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

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by pakeha
Given that this depiction of cowardice is written long after the events, isn't it possible (if not probable) that the authors of those accounts simply did a 'Geisler'-oversimplify/mis-state facts to make a point to impress the faithful?

So you impress the faithful by portraying the eventual leader of your faith as a coward who denies Christ 3 times to a lone woman at a campfire while trying to keep warm??

Obviously, yes, especially if you're going for the "See how faith in jesus changed their lives" red herring.
This particular red herring is especially popular with preachers, even down to this day, just for its effectiveness.
And not only preachers of religions; preachers for cars, dishwashing powders, and teeth whitening products use it, too.

Was Peter the eventual head of the church?
If so, that 'empowerment' red herring is extremely persuasive.
I thought Paul was arguably the head of the church.
Paul, of course, brought the 'empowerment' red herring to new heights with his 'vision' of the resurrected jesus.

 

[Moss]

An interesting question is also how the conversion of followers of Mithras happened after the ascension of constantine to the throne. Judging from the destroyed mithraea not by the word.

 

[amb]

No, not by word but by the sword.

 

[eccles]

Controversial author Philip Pullman has provoked anger amongst Christians again

Controversial author Philip Pullman has provoked anger amongst Christians again

Bestselling children's author Philip Pullman has provoked more anger from Christians with a new book denying that Jesus was the son of God.


The book, due to be published next Easter, accepts there was a holy man called Jesus but says the idea of such a divine link came from the 'fervid imagination' of the apostle St Paul.


Pullman has already been condemned by the Vatican for the allegorical trilogy His Dark Materials, which has been described as anti-Christian.


His new book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, is a retelling of the story of Jesus.


It draws on the Bible for characters, locations and events, but the author says it reads like a mix between a novel, a history and a fairy tale. Pullman said: 'I wanted it to be like that because it is, among other things, a story about how stories become stories.


'By the time the gospels were being written, Paul had already begun to transform the story of Jesus into something altogether new and extraordinary, and some of his version influenced what the gospel writers put in theirs.


'Paul was a literary and imaginative genius of the first order who has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other human being, Jesus certainly included. I believe this is a pity.'


But David McGough, the Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham, said: 'There is no evidence that Paul influenced the Gospels. No respectable scriptural scholar would have anything to do with [Pullman's] theory.'



More...
Thanks for the hot chips, Jesus! Australian churches launch bizarre ad campaign to bring the flock back into the fold

Earlier this year Pullman sparked controversy when he announced a boycott of school visits in protest at 'sinister' Government checks to ensure that authors are not paedophiles.


He claimed the Vetting and Barring Scheme register, which starts in October, will encourage youngsters to view everyone as potential rapists or murderers.


His Dark Materials, on which the film The Golden Compass was based, attracted criticism for promoting atheism.


The film was attacked by the Vatican for portraying 'a cold and hopeless world without God'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211645/Childrens-author-says-Jesus-wasnt-Son-God.html#

Good on him. I don't know what all the fuss was about the "Golden Compass". I have the DVD and can't see any connection between it and Christianity.






Robert

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I doubt you'll actually read this article, Doc...but you should:

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

Interestingly, plenty of people have died (as martyrs) at the hands of Christians for holding different beliefs... Since the Christians did the martyring, does that mean their religion is more or less true (given your use of Christian martyrs as evidence for the truth of the Christian religion vs other religions, I'm going to say you'll be hypocritical here and claim that this was God working in some mysterious way or claim that heretics are not martyrs or just ignore this article as per usual)?


To paraphrase Foster Zygote's comment to KK that paraphrased George Carlin:

Have you ever noticed that your heretics are another person's martyrs and that your martyrs are another person's heretics?

 

[Lothian]

Good on him. I don't know what all the fuss was about the "Golden Compass". I have the DVD and can't see any connection between it and Christianity.

The film was only the first part of the trilogy.

Without spoiling the story; the church in the book is an all powerful organisation suppressing truth spreading fictional stories to control the masses. Can’t think what the Vatican saw in it to object to unless……….

 

[eccles]

Obviously, yes, especially if you're going for the "See how faith in jesus changed their lives" red herring.
This particular red herring is especially popular with preachers, even down to this day, just for its effectiveness.
And not only preachers of religions; preachers for cars, dishwashing powders, and teeth whitening products use it, too.

Was Peter the eventual head of the church?
If so, that 'empowerment' red herring is extremely persuasive.
I thought Paul was arguably the head of the church.
Paul, of course, brought the 'empowerment' red herring to new heights with his 'vision' of the resurrected jesus.

Was Peter the eventual head of the church? NO.

Paul could be called the "Traveling Saleman" of Christianity. He was NEVER head of "The Church"

There was no "The Church". If Peter did go to Rome and was the Bishop of Rome the claim that he was the first Pope is false. There was no united Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Nicea 325CE and the first Pope was St. Sylvester I who was appointed to that position by Constantine I:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_I#cite_note-1

Pope Sylvester I was pope from January 31, 314 to December 31, 335, succeeding Pope Miltiades.[2]

He filled the See of Rome at a very important era in the history of the Catholic Church, but very little is known of him.[3]

The accounts of the papacy of Pope Sylvester I preserved in the Liber Pontificalis (7th or 8th century) are little else than a record of the gifts said to have been conferred on the Church by Emperor Constantine I,[4] but it does say that he was the son of a Roman named Rufinus.[5]


------------------------------------------

Were the Early Christians Roman Catholics?
Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

www.CatholicConcerns.com
February 2002

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early Christians were all Roman Catholics, and that (aside from the Orthodox Church) all Christians were Roman Catholics until the Protestant Reformation. It claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, ruling from Rome. It also claims that it gave us the Bible.

But do these claims stand up to the test of history? Or are they false credentials?

There is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church began with Emperor Constantine. Many Protestants believe that throughout Church history, there have been many true Christians who were not Catholics, and these Christians were often killed by the Catholic Church. They also believe that Peter was just one of the apostles, and that the Catholic Church only copied and preserved the Bible, which God had already given to us.

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE

On October 28, 312 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine met with Bishop Miltiades. (Catholics would later refer to him as Pope Miltiades. But at the time he was known as the Bishop of Rome.) Miltiades was assisted by Silvester, a Roman who spoke educated Latin, and acted as interpreter. The previous day, Constantine had seen a sign in the heavens: a cross in front of the sun. He heard a voice say, "In this sign you will conquer." He painted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. He won an important battle, and was convinced that it was because of the power of the sign that he had seen. He asked for two of the nails that were used to crucify Jesus. One nail was made into a bit for his horse. Another nail was made a part of his crown, signifying that Constantine ruled the Roman Empire in the name of Jesus. He allowed Miltiades to keep the third nail. [Note 1]



During his pontificate were built the great churches founded at Rome by Constantine, e.g. the Basilica of St. John Lateran, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, St. Peter's Basilica, and several cemeterial churches over the graves of martyrs.[5][6]

Saint Sylvester did not himself attend the First Council of Nicaea in 325, but he was represented by two legates, Vitus and Vincentius, and he approved the council's decision.

http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss129.html

How's that; Constantine calls the first inaugural General Meeting of his New Church to vote on it's Constitution and the Boss he appointed did not attend.



Robert

 

[eccles]

I doubt you'll actually read this article, Doc...but you should:

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

Interestingly, plenty of people have died (as martyrs) at the hands of Christians for holding different beliefs... Since the Christians did the martyring, does that mean their religion is more or less true (given your use of Christian martyrs as evidence for the truth of the Christian religion vs other religions, I'm going to say you'll be hypocritical here and claim that this was God working in some mysterious way or claim that heretics are not martyrs or just ignore this article as per usual)?


To paraphrase Foster Zygote's comment to KK that paraphrased George Carlin:

Have you ever noticed that your heretics are another person's martyrs and that your martyrs are another person's heretics?

Here is a much better set of accounts of the Holy Inquisition:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_holyinquisition.htm

Not recommended for those with a weak stomach.


The Church's method of extracting confessions.






Robert

 

[amb]

Controversial author Philip Pullman has provoked anger amongst Christians again

Bestselling children's author Philip Pullman has provoked more anger from Christians with a new book denying that Jesus was the son of God.


The book, due to be published next Easter, accepts there was a holy man called Jesus but says the idea of such a divine link came from the 'fervid imagination' of the apostle St Paul.


Pullman has already been condemned by the Vatican for the allegorical trilogy His Dark Materials, which has been described as anti-Christian.


His new book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, is a retelling of the story of Jesus.


It draws on the Bible for characters, locations and events, but the author says it reads like a mix between a novel, a history and a fairy tale. Pullman said: 'I wanted it to be like that because it is, among other things, a story about how stories become stories.


'By the time the gospels were being written, Paul had already begun to transform the story of Jesus into something altogether new and extraordinary, and some of his version influenced what the gospel writers put in theirs.


'Paul was a literary and imaginative genius of the first order who has probably had more influence on the history of the world than any other human being, Jesus certainly included. I believe this is a pity.'


But David McGough, the Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham, said: 'There is no evidence that Paul influenced the Gospels. No respectable scriptural scholar would have anything to do with [Pullman's] theory.'



More...
Thanks for the hot chips, Jesus! Australian churches launch bizarre ad campaign to bring the flock back into the fold

Earlier this year Pullman sparked controversy when he announced a boycott of school visits in protest at 'sinister' Government checks to ensure that authors are not paedophiles.


He claimed the Vetting and Barring Scheme register, which starts in October, will encourage youngsters to view everyone as potential rapists or murderers.


His Dark Materials, on which the film The Golden Compass was based, attracted criticism for promoting atheism.


The film was attacked by the Vatican for portraying 'a cold and hopeless world without God'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211645/Childrens-author-says-Jesus-wasnt-Son-God.html#

Good on him. I don't know what all the fuss was about the "Golden Compass". I have the DVD and can't see any connection between it and Christianity.




[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png[/qimg] Robert

Retired bishop John Shelby Spong has been writing almost the same thing for decades, starting with his book, Saving The Bible From Fundamentalits.

Paul Tillich a theologion also came to the same conclusion decades ago.

 

[Mojo]

The film was only the first part of the trilogy.

Without spoiling the story; the church in the book is an all powerful organisation suppressing truth spreading fictional stories to control the masses. Can’t think what the Vatican saw in it to object to unless……….

Father Dougal: "God Ted, I've heard about those cults. Everyone dressing in black and saying our Lord's going to come back and judge us all."
Father Ted: "No...no Dougal, that's us."

 

[pakeha]

Was Peter the eventual head of the church? NO.

Paul could be called the "Traveling Saleman" of Christianity. He was NEVER head of "The Church"

Thanks for the heads-up and the reading.

 

[amb]

Without doubt. Had it not been for Paul, Christianity would have gone the same way as Zoroastrianism.

 

[pakeha]

An interesting question is also how the conversion of followers of Mithras happened after the ascension of constantine to the throne. Judging from the destroyed mithraea not by the word.

Not only Mithras and not under Constantine alone.
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

on Theodosius:

Proscription of Paganism
For the first part of his rule, Theodosius seems to have ignored the semi-official standing of the Christian bishops; in fact he had voiced his support for the preservation of temples or pagan statues as useful public buildings. In his early reign, Theodosius was fairly tolerant of the pagans, for he needed the support of the influential pagan ruling class. However he would in time stamp out the last vestiges of paganism with great severity.[14] His first attempt to inhibit paganism was in 381 when he reiterated Constantine's ban on sacrifice. In 384 he prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, and unlike earlier anti-pagan prohibitions, he made non-enforcement of the law, by Magistrates, into a crime itself.

In 388 he sent a prefect to Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor with the aim of breaking up pagan associations and the destruction of their temples. The Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed during this campaign.[15] In a series of decrees called the "Theodosian decrees" he progressively declared that those Pagan feasts that had not yet been rendered Christian ones were now to be workdays (in 389). In 391, he reiterated the ban of blood sacrifice and decreed "no one is to go to the sanctuaries, walk through the temples, or raise his eyes to statues created by the labor of man"[16]

Double standard?

