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

[zooterkin]

If I was wrong you would present proof.

Why? It's off topic for this thread, and irrelevant anyway. If you want to discuss it, go to the Science forum.

It is strange that you dismiss something for which there is evidence, but are prepared to believe that some supernatural being created everything from nothing based on nothing more than some bronze age writings.

 

[wollery]

No one is forcing you to believe the 33 Christian written sources and 10 non-Christian written sources for the truth of Christianity

The 10 are still not contemporary or written by people who ever even claimed to have met Jesus, and most are actually not about Jesus but about Christians. That makes them nothing more than hearsay and rumour. Not a single court in any civilized country in the world would admit such sources as evidence.

just like no one is forcing me to believe the 9 non-Christian written sources and 1 Christian written source for the life of the Roman emperor (during Christ's life) Tiberius Caesar.

That's a wee tad misleading, isn't it DOC.

Tacitus dedicated the first six books of his Annals to Tiberius, with data gleaned from the Roman Senate proceedings and Roman daily records. Both publicly available works at that time.

Jesus gets one mention, in passing, as the founder of the religion called Christianity, and even that mention is debatably a later addition.

That's hardly the same amount or weight of evidence.

 

[eccles]

Was Tacitus ever in Judea?

So then you feel the Roman senator and historian Tacitus was wrong to report Christ suffered the supreme penalty under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

Book 15 of the Annals (written c. 116) by the Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christus as a person convicted by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat[1]

The passage is part of an account of the Great Fire of Rome (64), which emperor Nero blamed on a religious group called Chrestians or Christians (see below), and offers an etymology for the group's name. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus' works.

Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city, then refers to religious rituals carried out based on a consultation of the Sibylline Books.[3] However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:

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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Pontius Pilate's rank was prefect when he was in Judea.[10] The Tacitus passage mistakenly calls Pilate a procurator, an error also made in translations of a passage by Josephus.[11] (However, Josephus wrote in Greek and never used the Latin term.) It should be noted that after Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judea reverted to direct Roman rule, Claudius gave procurators control over Judea.

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

So as Tacitus account is HEARSAY and he was in error about Pilate. How can his writings be ACCURATE!

NOTO BENE - Very Bene: Annals written in 116 CE about 83 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus.

DOC is reading the wrong books, the Holey Bable being the worst.



ROBERT

 

[DOC]

It is strange that you dismiss something for which there is evidence, but are prepared to believe that some supernatural being created everything from nothing based on nothing more than some bronze age writings.

These people based their actions on more than Bronze Age writings:

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

And the New Testament writings were at least 1200 years after the Near East Bronze Age.

 

[paximperium]

DOC is reading the wrong books, the Holey Bable being the worst.

You are mistaken. I doubt he actually reads and he has clearly stated in the past that he has never finished reading the entire Bible, just pieces of it.

 

[paximperium]

These people based their actions on more than Bronze Age writings:

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

Such as what?

And the New Testament writings were at least 1200 years after the Near East Bronze Age.

So?
You seem to have this weird delusion that by repeating garbage that it will magic it into plausibility.

 

[dafydd]

You are mistaken. I doubt he actually reads and he has clearly stated in the past that he has never finished reading the entire Bible, just pieces of it.

I did get through the bible once,and some parts of it made for very unpleasant readng.

 

[eccles]

"Tacitus dedicated the first six books of his Annals to Tiberius, with data gleaned from the Roman Senate proceedings and Roman daily records. Both publicly available works at that time."

And as the whole of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70CE all records were lost - IF there were ever any about Jesus.

"Jesus gets one mention, in passing, as the founder of the religion called Christianity, and even that mention is debatably a later addition."

Christianity was founded by Constantine in 325 CE NOT by Jesus.



Robert

 

[joobz]

These people based their actions on more than Bronze Age writings:

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

And the New Testament writings were at least 1200 years after the Near East Bronze Age.

You're not even trying anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

 

[Simon39759]

So then you feel the Roman senator and historian Tacitus was wrong to report Christ suffered the supreme penalty under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

You already have been explained how Tacitus did not do 'original research' but basically reported second hand informations, quite certainly from the Christian creed. There is no reason to consider him an independent source.
You have been told that and yet, re-use it as if it was brand new.

That is dishonest and a poor argument. You, indeed, are wrong and, at least dishonest.


As for your little red herring, first of all, the term proof, I know I mentioned that to you before, does not apply in science. It would implies that the matter is settle in a definitive manner and that's just not how science works.
Abiogenesis is, however, the most likely theory at that point and has a growing body of evidence supporting it. Feel free to start a post in the Science sub-section if you want to be educated on the subject, I would be surprised it that were the case but it is quite interesting.

 

[Cleon]

These people based their actions on more than Bronze Age writings:

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

Give it a ****ing rest, DOC. It's not like you haven't pointed to that over and over again, and people have told you over and over again why it's irrelevant. And I told you, in no uncertain terms, why not only do I not accept it, I find it repulsive.

Do you think making the same fallacious point one more time will convince anybody, or make your point stronger?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

 

[paximperium]

You already have been explained how Tacitus did not do 'original research' but basically reported second hand informations, quite certainly from the Christian creed. There is no reason to consider him an independent source.
You have been told that and yet, re-use it as if it was brand new.

DOC does not "feel the Roman senator and historian Tacitus was wrong to report" that these early Christians burnt Rome to the ground and deserved to be executed for their arson and murder or Roman citizens. These early Christians were obviously terrorists and arsonists.

 

[Belz...]

No one is forcing you to believe the 33 Christian written sources and 10 non-Christian written sources for the truth of Christianity just like no one is forcing me to believe the 9 non-Christian written sources and 1 Christian written source for the life of the Roman emperor (during Christ's life) Tiberius Caesar.

So, basically your argument is similar to this one:

Since Troy existed, there were real Greek gods.

 

[Belz...]

There is no proof unicellular organisms such as bacteria came from non-living chemicals- none.

There is ample and sufficient proof that there wasn't life at one point and now there is. The question is, how ?

 

[joobz]

DOC, please ignore all my posts up to now and address Ichneumonwasp's post.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

This is central to the theme of this thread and must be addressed before we can continue.

 

[Hokulele]

DOC, please address the following post.

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

 

[RoboTimbo]

DOC,

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

I'd be interested in reading your response to Ichneumonwasp's post.

 

[Cleon]

One more time!

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.

 

[zooterkin]

DOC, could you address the following?

There is no proof? Who claims there is? What people claim is that there is evidence in support of abiogenesis because there is. What possible difference could that make to my post?

I'm calling you out on this, because you continue to repeat the misinformation that it is somehow miraculous that Christianity survived the "brutal Roman empire". The Romans were brutal to political dissidents. They did not systematically try to eradicate Christianity (or any other religion) in the very early days of the church. You've been shown this repeatedly.

So, retract your statement that this somehow provides evidence in support of the New Testament writers telling the truth or decide if you are willfully ignorant, an idiot, or a liar. It's your choice.