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

[pakeha]

Pakeha, there is none, nothing was transcribed at the time, all texts are after the event. Though the narratives do say that the Christians went into hiding, remember one denied Christ to the roman soldiers three times.

Thanks for admitting that, sonofgloin.
So we're talking about a tradition, not a fact.
Sounds more like paranoia than persecution, doesn't it.

And the source for the denial by Peter is?
Since you brought it up, give chapter and verse, please.

 

[sonofgloin]

Many, many people have converted from one religion to another and out of religion entirely. Some have even gone the other way. So your assertion above is evidently false.

Sezme forget about swapping religions I was discussing theists and atheists, and you are generally one or the other by late teens. Not many change camps beyond that point.

 

[sonofgloin]

Me either.

Hok and Sezme, of course political correctness is undermining your free speech, the subject matter you can broadcast the lifestyle you live, the information you are not given because it is inciteful etc.

 

[sonofgloin]

As for my "self defined selective truths," apparently you don't fully understand the concept of science and logical reasoning. Nor do you understand that you are comparing a bronze-age mysticism with no evidence for it's supernatural claims to a system that is designed around reproducible evidence.

Thats what I am saying you will never convince a theist and they will not win your favour, one discounts physics from the discussion and one does not.

 

[sonofgloin]

And the source for the denial by Peter is?
Since you brought it up, give chapter and verse, please.

Why?

And immediately a cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, "Before a cock crows twice, you will deny Me three times." And he began to weep. (Mark 14:72 NASB)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Thats what I am saying you will never convince a theist and they will not win your favour, one discounts physics from the discussion and one does not.

Quite a few theists have tossed their religion to the wayside based on sound scientific evidence.

Maybe you're right. Maybe no one will ever read one of my poorly written posts and exclaim: "Eureka! Now it all makes sense. Screw this religion stuff!" I'm OK with that. At least I have truth and evidence and logic rather than lies and mysticism.

 

[pakeha]

... as my contrary supposition is as relevant if you consider the enviroment of the faithful at the time of Christs death. ...

The enviornment of the 'faithful' at the time of Jeus' death, yet again?
As I mentioned above, it reads like paranoia or even simply a literary devise to heighten the drama of the narrative.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I would propose that the vast majority have made a religious preference or not by their late teens. With the few making decisions beyond that point moving from atheist to theist based on an emotional or life threatening experience, and the ones who have a western religion going all feng shui or orange.

No Bob you are a zealot for self defined selective truths, as we all are. Being an atheist is easy, you can always find a contradiction given the shambles the passed down bible ended up as.

Go right out on that limb. Several people here can saw it off behind you. Try Slingblade, who was a born-again fundamentalist; Randfan, who was a Mormon missionary; and me. I was born-again in high school, stayed pretty religious all the way through college, went to "I think there's something out there" until my forties, and only recently came to full-blown agnosticism.

 

[paximperium]

Pax, I did not mention"first hand accounts or contemporaries" I did not mention an account of the death and reserection, these things do not exist. The guy had a core following of 12, and perhaps 70 extended. I hardly think his name was going to appear regularly in the Judea Times.

So why should anyone care about the heresay of a cult?

Pax, it's everbody's bible, and it's every body's choice to follow the teachings within or not. I have no particular affinity with the fashioned texts the church has passed onto us, but I do not dicredit it all because of it's obvious flaws. If it stems from fact, I know one fact that that taints it, and that is that it was written into hard copy by the hand of man.

I do not discredit it all either, I discredit all the stupidity within it.

Well I may as well pack up and look for other innocent lambs to indoctrinate, your too strong willed for me.....but before I go could you please email me your address, the cult likes to send mailouts.

So you mentioned an irrelevant point, was called on its irrelevance and spout more irrelevance.

Yawn. Yeah, how unoriginal.

Doc's point is valid, if you believe one set of ancient texts why not the next, given you can not qualify either and you are forming an opinion based on the veracity you place in the transcription.

Because one text is based on something that is easily probable and one is based on fantasy. Simple criteria.

 

[paximperium]

Never mentioned divinity or the fidelity of the texts, just that they are there.

