• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
sonofgloin said:
I can only again say that from 6 or 7 hundred books down to seventy, a lot of different accounts of the same event, no suprise. If anything given the manner the texts were transcribed for the best part of 1500 years I can understand the errors in editing. If anything I would regard it as a positive, many accounts with the plot being the same but through the eyes of differing scribes.
Click to expand...
"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should have really happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of the testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
-David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd. ed.
Please note I do not mention reserection, just that the historical events are plausable.
Click to expand...
Sure. So why should anyone care about the death of some irrelevant rabbi again?
 
sonofgloin said:
From another sourse perhaps.



Well Tacitus knew of him and his demise, or did he invent it?
Click to expand...

Tacitus was writing hearsay. The myth had already spread by then throughout the Roman Empire about a man who was resurrected after been crucified.
This was the greatest selling point of this new religion. It promised it's followers eternal life. This explains it's rapid growth.
 
amb said:
Tacitus was writing hearsay. The myth had already spread by then throughout the Roman Empire about a man who was resurrected after been crucified.
This was the greatest selling point of this new religion. It promised it's followers eternal life. This explains it's rapid growth.
Click to expand...
Already told him. He is still repeating this nonsense.
 
paximperium said:
"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should have really happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of the testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
-David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd. ed.
Sure. So why should anyone care about the death of some irrelevant rabbi again?
Click to expand...

Pax I have said from the outset that I question the probable occurance of the event in purely physical terms. What I was hoping to convey with the Mark passage was that people went to the tomb and found it empty, and then I was aided with a half dozen differing tomb empty stories from zoot. The more accounts of the same core event even if detail alters gives a value to the possible validity. In regard to your Rabbi comment, he had about 70 core followers, mostly extended family of the 12, so it is a given that his life was not chronicled at the time, there were mesiahs on every street corner, the Jews had been promised one.
 
sonofgloin said:
Pax I have said from the outset that I question the probable occurance of the event in purely physical terms. What I was hoping to convey with the Mark passage was that people went to the tomb and found it empty, and then I was aided with a half dozen differing tomb empty stories from zoot. The more accounts of the same core event even if detail alters gives a value to the possible validity. In regard to your Rabbi comment, he had about 70 core followers, mostly extended family of the 12, so it is a given that his life was not chronicled at the time, there were mesiahs on every street corner, the Jews had been promised one.
Click to expand...
Again. So why should anyone care again?
As I've already stated:
paximperium said:
I can believe that some Jewish rabbi named Yeshuah ben Joseph existed and created a love cult that became Christianity. All that other nonsense, no.
Click to expand...
 
sonofgloin said:
The more accounts of the same core event even if detail alters gives a value to the possible validity.
Click to expand...
Here is one point that completely and utterly false. Mass hysteria, hearsay and stories spread very easily.

The so called "Miracle of the sun of Fatimah" is a classic example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Was there an empty tomb? I have no idea since we don't even have a single original story or eyewitness claimant to have been there. We have a story that has been copied and repeated. In fact the ending of Mark is known to be an addition. In the original they rolled a stone over the tomb---end of story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscript_tradition
 
Cactus Wren said:
joobz, you asked sonofgloin:

joobz said:
How do you define adultery?
Click to expand...

You'll have noticed that he carefully sidestepped this question, but I'd bet a fair amount that his definition doesn't match the biblical one.
Click to expand...


Which biblical one? The NT version where Jesus defines it as "looking at a woman with lust in your heart"?

:cool:
 
Thanks for the citation from Mark, sonofgloin.
And zooter for completing the collection.
sonofgloin said:
...The more accounts of the same core event even if detail alters gives a value to the possible validity. ...
Click to expand...

No, not really. This logic looks great on paper, but is a fail in real life.
If you don't go for Pax's example, we have the amazing Marian sightings in El Escorial; I only took it seriously when I saw for myself the crowds of people gathering in the meadow of the original 'sighting'.
I'll hunt out media links to add here.
Added:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+Escorial&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
Thanks for the citation from Mark, sonofgloin.
And zooter for completing the collection.


No, not really. This logic looks great on paper, but is a fail in real life.
If you don't go for Pax's example, we have the amazing Marian sightings in El Escorial; I only took it seriously when I saw for myself the crowds of people gathering in the meadow of the original 'sighting'.
I'll hunt out media links to add here.
Added:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+Escorial&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en
Click to expand...

The selective nature of these visions, the socio economic demographic the visions appear to, and the fervent character of the faithful chosen on the face of it leaves me doubtful. I am of the understanding that Jesus was to be the last manifestation of god before Armagedon. In any case I have kept away from the etherial, and concentrated on the historic Jesus. Re the great on paper but fails in practice, yes and no, you would be right on some occasions and wrong on others, it is a possibility.
 
Hokulele said:
Which biblical one? The NT version where Jesus defines it as "looking at a woman with lust in your heart"?

:cool:
Click to expand...

Sorry for not answering way back when. No I can not shape up if the "look with lust" was the minimum entry point to adultery, for my money it is the act. Although the sin is in the thought.
 
Cactus Wren said:
joobz, you asked sonofgloin:

You'll have noticed that he carefully sidestepped this question, but I'd bet a fair amount that his definition doesn't match the biblical one.
Click to expand...

Cactus you should consider a career as a fight promoter, you say the right things at the right time, do you have an opinion or just happy to play puppet master from the shade. Sidestepped, smidestepped, I missed it (a bit of Yiddish humour there just to keep in theme)
 
sonofgloin said:
The selective nature of these visions, the socio economic demographic the visions appear to, and the fervent character of the faithful chosen on the face of it leaves me doubtful. I am of the understanding that Jesus was to be the last manifestation of god before Armagedon. In any case I have kept away from the etherial, and concentrated on the historic Jesus. Re the great on paper but fails in practice, yes and no, you would be right on some occasions and wrong on others, it is a possibility.
Click to expand...

Weasely little fella, ain't he...
 
sonofgloin said:
Cactus you should consider a career as a fight promoter, you say the right things at the right time, do you have an opinion or just happy to play puppet master from the shade. Sidestepped, smidestepped, I missed it (a bit of Yiddish humour there just to keep in theme)
Click to expand...

You, in fact, did not miss Joobz' post. You, in fact, did respond to it - your response, however, was to simply sidestep the question.
 
sonofgloin said:
Sorry for not answering way back when. No I can not shape up if the "look with lust" was the minimum entry point to adultery, for my money it is the act. Although the sin is in the thought.
Click to expand...

Wait, huh?

So, you think it's not adultery until you act on it although it's sinful to lust after another woman?

Double speak much?

Interesting that you feel the need to use double speak to avoid answering a simple, straight question. Perhaps it's because you're stuck between a rock and a hardplace - one response would be obviously ridiculous (lustful thoughts = adultery), the other response would hurt your argument that NT/Jesus teachings are worth keeping around.
 
According to Jeebus, were are to pluck out our eye that looked at a member of the opposite sex in a lustful way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom