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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokulele said:
OK, to move this argument along, let's say that I accept that there was a guy named Yeshua who lived, caused trouble, and died before 35 CE.

Now what evidence is there for all of the magical aspects to the tale?
Click to expand...

Apart from the fantasies in the bible,that is.
 
Just as a curiosity, there was a certain unrest about a man 'risen from the dead' during the time of Titus' reign, but it wasn't Jesus, it was Nero, who was rumoured never to have died and had returned to save his people.
Pompeii and its destruction was an ominous portent, so I gather.
Titus, after the destruction of Jerusalem, called the Jews a people abandoned by their own God.
Strange times.
But from what I gather, Christianity simply wasn't on the '10 most serious problems facing life in the Roman Empire' list at this time.

Over to Hokulele.
 
DOC said:
And how do you know this Roman Senator and historian didn't research this. Nowhere does he just say Christians said this -- he writes Pontius Pilate killed Christ. Why did he bring Pontius Pilate and Tiberius into the picture if he didn't believe it was true?
Click to expand...

Because, as I mentioned before, he did not have any way to check and little reason to do so.
Tacitus was not writing about Christianity, he was writing about the history of the Roman empire and Nero in particular.


Actually only one of the two Josephus references to Christ is seriously contested, and most scholars believe that the one contested reference is only a partial interpolation.

And more scholars believe that the one Josephus reference is question is totally true than believe that it is totally false. (as I've already cited in this thread)
Click to expand...

Yeah... we went over that before and it still is BS.

When you said partial interpolation, let's be honest, that means that most scholars think he indeed, mention somebody called James and that the fact that he was the brother of Jesus was added after. Considering how common a name James was, it would have been like finding
It's a bit like finding a reference called Bob in 1960ies America ("This morning, I ran into Bob on the way to work") and assuming that it MUST be a mention of Robert Kennedy so you can add that it is about JFK's brother ("This morning, I ran into Bob, who was the brother of the president John Fitzerald Kennedy, on the way to work"). That is what a 'partial' interpolation means.
Indeed, that's what most scholars believe happened.
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
Originally Posted by DOC
And how do you know this Roman Senator and historian didn't research this. Nowhere does he just say Christians said this -- he writes Pontius Pilate killed Christ. Why did he bring Pontius Pilate and Tiberius into the picture if he didn't believe it was true?

Because, as I mentioned before, he did not have any way to check and little reason to do so.
He was not writing about Christianity, he was writing about the

Jews?

In any case, now it makes sense why Josephus mentions Pontius Pilate- focusing on the Romans' responsibility.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
So then you believe the Roman senator and historian Tacitus just made up that Christus {Christ} suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus quote from Wiki:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

And the Roman/Jewish historian Josephus mentions Christ on two separate occasions.

The evidence is there like it or not, Christ was a real historical person. and most historians agree on that.
Click to expand...

Now quote the part where Tacitus says he was resurrected.
 
Simon39759 said:
He doesn't. Tacitus only make this brief passing reference to the Christians and their belief, and that's about the extent of his interest on the matter.
Click to expand...


Which is pretty much Elizabeth's point. The whole purpose of this thread is to show evidence for believing the New Testament. Arguably, the most important themes in the New Testament are that Jesus was the son of God, and died and was resurrected. To date, the evidence that has been provided in this thread may support the idea that Jesus existed and influenced some people, but the same can be said of Robin Hood.

There is no good evidence for the supernatural claims.

(But I know that you knew that already. ;))
 
Hokulele said:
OK, to move this argument along, let's say that I accept that there was a guy named Yeshua who lived, caused trouble, and died before 35 CE.

Now what evidence is there for all of the magical aspects to the tale?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I could refer you to the most famous historian, archaeologist and Christian to come out if this thread. Sir William Ramsey devoted his life to studying the bible and its truth and he said the supernatural aspects in the bible should be ignored and could not be trusted.
 
Thanks, lothian.
You have made this simple pakeha very, very happy.
 
Lothian said:
Perhaps I could refer you to the most famous historian, archaeologist and Christian to come out if this thread. Sir William Ramsey devoted his life to studying the bible and its truth and he said the supernatural aspects in the bible should be ignored and could not be trusted.
Click to expand...

Your reply also brings to mind a certain Thomas Jefferson, who I believe also made comments along the same lines.
 
DOC said:
If Saddam Hussein was still alive and ruling Iraq, do you think any Iraqi historians who live in Iraq would be reporting to the world the atrocities of Saddam.
Click to expand...

Yes! Some clever reporter would have sneaked out the information. And while he was in control, we learned exactly what a tyrant he was.
 
Elizabeth I said:
<<whispering>> That was my point.
Click to expand...

I thought so, but I wanted to reiterate how oblique the reference to Jesus really was. A handful of words, not even a full sentence, out of the whole work.
Reading some Christians reporting on it you'd swear it was the central theme of his research...
 
pakeha said:
Found.
It was Vespasian, while in Egypt, after the Egyptian troops declared him Emperor, who remembered a prophecy of Josephus claiming that he would be made Emperor.
Josephus was a prisoner of war at this moment, had his chains severed at Titus' recommendation and traveled in Vespasian's suite to Alexandria.
The story of how Josephus became a prisoner of war is an edifying one- the Josephus Problem.
Click to expand...

Here is a source of their voyage to Egypt together:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N7...page&q=Josephus Titus Alexandria trip&f=false

Josephus also claimed Vespasian was the Messiah from the Bible when he was originally captured by Vespasian -- looks like flattery got him everywhere.
 
Hi, DOC.
I saw that source, but apparently they (Josephus, Vespasian and Titus) were all in Egypt at the time the troops declared Vespasian emperor. Josephus' prophecy regarading Vespasian was recalled, he was liberated from his chains and accompanied the Imperial suite to Alexandria.
They didn't travel 'to' Egypt together.
added- yes, your cited source looks as though they went to Egypt together, but that was't the case. Links on their way.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Perhaps I could refer you to the most famous historian, archaeologist and Christian to come out if this thread. Sir William Ramsey devoted his life to studying the bible and its truth and he said the supernatural aspects in the bible should be ignored and could not be trusted.
Click to expand...

I noticed you didn't leave a source for this. I doubt he used the wording "ignored" and "not to be trusted" unless he possibly said this before his 15 year expedition.

Here is something he did say however about Luke, who is the generally accepted author of the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke.

"Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 222.

where the eclipses are above (from memory) I believe he says something like "as far as science leads" but that in no way implies that these should be ignored outside of historical science.
 
Last edited:
Why, yes, that and 'messiah', as people have mentioned before, did not mean the same thing for them that it does for Christians.

Anybody that was perceived as doing God's work, for example, by having a common enemy with the Jewish people, could receive the title as did the pagan king Cyrus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom