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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There might not be definite proof of the resurrection (just like there is no proof that life came from non-living chemicals) but there is plenty of evidence for it:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html


Seems Josh doesn't know his bible:

"FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times."

Peter denied Christ at the trial not after the empty tomb.

Never heard of the Roman Seal before.
 
He already has, many times.

Do the names Josephus and Tacitus ring any bells?

Not one of his non-Christian sources is even close to contemporary.

You are very right, of course, wollery.
Not contemporary, obviously, and neither has anything to do with being a source for the resurrection of a three day old cadaver.
I was curious as to whether DOC was going to quote McDowell or Wikipedia.

Yes, wollery, DOC simply repeats himself and his sources, regardless.
No ah evolution in thinking whatsoever, as far as I can see.
Still, that doesn't necessarily mean DOC won't surprise us with a non-McDowell source of information sometime, though I AM surprised DOC continues to quote the same stuff yet again, even while knowing that what he quotes is either out of date or misleading or patently false.

Anyway.
On the subject of non-Christian evidence for the resurrection, I found something I'd not read before. Here's a paragraph or two:
...To quote a Christian website: "the first disciples were willing to suffer and die for their faith...for their claims to have seen Jesus...risen bodily from the dead." Of course, the Gospel of Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn't believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all. But there are two other key reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons but doesn't hold water under rational scrutiny.

First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any reliable evidence of any kind. None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven.[17] And then he sees Jesus--yet no one else does, so this was clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe earlier appearances were any different.

The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought he died for.[18] In fact, we have one independent account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape, and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.[19]

Yet that is the last record of any martyrdom we have until the 2nd century. Then we start to hear about some unnamed Christians burned for arson by Nero in 64 A.D.,[20] but we do not know if any eye-witnesses were included in that group--and even if we did it would not matter, for they were killed on a false charge of arson, not for refusing to deny belief in a physical resurrection. So even if they had recanted, it would not have saved them, and therefore their deaths also do not prove anything, especially since such persecution was so rare and unpredictable in that century. We also do not even know what it was they believed--after all, Stephen and James did not appear to regard the physical resurrection as an essential component of their belief. It is not what they died for.

This comes from:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ources+resurrection&cd=14&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=es

The entire article is worth the read, in my opinion.
 
Never heard of the Roman Seal before.

Individuals of this species are not rare, and can be found in many of Doc's quotes. Its distinguishing adaptations are:

fins for mobility in slipping from one untenable position to the next;
blubber for pleading victim status when opposed;
no ears: this feature allows it to ignore the plain common sense of other species.
 
There's a lot of interesting stuff out there, or so I think; I'm glad others think so, too.

It's a pleasure to have the chance here to share and enjoy, especially something like that article and the site in general.
 
There is a difference between a lot of people just believing something is true and a lot of people in different areas and at different times who knew the same leader (personally) laying down their life for the same belief. And the apostles could have saved their lives if they just denied Christ and yet none did (after the Resurrection). And this is different from Heaven's Gate and Jonestown because Christ wasn't present to pressure or influence them, they could of just walked away after Christ died. Whereas the leaders of the those other 2 were present when the followers died and the followers deaths didn't happen at different times and in different locations.

And the apostles were different from Muslim martyrs also and I'll say why when I get the time.

I said I'd talk about the Muslim martyrs but first let me give a quote of Norman Geisler from his book cited in post #1, page 296:

"...in the early days of Christianity, you might be killed for becoming Christian; in the early days of Islam's growth, you might be killed for "not" becoming a Muslim! In other words, the spread of these two great monotheistic faiths couldn't have been more different: Islam spread by the use of the sword on others; Christianity spread when others used the sword on it."

___

And regarding Muslim martyrdom, we have a similar aggressiveness as seen above. Muslim martyrdom is for the most part offensive. And often there are other factors that are not religious but political and nationalistic. In some Palestinian areas children are indoctrinated to hate Israel and the US and taught Jews and Christians are pigs from a early age.

Also, if anyone has seen the movie Syrianna with George Clooney, which I recommend, there was a scene where a Muslim youth was recruited from a soccer field to be a suicide bomber. He was happily playing soccer and then became a pawn in older Muslims agenda. I don't know how true the scene is but I thought I'd mention it and might do more research later on how Muslims become suicide bombers. I'm sure there are volunteers also, who are not pressured.

Now I'm not saying there aren't a lot of good points to Islam and many aspects of their faith can be admired, but the bottom line is that they are two different religions with different dogmas and they both can't be right.

In summary the martyrdom of 11 of the 12 apostles doesn't prove Christianity but it is certainly evidence that something radical happened to change them from how they were depicted before the reported resurrection... And it is not circular reasoning to report a story that was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians as gospel writer Luke was called by Sir William M. Ramsay.
 
Last edited:
I said I'd talk about the Muslim martyrs but first let me give a quote of Norman Geisler from his book cited in post #1, page 296:

"...in the early days of Christianity, you might be killed for becoming Christian; in the early days of Islam's growth, you might be killed for "not" becoming a Muslim! In other words, the spread of these two great monotheistic faiths couldn't have been more different: Islam spread by the use of the sword on others; Christianity spread when others used the sword on it."


Tell that to the aztecs. Tell that to Torquemada. Tell that to Constantine. or To Karl Der Grosse.

The only way to pretend that christainty wasn't spread with violence is by ignoring reality completely.
 
Tell that to the aztecs. Tell that to Torquemada. Tell that to Constantine. or To Karl Der Grosse.

The only way to pretend that christainty wasn't spread with violence is by ignoring reality completely.

The Aztecs happened 1500 years after the origin of Christianity. Even the Crusades happened over 1000 years after the origin of Christianity. The origins of Christianity was not spread violently in any way for at least its first 300 years.
 
The Aztecs happened 1500 years after the origin of Christianity. Even the Crusades happened over 1000 years after the origin of Christianity. The origins of Christianity was not spread violently in any way for at least its first 300 years.
Does that really excuse slaughter of a whole culture? Seriously DOC, your version of morality is terrifing to me.

In the past 24 hours, you've excused slavery, beating of slaves, and genocide.



ETA, christianity was spread by constantine through force and political scheming. Hardly a wholesome situtation.
 
I said I'd talk about the Muslim martyrs but first let me give a quote of Norman Geisler from his book cited in post #1, page 296:

"...in the early days of Christianity, you might be killed for becoming Christian; in the early days of Islam's growth, you might be killed for "not" becoming a Muslim! In other words, the spread of these two great monotheistic faiths couldn't have been more different: Islam spread by the use of the sword on others; Christianity spread when others used the sword on it."

Tell that to the aztecs. Tell that to Torquemada. Tell that to Constantine. or To Karl Der Grosse.

The only way to pretend that christainty wasn't spread with violence is by ignoring reality completely.

And to the entire Middle East from 1095 until 1200. And, oh yeah, take a bow, doc, we're still feeling the repercussions from the Crusades.

Also, if anyone has seen the movie Syrianna with George Clooney, which I recommend, there was a scene where a Muslim youth was recruited from a soccer field to be a suicide bomber. He was happily playing soccer and then became a pawn in older Muslims agenda. I don't know how true the scene is but I thought I'd mention it and might do more research later on how Muslims become suicide bombers. I'm sure there are volunteers also, who are not pressured.

ROFL. Now we're to learn history, politics, religion and sociology from Hollywood? The people who make everything up from whole cloth? And, while I think of it, the Sodom and Gomorrah of the modern world, the source of all immorality, not to mention the stronghold of teh ghey? I guess if Satan can quote scripture for his own ends, a religionist can quote Satan, huh?