Of course you did. Must be the reason you mentioned Tacitus as some confirmation of these texts

 

[paximperium]

Hok you are right,the gems pertain to half of them in regard to social stability and interaction, which was my point.

Throw away all that garbage involving "god" and you have a very basic and pretty dull set of rules that even monkeys understand.

 

[paximperium]

No there is no place for logic in a theological debate, it's gotta come from the psyche.

I could not agree more.

No not at all. When when we discuss religion is it a discussion? it is if you are discussing it with others who are like minded. Otherwise we enter it with a bias that lasts all our lives. What camp we take and how fervently we barrack for our team has always intersted me. The "suspension of disbelief" that the faithful undertake interests me as does the zealot atheist. The proof of the authenticity of the NT is unresolvable and what I said initially must be somehow valid, so I could not have detracted from the debate...therefore it was not passing water in the jet stream.

So what is a zealot atheist? Do tell.

 

[sonofgloin]

Go right out on that limb. Several people here can saw it off behind you. Try Slingblade, who was a born-again fundamentalist; Randfan, who was a Mormon missionary; and me. I was born-again in high school, stayed pretty religious all the way through college, went to "I think there's something out there" until my forties, and only recently came to full-blown agnosticism.

Elizabeth, some folks change, but is it a percentage large enough to spike the numbers, that is the question that if resolved would end this little issue. I do not accept a sampling from JREF as a base for decision as the nature of the forum biases the sample base.

 

[sonofgloin]

The enviornment of the 'faithful' at the time of Jeus' death, yet again?
As I mentioned above, it reads like paranoia or even simply a literary devise to heighten the drama of the narrative.

It is supposition, just as the post it responded to was supposition.

 

[paximperium]

Elizabeth, some folks change, but is it a percentage large enough to spike the numbers, that is the question that if resolved would end this little issue. I do not accept a sampling from JREF as a base for decision as the nature of the forum biases the sample base.

So why did you bring it up?

 

[sonofgloin]

Of course you did. Must be the reason you mentioned Tacitus as some confirmation of these texts

I do not believe that I have misread one of the posts I responded to, I noted their position and refuted or agreed with their point. I have had to redirect several to the words I actually wrote as against their interpritation of what I wrote. That could be an example of zealous atheism, you look but you see only what you want to see, that answers your second post. Tacitus was refered to as a other than biblical reference to Jesus, nothing to do with divinity....not even close, I have never mentioned it, but you see it...you see what you want.

 

[sonofgloin]

So why did you bring it up?

Bring up what?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Elizabeth, some folks change, but is it a percentage large enough to spike the numbers, that is the question that if resolved would end this little issue. I do not accept a sampling from JREF as a base for decision as the nature of the forum biases the sample base.

And what about websites like Rapture Ready and Coast to Coast?

People here are willing to entertain evidence. Fundamentalists are not.

 

[SezMe]

Hok and Sezme, of course political correctness is undermining your free speech, the subject matter you can broadcast the lifestyle you live, the information you are not given because it is inciteful etc.

I have no idea what that means either. Maybe Hokulele can translate for me.

 

[paximperium]

Long winded perhaps but not snarky, it is a statement of fact. It is no accomplishment to draw the obvious observation that the Jesus followers failed in their faith given they needed the re assurance of seeing that Jesus was still around after they watched him perish. But as I added as another scenario also based on no factual evidence:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's a nice description of Christians and their beliefs. So?

I do not believe that I have misread one of the posts I responded to, I noted their position and refuted or agreed with their point. I have had to redirect several to the words I actually wrote as against their interpritation of what I wrote.

Highlighted for relevance. No misread. Your moving goalpost and dishonesty is open for all to see.

That could be an example of zealous atheism, you look but you see only what you want to see, that answers your second post. Tacitus was refered to as a other than biblical reference to Jesus, nothing to do with divinity....not even close, I have never mentioned it, but you see it...you see what you want.

It apparently had nothing do with any point at all. Joobz asked why should anyone take any of the Jesus stories as anything but stories and you trotted out Tacitus as some confirmation of the nonsense written in the Bible apparently knowing full well that he was not a contemporary or an eye-witness and was just mentioning Christians and their beliefs.

So basically you've argued about nothing by presenting nothing. How unoriginal. Yawn.