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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC explaining why Peter Denied Jesus at least three times:
Well, Peter's life was possibly at stake if he admitted he knew Jesus. The senior member of Scientology life was not in immediate danger when he answered the question about Xenu and Ron Hubbard was not nearby facing execution.

DOC Explaining why Martyrs are willing to be Martyred.
No, but it was the resurrection that proved that Jesus was who he said he was, the Messiah, and the son of God. And thus seeing a resurrected Christ would prove eternal life to the apostles. And when you know, that you know, that you know, there is eternal life {because you have seen a resurrected person} your not so concerned about being martyred, in fact you might gladly look forward to it.
So DOC, was Peter looking forward to martyrdom or wasn't he?


If he was looking forward, why did he deny Jesus?
If he wasn't looking forward to it, why was he afraid to die?

I can think of reason why that explains this obvious contradiction, and it also explains why Scientologists would also lie about Xenu. Regardless of whether or not thier lives were at stake.
 
Well, to be fair to Peter, Jesus hadn't done the resurrection bit yet, so how was Peter to know that death wouldn't be final? Of course, that isn't evidence of anything other than a brief fit of internal consistency in the story-telling.

Although why Peter deserved to get actual physical evidence to quell his doubts and we do not is beyond me.
 
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...=es&lr=lang_en
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.

How are these people different than folk in the 1st century AD, then? Those who heard do of the miracle of the Resurrection and all that?

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.

The thing is, the NT writers seems to insist on the etherial, don't they.

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.

In the particular case of how 'miracles' can be taken up by the public, even today, paximperium and I have shown that variant versions don't necessarily prove the existence of a core 'event'.

So we're still waiting for evidence the NT writers told the truth.
 
All kinds of religions have resurrection stories.

How did we get from the Old Testament, a nationalistic Jewish document, to Jesus as Christians see Jesus?

The Jews rejected Jesus because they didn't think he matched the messiah that had been foretold, so they condemned him as a blasphemer for claiming (falsely) that he was. In this they were following the Law, in which the penalty for blasphemy was death.

(Mind you, I'm sure the historical Jesus BELIEVED he was the messiah.)

That's when the great sea-change began. Jesus' body was not cold before his followers began having arguments among themselves. Peter wanted to convince the Jews they had been wrong, that Jesus was the messiah and they had killed him. Then along came Paul, and he saw that Christianity was going nowhere. Because of its tribal laws, it was not appealing to gentiles; and the Jews had rejected Jesus.

So it had to change, to be more appealing to Gentiles, because otherwise it would die out.

First, no circumcision. That didn't appeal to adult men at all. Even with wine to dull the pain. Because there was always the chance that the knife would slip....

Then all the 'mystery' stuff began creeping in. Things that had nothing to do with Judaism. These ideas were floating around at the time; Rome was a hodgepodge of different religions. A very influential one was from Egypt.

So whatever was wonderful and miraculous and fascinating and amazing in any of the cults, it was brought into Christian doctrine to attract the multitudes.

The much older Egyptian sun-worship had many such beliefs.
-----------------

The god Horus was the son of the gods Osiris and Isis. The three of them formed a unit, a trinity.

The Christian trinity is of Egyptian origin. The Jews had no trinity, only the Lord, who made it clear he would stand for no rivals.

Osiris died and was resurrected before he fathered Horus.

"Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt. 2:15)

Each pharaoh was considered to be a re-incarnation of Horus.

The story of Horus can be found in "The Egyptian Book of the Dead” (also known as the "Papyrus of Ani") written over 3,000 years before the birth of Jesus.

The adoration of the Virgin and Child is connected with the adoration of Isis and the infant Horus. Their portraits are remarkably alike.

----------------------
So just as temple priests 'faked' miracles and swore they were the actions of the gods, so the followers of Jesus swore that he had raised the dead, walked on water, fed the mob, etc.

Similarly, many people in 1917 at Fatima, Portugal, 'swore' that they had seen the sun

- become an oval, and start spinning in the sky
- cast bright lights around the landscape
- become less bright than usual
- careen towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, and strongly radiate heat
- at one moment be surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple
- move in a manner " exceedingly fast and whirling"
- at times to be loosened from the sky
- tremble, make sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws
- turn silver, enveloped in gauzy grey light
- whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds
- its light turned blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral
- its light spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands
- suddenly and completely dry clothes previously wet with rain.

