a truncated version of that video.

O'Connor ... opinioned in this cherry picked segment of a longer interview that Luke made a guess about how Jesus of Nazareth got to Bethlehem and he opinioned that Luke's guess was wrong.

If you believe that I quote mined, then by all means get the larger interview and determine if, indeed, it was a "cherry pick".

But he also opinioned that Matthew got it right and that Jesus' parents had a house in Bethlehem. So if this is true then he believes Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem -- and thus he would believe the prophesy that Messiah would be from Bethlehem would be accurate.

Sure. I have no problem with that. are you ok with this?


Are you ok with the idea that luke "made it up"? Based upon the irrefuted evidence?

You have to admit, If Luke "made it up", it really does put a final nail in the coffin of the "New Testament Writers told the truth" claim in the OP.

 

[skeptical]

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.

It would surely have been recorded because Josephus records a bunch of other bad acts by Herod, and slaughtering a bunch of infants would certainly have been included among them. It's not there, so that is a very strong inference that it did not occur. The only other reasonable possibility would be that Josephus just didn't know about it, but that seems extremely unlikely given that he knew about numerous other acts by Herod.

Another strong inference is that the story is clearly intended as a parallel to the story of Moses. Mat is very big on finding prophecies in every nook and cranny in the OT, and he is very big on how Jesus is similar to but greater than prophets/leaders in the OT like Moses and Abraham. In fact, you'll notice in the story itself Mat makes much of the idea that JC went to Egypt and came back just to fulfill a prophecy, so it seems pretty clear this stories purpose is theological and not historical.

Yet another strong inference is that the story in Mat conflicts on important details with the story in Luke and is fanciful on its face. The entire point of the story seems to be to get JC born in Bethlehem and in and out of Egypt, even though early tradition said he was from Nazareth in Galilee.

On the whole, there is a lot of solid reasons to doubt the Mat story and not any good reason to believe it.

 

[DOC]

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.

How about when Josephus writes that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war over Ethiopia (and this fact is not in the bible), do you doubt that?

 

[Cleon]

How about when Josephus writes that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war over Ethiopia (and this fact is not in the bible), do you doubt that?

I do. On what information did Josephus base this conclusion?

 

[DOC]

Are you ok with the idea that luke "made it up"? Based upon the irrefuted evidence?

There is no irrefuted evidence -- the evidence based on Josephus' writing has been challenged by scholars. And I agree with the scholars who say it was not made up and for reasons I have already given.

You have to admit, If Luke "made it up", it really does put a final nail in the coffin of the "New Testament Writers told the truth" claim in the OP.

"If" Luke made it up, that would mean one of the many NT writers (to use the language of O'Connor) "guessed" wrong. That would have no effect on the other NT writers.

 

[six7s]

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.

Is that a looooooong (tergivisating) way of saying 'yes'?

 

[RobRoy]

"If" Luke made it up, that would mean one of the many NT writers (to use the language of O'Connor) "guessed" wrong. That would have no effect on the other NT writers.

It does depending on what priority you assign Luke, and which percentage of the "shared" tradition he got wrong.

 

[joobz]

There is no irrefuted evidence -- the evidence based on Josephus' writing has been challenged by scholars. And I agree with the scholars who say it was not made up and for reasons I have already given.



"If" Luke made it up, that would mean one of the many NT writers (to use the language of O'Connor) "guessed" wrong. That would have no effect on the other NT writers.

Well, we are back to one simple fact. If luke guessed about the census(which modern evidence suggests couldn't possibly have happened), then he made up a story. If he made up a story, then he did't tell the truth. Hence, The OP "New testament writers told the truth" if false. The new testament writers were willing to lie to further their beliefs. We see this in modern cults today (see scientology). So, it is likely that the early christian cult also made the same type of self delusional stories/lies.

 

[Simon39759]

How about when Josephus writes that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war over Ethiopia (and this fact is not in the bible), do you doubt that?

Why, yes:

When he report about Moses 1500 years before his time, I doubt him.

There is no reason to believe that Josephus had any reliable evidence about this happened and based his story on anything but unreliable traditions.

On the other hands, there is the absence of record from that time mentioning this story and there is a lack of archaeological evidence about the Israelite presence in Egypt before that time, about their migration through the Sinaï, or their conquest of Canaan or of any noticeable troubles in Egypt at that time, no mass graves from the pestilences, no signs of riots that'd be caused by the famines or the loss of prestige of the Pharaoh... nothing.


This lack of evidence is what push, in my opinion, the story from 'possible, we will never know' to 'possible but quite unlikely and/or not in the way the story is told in the Bible'.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Oh, I dunno about that. Nero and Caligula, for example, were reportedly pretty nasty customers.

 

[amb]

How about when Josephus writes that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war over Ethiopia (and this fact is not in the bible), do you doubt that?

Josephus as well as a historian, was a story teller. If there was a story circulating around that Moses was general in the Egyptian army he would certainly write it down. It doesn't prove moses was a general though, does it?

 

[amb]

Oh, I dunno about that. Nero and Caligula, for example, were reportedly pretty nasty customers.

That's not in dispute. They were mad men. But surely, a slaughter of infants, no matter where in the Roman Empire would have been recorded by some historian. Not one even hints at such an event apart from the tale in a gospel that we don't even know who wrote it.

 

[Akhenaten]

How about when Josephus writes that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war over Ethiopia (and this fact is not in the bible), do you doubt that?

Doesn't the book of Numbers tell us that Moses had an Ethiopian wife?

Would he have married her before or after the war, do you think?

Do you think she was welcome at functions in the Officers' Mess?


Josephus took a Punt on history and got it wrong, Doc. Deal.



ETA:

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

 

[pakeha]

How about when Josephus writes that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and won a war over Ethiopia (and this fact is not in the bible), do you doubt that?

Yes.
Still, DOC, you have piqued my curiosity. Off to google.

 

[DOC]

Doesn't the book of Numbers tell us that Moses had an Ethiopian wife?

Would he have married her before or after the war, do you think?

Do you think she was welcome at functions in the Officers' Mess?


Josephus took a Punt on history and got it wrong, Doc. Deal.

(boldness added)

So you believe Josephus got this wrong, but got everything about the census right?

On the other hand even if Josephus (who you think got something wrong) was right about a census several years after Jesus' birth, that doesn't mean there wasn't another census around the time of Jesus' birth. (for reasons I've already pointed out)

When a man like Gospel writer Luke (who has been called one of the world's great historians by Sir William M. Ramsay) reports something, you have to give him the benefit of any doubt especially when that doubt is caused by the writing of someone like Joshepus whom people like yourself think has made a mistake in the past.

 

[DOC]

That's not in dispute. They were mad men. But surely, a slaughter of infants, no matter where in the Roman Empire would have been recorded by some historian. Not one even hints at such an event apart from the tale in a gospel that we don't even know who wrote it.

Why report something that is likely to stir up revolutionary feelings of the inhabitants of the land you conquered. That's like the US conquering an Indian tribe and putting them on a reservation and then handing out sheets of information to the tribe that a US general slaughtered 200 babies of another tribe on another reservation. It is something that would not make sense to do.

 

[paximperium]

On the other hand even if Josephus (who you think got something wrong) was right about a census several years after Jesus' birth, that doesn't mean there wasn't another census around the time of Jesus' birth. (for reasons I've already pointed out)

Hence the continued lack of evidence.

When a man like Gospel writer Luke (who has been called one of the world's great historians by Sir William M. Ramsay)reports something, you have to give him the benefit of any doubt especially when that doubt is caused by the writing of someone like Joshepus whom people like yourself think has made a mistake in the past.

No. Luke is doubted as much as Josephus. The thing is Josephus' claims in certain things can be corroborated.

Luke's magic claims, not so.

 

[zooterkin]

That's like the US conquering an Indian tribe and putting them on a reservation and then handing out sheets of information to the tribe that a US general slaughtered 200 babies of another tribe on another reservation.

No, really, it isn't. It wasn't the Romans who committed the alleged slaughter, so it would not have reflected badly on them. Indeed, once they were in charge they could have used it to their benefit, pointing out the sort of thing which happened under the previous regime.

 

[pakeha]

(boldness added)

When a man like Gospel writer Luke (who has been called one of the world's great historians by Sir William M. Ramsay) reports something, you have to give him the benefit of any doubt especially when that doubt is caused by the writing of someone like Joshepus whom people like yourself think has made a mistake in the past.

Where did Sir William Ramsay say that?
We'd appreciate a direct quote from a primary source.
We're talking about the same Sir Willliam Ramsay whose findings were completely inconclusive on the subject of Lucan accuracy and whose interpretations of those findings have been called 'wishful thinking' by at least one contemporary source.
Out-dated opinions (the man wrote at the begining of the 20th century) about Luke-as-a-historian aren't archeological evidence of anything. Except evidence of what this man thought at that particular time.
One could be forgiven for thinking DOC has no contemprary view which supports this repitative and embarrassing claim.

Could we get back to the OP?
DOC, how about posting up some evidence?