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

[Hokulele]

Yes

Thank you. Why do you continue to use the phrase 42 or 43?

I have read the definitions of most of the fallacies including authority. If I make a post that you believe has a fallacy you are welcome to point it out. But I still have a right to point out that people who believe in Jesus are not fruitcakes as evidenced by the 42 or 43 who have shown they believe in Christianity.

I do not care what you have read, do you understand those definitions? If so, prove it by posting your explanation of what those terms mean in your own words.

 

[pakeha]

Sorry to backtrack the discussion , but this slipped under the radar on the last page

I just remembered this thread says some interesting things. I have no idea of the veracity but I respect CJ.23: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137026

Thanks for posting up that thread, Mr Clingford. It'll be interesting to see what turns up in the completed analysis of the all the samples gathered thus far.

 

[six7s]

It's a shame that Randi starts off by stating something wrong - there is no account of Christ's birth in John 1. It's something very very basic.

Huh?

John 1

⁴⁵ Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

⁴⁶ And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Huh?

John 1

Erm, they mention Nazareth, but say nothing about his birth - they are not an account of his birth.




BTW my partner and I went to Kew Gardens in August. Fantastic.

 

[six7s]

i hope that doesn't mean that 42 us presidents will eventually claim a belief in xenu as they have with christianity.

doc, seriously, do you understand why appeals to authority and appeals to popularity are fallacies? You use them repeatedly, and yet dismiss counter-examples without any demonstration that you even understand what is wrong with your "evidence".

So, to clarify, please define and describe the fallacies appeal to authority and appeal to popularity in your own words. If you cannot, you will never understand why your arguments are so unconvincing, and you will never convince people who try to apply critical thinking skills to beliefs regarding religion that your ideas have merit.

qft

 

[six7s]

Erm, they mention Nazareth, but say nothing about his birth - they are not an account of his birth.

Ermmm...

If the phrase Jesus OF Nazareth is NOT a reference to (aka an account of) the birthplace, then what is it?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Ermmm...

If the phrase Jesus OF Nazareth is NOT a reference to (aka an account of) the birthplace, then what is it?

Ermmmm, come on, that's a bit of a stretch, reference = account of. A reference to something is hardly an account of something.

 

[six7s]

Do you understand what is meant by an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity?

Yes, I do

Then why do you persist in making them?

I still have a right to post historical facts don't I.

True... completely irrelevant - considering the overwhelming profusion of fallacies masquerading as facts... but, yeah... true

Please, do feel free to start posting historical facts

 

[six7s]

Ermmmm, come on, that's a bit of a stretch, reference = account of. A reference to something is hardly an account of something.

OK...

I'll rephrase my question:

If the phrase Jesus OF Nazareth is NOT a reference to (aka an account of) the birthplace, then what is it?​

 

[Mr Clingford]

OK...

I'll rephrase my question:

If the phrase Jesus OF Nazareth is NOT a reference to (aka an account of) the birthplace, then what is it?​

It probably is, but so what? Where are you going with this?

 

[Simon39759]

OK...

I'll rephrase my question:

If the phrase Jesus OF Nazareth is NOT a reference to (aka an account of) the birthplace, then what is it?​

To the place he grew up and spend most of his life in.

According to the Bible he only spend a very short time in Bethlehem itself on the way to Egypt before going back to Nazareth.
It wouldn't, to me, be such a stretch to call him 'of Nazareth' even if he actually wasn't born there. Well people ask me where I am from, I rarely mention my birthplace as I left it at the age of 3 and never lived there again (not that I am comparing myself to Jesus). There might be some cultural rules in the first century Jewish community, but I am not aware of them...

(Also, of course, I agree that the Bethlehem story is pure post-hoc hogwash to connect Jesus to Micah and the Hosea prophecies and that it is very likely that the historical Jesus was born in Nazareth).

 

[X]

OK...

I'll rephrase my question:

If the phrase Jesus OF Nazareth is NOT a reference to (aka an account of) the birthplace, then what is it?​

If you two are going to have a to-do over this, wouldn't it be wise to analyze the earliest manuscripts?

See what they say, vs. the translation used in your post?


I mention this because I'm highly interested to see the result, but don't speak anything other than English.

 

[six7s]

It probably is, but so what? Where are you going with this?

I'm merely refuting your claim:

It's a shame that Randi starts off by stating something wrong - there is no account of Christ's birth in John 1. It's something very very basic.

 

[Mr Clingford]

OK. I see the point of 'Jesus of Nazareth' - it's where he grew up. I was born in Leicester but grew up in Loughborough. I'm from Loughborough.As said above it doesn't necessarily mean he was born there.

But one detail does not equal an account. That is not what 'account' means. Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, it appears to me that you are trying to twist the meaning of 'account'.

 

[joobz]

Yes, I do, but I still have a right to post historical facts don't I.

Of course, you do. You are allowed to make as many bad arguments as you want.

It's just wierd that you would willing make bad arguments. It's as though you don't have any GOOD arguments to make.

 

[joobz]

The BBC reporting that some fruitcakes believe in Xenu is the same as Tacitus reporting that some ancient fruitcakes believed in Jeebus.

I hope that doesn't mean that 42 US presidents will eventually claim a belief in Xenu as they have with Christianity.

Well. That's an interesting question.

Do you believe that decades from now, if we have multiple presidents who believe in scientology that would mean scientology is true?

If not, why not?

 

[six7s]

OK. I see the point of 'Jesus of Nazareth' - it's where he grew up.

And (purportedly) conceived - right?

But one detail does not equal an account.

Fairy Nuff

Likewise, one contentious word does not negate the message that Randi conveys in that video

Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, it appears to me that you are trying to twist the meaning of 'account'.

Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, it appears to me that you are trying to weasel and obfuscate what is already a train-wreck of a thread

 

[Mr Clingford]

And (purportedly) conceived - right?

Fairy Nuff

Likewise, one contentious word does not negate the message that Randi conveys in that video

Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, it appears to me that you are trying to weasel and obfuscate what is already a train-wreck of a thread

If Jesus was from Nazareth then maybe he was born there - I don't care at the moment. But at least you admit you have not refuted my claim which is what I was concerned about. And I don't take kindly to accusations of weaseling and obfuscation is just nuts.

I don't really give a stuff whether Jesus was born in Nazareth, but Randi has got that wrong. As for his message, having reread the thread I linked to, it appears that Randi's message is wrong. Why is this so hard for you to accept? Why be so abrasive?

 

[sonofgloin]

Getting back to the historical Jesus, my quandary is that those that deny that Christ existed, refute the mention of Christ or Christians in the other than bible references to him. Given that these references were single lines or fleeting commentary and not long winded or elaborate descriptives does that not fly in the face of the charge of the addition to or perversion of the writers original text. My opinion is that zealots who would re write history to suit their ambitions would logically add more than a fleeting mention, propagandists would have filled the texts with Christ references, in for a penny, in for a pound so to speak. As I mentioned to Pax is all the other commentary fom these writers flawed or just the Christ observations. Selective belief lives on both sides of the fence.

Josephus
Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian born in AD 37 who wrote a comprehensive history of the Jewish people near the end of 1st century. In this book, he recounts the stoning of James, calling him "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This passage is considered by most historians and scholars to be authentic and is not generally in dispute. This an important piece of evidence which tells us that someone name Jesus actually lived in the first century and that some considered Him to be the Christ.

Josephus wrote another passage which is more controversial. He wrote:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day


There is still much debate over the authenticity of this passage. The current consensus is that Josephus did write something about Jesus here, but that later edits were made by a follower of Christ. The parts in bold italics are those parts which are commonly believed to be later edits, for there is evidence that Josephus was not a follower of Christ and would not have characterized Him in this way. The description of Jesus as a "wise man" and and "teacher" are more consistent with Josephus' style and vocabulary found elsewhere in his work, and are probably the actual descriptions he used.

Tacitus
The Roman Historian Tacitus wrote of Jesus (whom he refers to as "Christus") and the spread of Christianity throughout Rome in his work Annals, approximately AD 116. He wrote:

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 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


There is a great deal of important information in this passage. First, it confirms the life and death of Jesus in Judea but even more importantly, confirms that his death was by crucifixion. According to Christian scholar Edwin Yamauchi, this is an important piece of evidence because death by crucifixion was the "most ignominious death" and reserved for the lowest and most worthless criminals. By Tacitus' own admission, people continued to followed Jesus despite his ignominious death and were prepared to follow him even to the penalty of their own death. This account of the faithfulness of early Christians by an unsympathetic witness is powerful testimony of the life of Jesus.

Pliny The Younger
We also get an account of the spread of Christianity from a Roman provincial governor named Pliny the Younger in A.D. 112. Though he does not speak of Jesus directly, he does recount that Christians in his province cause trouble because they worship Christ and not the Emperor.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations.

 

[zooterkin]

42 or 43? Do you believe that Obama is a Christian or not?

Perhaps he's on the verge of admitting that the third president wasn't a Christian?