Now I'm not saying there aren't a lot of good points to Islam and many aspects of their faith can be admired, but the bottom line is that they are two different religions with different dogmas and they both can't be right.

But, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, they could both be wrong.

And I'm sure the billion Muslims around the world would appreciate your condescending arrogance.

In summary the martyrdom of 11 of the 12 apostles doesn't prove Christianity but it is certainly evidence that something radical happened to change them from how they were depicted before the reported resurrection... And it is not circular reasoning to report a story that was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians as gospel writer Luke was called by Sir William M. Ramsay.

But it is circular reasoning to use a book to prove that what's in that same book is true. And so far that's all you've got.

Finally, what do you have to say about the self-immolation of Buddhist monks, a forceful expression of self-martyrdom? I believe you discount the strong belief of those who died in Jonestown and in the Heaven's Gate compound because their leaders were there forcing them on, but you can make no such claim about Buddhists. They don't even have a god but they can die for for their principles.
 
Finally, what do you have to say about the self-immolation of Buddhist monks, a forceful expression of self-martyrdom? I believe you discount the strong belief of those who died in Jonestown and in the Heaven's Gate compound because their leaders were there forcing them on, but you can make no such claim about Buddhists. They don't even have a god but they can die for for their principles.
And let us not forget that DOC's god would punish those monks for eternity because they didn't kiss his butt.

DOC, where did you learn of Islam? How many muslims do you think actually condone suicide bombers?
Similar question: How many christians do you know that condone bombing abortion clinics?
 
I said I'd talk about the Muslim martyrs but first let me give a quote of Norman Geisler from his book cited in post #1, page 296:

"...in the early days of Christianity, you might be killed for becoming Christian; in the early days of Islam's growth, you might be killed for "not" becoming a Muslim! In other words, the spread of these two great monotheistic faiths couldn't have been more different: Islam spread by the use of the sword on others; Christianity spread when others used the sword on it."
Wow.Amazing. Geisler is obviously one of the most ignorance apologist ever and DOC is his prophet, all bless his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_by_the_Meccans
 
Wow.Amazing. Geisler is obviously one of the most ignorance apologist ever and DOC is his prophet, all bless his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_by_the_Meccans

Thanks for the link, paximperium, I'm always glad to learn more.
The Christianisation of Scandinavia is yet another example of how Christianity was spread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia


There's always the Martyrdom of Hypatia to be considered, too:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...a+Hypatia&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

And yet another question for DOC:
Why is it called 'the missionary position'?
 
Does that really excuse slaughter of a whole culture? Seriously DOC, your version of morality is terrifing to me.

In the past 24 hours, you've excused slavery, beating of slaves, and genocide.

Yes, I know it's all love your enemy, love your neighbor, The Prince of Peace Jesus' fault.

Joobz you want humanity to be perfect but there was only one who was perfect. And Jesus is the only hope for this world even if his followers have not been perfect throughout history.

You need to read the book "What if Jesus Never Came" and you would "really" be terrified about how the world would have likely ended up if Christ didn't come. I think you and some others are living in a dreamworld if you think humanity's problems can be solved by atheistic logic. Stalin and Pol Pot tried that way.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know it's all love your enemy, love your neighbor, The Prince of Peace Jesus' fault.


Which is also the promoting thought-crime, submissiveness is a good thing, everyone who isn't with me is against me and will be going to hell in a few short years Jesus. Bleah.


By the way, do you have anything even vaguely resembling evidence of the resurrection? Anything?
 
You need to read the book "What if Jesus Never Came" and you would "really" be terrified about how the world would have likely ended up if Christ didn't come. <Snipped out irrelevant red herring garbage>
So DOC's "evidence" for his fantasy is a fantasy book. How apt.
 
And let us not forget that DOC's god would punish those monks for eternity because they didn't kiss his butt.
Nowhere does it say God would punish monks for eternity in the bible.

The bible says God is Perfect and Just. A perfect and just God will give a perfect and just judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom