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

[pakeha]

Please, someone, tell me the lady's book wasn't the new evidence DOC was going to post.

 

[sonofgloin]

Welcome to the thread.


Could you give a source for this, please?

Your question surprises me, but since you asked.There were three basic periods of the persecution. The first was from the death of Christ until right before the Great Fire of 64 A.D., which Nero falsely blamed Christians for. However, this first persecution "was a mere afterthought, and did not result in any general proscription" (Cary and Scullard, p. 487). The second period lasted from the end of the first until around 250 A.D., and the final one spanned the years from 250/251, the persecution under Decius, until 313. Up until 250, the persecution was sporadic and localized. However, from 250-251 the Emperor Decius instituted what Michael Grant, an eminent classical historian, calls a "systematic persecution of the Christians" (Grant, p. 157). During this persecution, Decius even executed Pope Fabianus, after which he supposedly remarked: "I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop in Rome." After that martyrdom, Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, wrote this to the clergy in Rome:

 

[DOC]

Fundamentalist Christians are pretty much, by definition, biased on the subject of biblical matters.

Where is that definition written?

And when some atheists in here imply there is "no" evidence in my 1200 posts you don't think they're being biased in biblical matters?

 

[paximperium]

Where is that definition written?

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]
The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;[5] the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.[6]
The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.[6]

And when some atheists in here imply there is "no" evidence in my 1200 posts you don't think they're being biased in biblical matters?

No; since you have not presented any relevant evidence to support your OP at all.

 

[six7s]

And when some atheists in here imply there is "no" evidence in my 1200 posts you don't think they're being biased in biblical matters?

Correct... irrelevant, though...

In a thread ostensibly aimed at promoting critical thinking, it doesn't matter WHO debunks your woo, DOC

What IS relevant is HOW your woo is debunked

That and the sad fact that you have NOT (yet) presented any credible evidence

Ya got any?

 

[sonofgloin]

If it's such an obvious statement than you should have a logical solution why I (or anyone) should give any thought to the Jesus story as anything other than a story?

Joobz, I replied to another in the same vein that Wiki and the information contained within is today used as a reference, but would it be as credible in 2000 years? Who knows the facts, the participants and a few observers of the time. All I can add is that Jesus was mentioned by other historians of the time.
Outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Consider the chronicle of Cornelius Tacitus (55 to 117 A.D.). Tacitus was a Roman statesman and historian. He held several positions in the Roman government, including that of proconsul, or governor of the Roman provinces in Asia. Tacitus is also regarded as the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome.
One of the crowning achievements of Tacitus’ work is Annals, a 16 volume history of the Julian emperors from Tiberius to Nero, written between 115 and 117 A.D. In this work, Tacitus wrote about persistent reports of Jesus’ resurrection.
The veracity of anything you do not experience first hand is up for grabs.

]As you said, Messiah's and doom sayers were a dime a dozen during Jesus' time. Why is his story any more real than the others? It's like trying to say that The Green lantern is real but all other superheros are merely stories.

I agree, that is why I pick and choose the salient rather than the doctrinal or rhetorical subject content of the bible to debate.

All is relative? Are you a nihilist who believes there is no truth?

All I can say is that we are nothing, if there is more than nothing, that I have not found out as yet.

I don't really care what his/her other thoughts are as they were not part of his post. I see no reason to assume more depth or less depth. Why do you associate so much from a simple post?
Are you jealous of waterman? Is that why you continue to be snarky?

Taint Waterman, it is Watermans narrow perception, if your going to be a protagonist be subjective don't just follow the leader. You were correct in your description of the post in question being a "simple post".

 

[Akhenaten]

You may "add" but no one gives a rat's ass as to your recommendations.

So you don't believe in miracles but you can read the minds of the 180 posters in here. Statements like yours show a very angry bitter person.

Total so far: 1


Feel free to add.

 

[paximperium]

All I can add is that Jesus was mentioned by other historians of the time.

Such as? I don't see a single one.

Outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Consider the chronicle of Cornelius Tacitus (55 to 117 A.D.). Tacitus was a Roman statesman and historian. He held several positions in the Roman government, including that of proconsul, or governor of the Roman provinces in Asia. Tacitus is also regarded as the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome.
One of the crowning achievements of Tacitus’ work is Annals, a 16 volume history of the Julian emperors from Tiberius to Nero, written between 115 and 117 A.D. In this work, Tacitus wrote about persistent reports of Jesus’ resurrection.

That's really nice. So where is this contemporary historian accounts of Jesus? All I see are people who are writing of Christians and their beliefs decades after the fact.

Hey, did someone see Elvis in Scranton and Mars yesterday?

 

[sonofgloin]

Riddle me this Batman, what is the need of the 10 Commandments at any Courthouse (or any government building), when at least half have nothing to do with laws.

I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy


Paul

Yes but the other half just about cover all our anti social behaviours.

5. You shall not dishonor your parents.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Correct... irrelevant, though...

In a thread ostensibly aimed at promoting critical thinking, it doesn't matter WHO debunks your woo, DOC

What IS relevant is HOW your woo is debunked

That and the sad fact that you have NOT (yet) presented any credible evidence

Ya got any?

What's wrong with being biased towards the truth, instead of bronze-age mysticism anyway?

Doc, you misunderstand our position. We are not simply biased against religion, we are biased towards truth and critical thinking. It just so happens that truth and critical thinking are in very short supply when it comes to religious beliefs, thus we are defaulted into appearing biased against religion.

That's not the same as being biased towards mysticism and edit: ignoring any proven truth that doesn't fit inside that belief system.

 

[paximperium]

Yes but the other half just about cover all our anti social behaviours.

5. You shall not dishonor your parents.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.

So? How is that special or even that interesting?

 

[sonofgloin]

Such as? I don't see a single one.
That's really nice. So where is this contemporary historian accounts of Jesus? All I see are people who are writing of Christians and their beliefs decades after the fact.

Hey, did someone see Elvis in Scranton and Mars yesterday?

As if I am going take take your little hand and march you down to the library. The names are there their works are translated , look it up.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes but the other half just about cover all our anti social behaviours.

5. You shall not dishonor your parents.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.

Rape, slavery, discrimination...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

As if I am going take take your little hand and march you down to the library. The names are there their works are translated , look it up.

You made the positive claim, would you care to back it up instead of retreating to an ad hom attack?

 

[sonofgloin]

So? How is that special or even that interesting?

You are certainly no diamond, there is only one facet to your thinking. If you do not understand the importance to every civilizations of social stability and shared moral values there is no hope. You know how people are described as a glass half full or half empty, you don't see hues.

 

[DOC]

Good grief, not this argument from popularity again. In that case, let's look at some numbers regarding Ehrman's New York Times bestselling book. As of today's Amazon sales rankings, we can compare the success of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and Timothy Jones' Misquoting Truth.

Ehrman: #20,136

Jones: #122,263

Using DOC's logic, Ehrman is six times more correct than Jones, so he wins and that is evidence that the bible contains errors. Yay!

DOC, care to rethink the use of one of your favorite fallacies?

Your argument would make sense if I said the number of sales of a book is evidence of the truth of that book or the number of posts in a thread is evidence of the truth of that thread. But I have never said that. Thus, Straw Man.

 

[paximperium]

You are certainly no diamond, there is only one facet to your thinking. If you do not understand the importance to every civilizations of social stability and shared moral values there is no hope. You know how people are described as a glass half full or half empty, you don't see hues.

Yawn. Yes, it isn't even half interesting or even original which makes your little book what exactly?

Unoriginal? Dull? Simpleminded? What was your point again?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You are certainly no diamond, there is only one facet to your thinking. If you do not understand the importance to every civilizations of social stability and shared moral values there is no hope. You know how people are described as a glass half full or half empty, you don't see hues.

So, because the culture in the US shares similar moral guidelines to other cultures, the Ten Commandments are responsible for it?

Could it possibly be that the Constitution is based, in no small part, on English laws? (at a minimum, the Bill of Rights is most definitely linked to the Magna Carta, among other European legal documents).

Why is it hard to believe that societies around the world have accepted that certain things are required for a community to function, just as lions, wolves, etc do not prey on other members of their pack.

 

[paximperium]

As if I am going take take your little hand and march you down to the library. The names are there their works are translated , look it up.

I've read several of them.
So which are first hand accounts again? Who are these contemporaries again? Who mentions Jesus and his resurrection explicitly and not about those Christian cultists and their nonsense beliefs?

Perhaps you should get down to a library and find those names yourself. You may have a hard time since they don't exist even in your Bible.
Edit: Don't think this nonsense, misquotes and lies have never been tried before. Its always amusing how theist have to use false factoids and lies to prop up their weak faith.

 

[paximperium]

Your argument would make sense if I said the number of sales of a book is evidence of the truth of that book or the number of posts in a thread is evidence of the truth of that thread. But I have never said that. Thus, Straw Man.

So where is this mysterious "evidence" again?