Yet many people at or near Fatima said they saw nothing unusual. Some said they saw sun dogs, nothing else.

Yet the same sun in other parts of Europe and indeed everywhere else but around Fatima appeared as normal.

Well, which was it? Did the sun do these gymnastics, and no one noticed except the people of Fatima? Or were the people of Fatima who swore they had witnessed the cosmic display liars? Or merely very suggestible theists?

And if the sun had done what they claim they saw it do, why is there no evidence in the earth's geology? Because there would have been tsunamis all over the world the like of which have not been seen since.

Don't forget that some of Charles Manson's followers claimed he had performed miracles, for example, causing a jeep to fly over some bad potholes in the road to the Ranch.
 
Last edited:
Not the same because Xenu is not the primary basis on which the religion of scientology exists today for the majority of its members.

From Wiki on Xenu:

Senior members of the Church of Scientology have several times publicly denied or minimized the importance of the Xenu story, but others have admitted its existence. In a BBC Panorama program that aired on May 14, 2007, senior Scientologist Tommy Davis interrupted when celebrity members are asked about Xenu, saying: "None of us know what you're talking about. It's loony. It's weird."...

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

So you can't compare the fact that the resurrection is whole essence and the reason for the existence of Christianity to Xenu who senior scientology members have denied or minimized.


It has been pointed out that this quote isn't perhaps as honest as you would hope.

Frankly, it doesn't matter.

Why?

Have you ever heard of a lady named Gretta Vosper?

She believes that Christianity would be better off without Jesus and without God.

If that doesn't "minimize the importance" of Jesus and God, what does?


And DOC, before you dismiss her as a kook, be aware of the following:

1) She is a pastor in the United Church of Canada.
Specifically, West Hill United Church in Toronto.

2) She's written a book.
Specifically, With or Without God.
It has lots of pages and even more words!


Since you seem to love arguments from authority and arguments from popularity, you must surely accept that she is every bit as mainstream as you are. Even if it is a slightly different part of the stream.


ETA: Why can i not look away from this thread? Oh well, at leas Hok, Joobz, and others keep me entertained with actual knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by amb
According to Jeebus, were are to pluck out our eye that looked at a member of the opposite sex in a lustful way.

Amb you enjoy the lampooning of the name Jesus, it's not so much that it annoys, but it is a simplistic thing to do.
 
Originally Posted by sonofgloin
From another sourse perhaps.
Well Tacitus knew of him and his demise, or did he invent it?

that's not evidence of a resurrection. That's evidence that there were people who believed a resurrection happened.



Joobz, I say again I did not mention reserection. I only used the section from Tacitus that said there were problems with a cult in Judea and their leader was named christ, and Christ suffered crucifiction....no mention of reserection. It was canvassed to bring another historical validation that there was a christ in Judea and he was crucified.
 
Nit picking, that is funny, whale away, have fun. But this bible is supposed to be the so-called word and/or inspired word of a so-called god, I’m sure it could stand up to net picking if it was. After all it has two versions of genesis in it for starters.


I do not dispute the things that are factual in what you say, but I will address the theme of your post that the bible is not corrupt and should stand a clinitians eye so to speak.
You have no clinitions eye, you simply repeat what others have uncovered in regard to the obvious contradictions from one text to another. I repeat the bible was not written by god, but by man for the best part of 1500 years over and over and over again, a result akin to Chinese whispers. But the plot does not vary just the accompaying versions of events.
One book, taken from hundreds of sources re written by a thousand hands for more than a thousand years and you want the consistency that the editor of the NYT looks for.
 
5, 7 and 10 are not against the law in the US, as far as I know. So, again, why should the 10 commandments be on the wall in a courthouse, when only 3 of them relate to laws, and those 3 are crimes in societies with no connections to the Abrahamic religions?

Zoot I believe Hok brought this to my attention a few days ago and I agreed. I believe I kept the murdering, lying, and staling ones.
 
Joobz, I say again I did not mention reserection. I only used the section from Tacitus that said there were problems with a cult in Judea and their leader was named christ, and Christ suffered crucifiction....no mention of reserection. It was canvassed to bring another historical validation that there was a christ in Judea and he was crucified.
Well, that's a really wierd thing to do..
To refresh your memory, the conversation was....
Actually I have presented evidence for the resurrection:
that's not evidence at best it's hearsay.
From another sourse perhaps.
[insert tacitus quote here]
Well Tacitus knew of him and his demise, or did he invent it?