 

[eccles]

Not only Mithras and not under Constantine alone.
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

on Theodosius:


Double standard?

There were no "Standards" in those days (except the Roman Aquilla, the Standard of the Roman Legions)

The final nail in the coffin of sanity was hammered home at the Second Council of Nicea 381CE where amongst many sackings the final draft of the Nicean Creed were formalised : "Credo in Unum Deum" etc. blah, blah.
( It has been useful once being a Roman Catholic. I know all the BS.)




Robert

 

[joobz]

DOC, I know you like to pretend otherwise. But Christianity was spread by the sword:

Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine would claim the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τουτω Νικα" ("by this, conquer!", often rendered in the Latin "in hoc signo vinces"); Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and thereafter they were victorious.[1][5]

and shrewd political and economic influence.

The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church, generally considered the beginning of Christendom. After his victory, Constantine took over the role of the patron for the Christian faith. He supported the Church financially, had an extraordinary number of basilicas built, granted privileges (e.g. exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian,[7] and endowed the church with land and other wealth.[8] Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital at Byzantium on the Bosphorus (it came to be named for him: Constantinople) – the city employed overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls (unlike "old" Rome), and had no pagan temples.[9]
In doing this, however, Constantine I required the Pagans "to foot the bill".[8] Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites (...) and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,"[10] This led to the closure of pagan temples due to a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure;[11] Constantine I did not need to use force to implement this,[8] although his subjects are said to simply have obeyed him out of fear. Only the chronicler Theophanes has added that temples "were annihilated", but this is considered "not true" by contemporary historians. [12]

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

 

[pakeha]

By the sword, indeed, joobz.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...ans+Rome&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

This site would seem to suggest the Nero 'persecution' was an urban myth.
From the conclusion:

More interesting is the fact that no early Christian writer mentions the fire, and the Christian connection for over 1.300 years. This is not an argument from silence as they had plenty of good reasons to use the evidence if it existed. For example, Augustine wrote a whole book on the disasters of Rome under the pagan emperors, yet he nowhere mentions Nero’s fire and persecution. Eusebius, the church historian, likewise does not record the incident nor the connection with the early Christians.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[pakeha]

Here's another site:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...k+tacitus&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

The youtube didn't work for me, but the information I could access was interesting.
OK.
Granted, belief in the Neronian persecution isn't an article of faith.
But you could be forgiven for thinking that the whole belief system is a thoroughly dim show; look where you will, there is mis-direction and lies from the earliest accounts of christianity.
Their own accounts, mind.

 

[DOC]

Without doubt. Had it not been for Paul, Christianity would have gone the same way as Zoroastrianism.

Jesus/God probably knew that would be the case also which is why Jesus specifically appeared to the Christian persecutor Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to do his mission. In the process Christ made Paul a spiritual genius. I say Paul was a spiritual genius because how many other people do you know that can write several letters that are powerful enough and sublime enough to make up a large portion of the greatest selling book of all time, and are deeply analyzed by Christian and non-Christian scholars for 2 thousand years.

 

[RobRoy]

. . . how many other people do you know that can write several letters that are powerful enough and sublime enough to make up a large portion of the greatest selling book of all time, and are deeply analyzed by Christian and non-Christian scholars for 2 thousand years.

Tolkien hasn't been around for two-thousand years.

 

[paximperium]

Jesus/God probably knew that would be the case also which is why Jesus specifically appeared to the Christian persecutor Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to do his mission. In the process Christ made Paul a spiritual genius. I say Paul was a spiritual genius because how many other people do you know that can write several letters that are powerful enough and sublime enough to make up a large portion of the greatest selling book of all time, and are deeply analyzed by Christian and non-Christian scholars for 2 thousand years.

Plato is most amused how much more of a "spiritual genius" he is compared to those children who wrote the New Testament.

So what does this have to do with Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth again?