You brought up tacitus in a conversation regarding evidence for the resurrection. It is easy to infer that you were attempting to conflate tacitius' acknowedgement of a rumor of Jesus' miracle with actual evidence for that miracle.

If you agree that Tacitus' quote doesn't represent evidence for the resurreciton, than we can drop this discussion and I can repeat my original claim:

There is no evidence for the resurrection.
 
I'm not making a joke here, I'm asking seriously. You had originally alluded to the idea that 7 of the 10 commandments were so amazing that if we followed them all other laws wouldn't be needed. I'm trying to see how adultry fits this claims.

Very flamboyant discriptive of the differing options to adultery. I wonder which one you would choose? All I will add is that adultery was overwhelmingly used as grounds for divorce in most nations until guilt free divorce became the norm. If you can not conceive that adultry could lead to murder, and has done throughout history, you are a simple soul, god bless you.
 
Very flamboyant discriptive of the differing options to adultery.
Nothing flamboyant about it. I was asking a very simple question and was asking for you to be a bit more exacting in your claim.
I wonder which one you would choose?
Doesn't matter, does it? I'm not the one claiming a claim about the 10 commandments.

All I will add is that adultery was overwhelmingly used as grounds for divorce in most nations until guilt free divorce became the norm.
IS it adultry if two people who aren't married have sex with each other?

If you can not conceive that adultry could lead to murder, and has done throughout history, you are a simple soul, god bless you.
Personal attack noted (As is your avoidance in justifying your argument).
There is already a "Thou shall not kill" commandment. Why is adultry needed if there's already the "don't kill" rule in place?


Or should we further decrease the commandments that receive your seal of "amazingness"
The 10 7 6 commandments?
 
Joobz, I say again I did not mention reserection. I only used the section from Tacitus that said there were problems with a cult in Judea and their leader was named christ, and Christ suffered crucifiction....no mention of reserection. It was canvassed to bring another historical validation that there was a christ in Judea and he was crucified.
It's not even that. All it is is evidence that the Christians of the time believed that there had been a guy called Christ in Judea who was crucified.
 
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...=es&lr=lang_en


How are these people different than folk in the 1st century AD, then? Those who heard do of the miracle of the Resurrection and all that?


Jesus was around for three years, you could touch him, they did not come to him looking for the etherial, but it seems they found it in him. As for the reserection, if you did not witness it then you require faith, and as I said faith is the suspension of disbelief.


The thing is, the NT writers seems to insist on the etherial, don't they.


Ofcourse, they were men of their times


In the particular case of how 'miracles' can be taken up by the public, even today, paximperium and I have shown that variant versions don't necessarily prove the existence of a core 'event'.
So we're still waiting for evidence the NT writers told the truth.


They certainly told their version of the truth, as do the various denominations today. We can only rely on the texts of the few non interested observers of the times who's mention of Christ and his demise fit the chronology and geography. Given that he was mentioned within a lifetime of his being by these authors we can surmise the early Christians did have a Christ. If you accept there was a christ could all the biography be fiction.
 
You brought up tacitus in a conversation regarding evidence for the resurrection. It is easy to infer that you were attempting to conflate tacitius' acknowedgement of a rumor of Jesus' miracle with actual evidence for that miracle.

If you agree that Tacitus' quote doesn't represent evidence for the resurreciton, than we can drop this discussion and I can repeat my original claim:

There is no evidence for the resurrection.

Joobz, you are correct, my apologies. My thoughts were an independant account of Christ and the crucifiction and that is the only segement of Tacitus that I employed.
 
IS it adultry if two people who aren't married have sex with each other?

How the hell would I know, what the hell would I care, unless it was with my partner...thye point to singling it out as a commandment is that it can easily become a precursor to more negative outcomes for someone.


Personal attack noted

Cheap shot, the keyboard got the better of me, at least I kept the sling in theme.
 
DOC explaining why Peter Denied Jesus at least three times:


DOC Explaining why Martyrs are willing to be Martyred.

So DOC, was Peter looking forward to martyrdom or wasn't he?
"After" he saw the resurrected Christ it didn't seem he was too afraid to be martyred as evidenced by him spending the last years of his life preaching in Rome, the heart of the Roman Empire.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

And "before" he saw the resurrected Christ he was most likely trying to save own his skin when he denied Christ 3 times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom