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

[six7s]

If Jesus was from Nazareth then maybe he was born there - I don't care at the moment.

So... you don't care and, therefore, you are right and Randi is wrong....... riiiight...

Nope.

Wrong!

Check out the orthodox/fundy christian view on the 'beginnings of a life'

Also, check out the official view on the annunciation:

www.newadvent.org CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The fact of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is related in Luke 1:26-38. The Evangelist tells us that in the sixth month after the conception of St. John the Baptist by Elizabeth, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to the Virgin Mary, at Nazareth, a small town in the mountains of Galilee. <snip/>

Mary having heard the greeting words did not speak; she was troubled in spirit, since she knew not the angel, nor the cause of his coming, nor the meaning of the salutation. And the angel continued and said: "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. <snip/>

Since 1889 Holzmann and many Protestant writers have tried to show that the verses Luke 1:34-35, containing the message of conception through the Holy Ghost are interpolated. <snip/>

The local tradition of Nazareth pretends that the angel met Mary and greeted her at the fountain, and when she fled from him in fear, he followed her into the house and there continued his message. (Buhl, Geogr. v. Palaest., 1896.) The year and day of the Annunciation cannot be determined as long as new material does not throw more light on the subject. The present date of the feast (25 March) depends upon the date of the older feast of Christmas.<snip/>

The Annunciation is the beginning of Jesus in His human nature. Through His mother He is a member of the human race. <snip/>

But at least you admit you have not refuted my claim which is what I was concerned about.

Huh?

And I don't take kindly to accusations of weaseling and obfuscation is just nuts.

Good

 

[paximperium]

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.

Again, you seem to keep dodging a simple question. What is there to refute?
These so-called extra-biblical references are heresay and written decades after the Christian religion was already established. It is the burden on the claimant to support their claim, not mine to refute them.

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.

Why?

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.

Why?

As I mentioned to Pax is all the other commentary fom these writers flawed or just the Christ observations.

Flawed only in the simple fact that they are either forgeries, interpolations or heresay.

Why is it that not a single miracle is documented by any contemporary historian during that time period, not even a rumor? Why is it that there is not a single first hand account from anywhere, not even the Bible?

As I've mentioned, apocalyptic rabbis were a dime a dozen back then. If Jesus never did any magic or even presented anything original, why should I care? Why should I treat anything written in that ancient book seriously?

Selective belief lives on both sides of the fence.

Yes. I have high standards.

 

[sonofgloin]

Why is it that not a single miracle is documented by any contemporary historian during that time period, not even a rumor? Why is it that there is not a single first hand account from anywhere, not even the Bible?

Pax there was no Fox network or daily tabloid....99-99% of the population was illiterate you must consider this if volume of text is the criteria for verasity.

As I've mentioned, apocalyptic rabbis were a dime a dozen back then. If Jesus never did any magic or even presented anything original, why should I care? Why should I treat anything written in that ancient book seriously?

You mentioned, I mentioned, we all know that there was a plethora of claimants to the mantle of messiah, but one, only one is debated 2000 years later. Re the guy saying nothing original, here are some quotes from the Mount sermon, perhaps the sentiment lived in the hearts of some but it was not canvassed in the wider brutal society of the times.
5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God.

5:21 You have heard that it was said of them of old time, You shall
not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

5:31 It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give
her a writing of divorcement:

5:33 Again, you have heard that it has been said by them of old time,
You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform unto the Lord your
oaths:

5:37 But let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no: for whatsoever
is more than these comes of evil.

5:43 You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your
neighbor, and hate your enemy.

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use
you, and persecute you;

6:1 Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of
them: otherwise you have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged.

:5 You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and
then shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother's
eye.

Pax, nothing original nothing new, perhaps, perhaps not. But the ethos of humanity that Christ espoused did not come to pass in any meaningful way until modern society in western culture where our rights as individuals above the state was recognized. We were still sending kids down coal mines for 12 hours a day 150 years ago. So he may not be the originator of goodwill but he espoused it when no one else did.

 

[paximperium]

Pax there was no Fox network or daily tabloid....99-99% of the population was illiterate you must consider this if volume of text is the criteria for verasity.

Excuses excuses excuses. Sorry, but a lack of evidence is not compelling. That is an excuse, not an argument.

You mentioned, I mentioned, we all know that there was a plethora of claimants to the mantle of messiah, but one, only one is debated 2000 years later.

So? Is an Argument from Tradition all you have? Something old, does not make it true or even worth looking at and you missed out all the really bad nonsense he spouted from the Sermon on the Mount.

Re the guy saying nothing original, here are some quotes from the Mount sermon, perhaps the sentiment lived in the hearts of some but it was not canvassed in the wider brutal society of the times.

Really? The Buddhist, followers of Confucious and Indian ethicists would prefer you not lump them in with those barbarians with their rather dull philosophy.

Pax, nothing original nothing new, perhaps, perhaps not. But the ethos of humanity that Christ espoused did not come to pass in any meaningful way until modern society in western culture where our rights as individuals above the state was recognized. We were still sending kids down coal mines for 12 hours a day 150 years ago.

Christianity was yanked from their bronze age mindset into modernity. Western Society is what it is due to a host a other philosophers of the "Enlightenment" period many of which are pretty anti-Christian. It is what it is despite of Christianity.

Did Jesus say some nice things. Sure. Does that make him special? No. If you want his "better" philosophy without the clap trap, go pick up a Jefferson Bible. Tom Jefferson did a great job at picking the best parts of the New Testament out. It is a short read

So he may not be the originator of goodwill but he espoused it when no one else did.

Sniff...you made Buddha cry.

 

[six7s]

Pax, nothing original nothing new, perhaps, perhaps not. But the ethos of humanity that Christ espoused did not come to pass in any meaningful way until modern society in western culture where our rights as individuals above the state was recognized. We were still sending kids down coal mines for 12 hours a day 150 years ago. So he may not be the originator of goodwill but he espoused it when no one else did.

Or so we (or, rather, some of us) are lead to believe...

However, for most (ideally ALL) of us, we are here to apply/develop our critical thinking skills with regard to - in this thread - evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth

For all we know, the christ figure in our literary history may well be nothing more than the bestest-ever marketing strategy involving an amalgam of various characters, attributes and values

If you have ANY evidence that suggests otherwise, please DO present it

TYIA

 

[Waterman]

Gosh, those were thoughtful responses. Well said, sir.

Thank you sir, I appreciate the remarks.

 

[Waterman]

Greetings Waterman, like yourself I am a newbie and just feeling my way around the new schoolyard. As you can see my negative response to your post certainly drew flak from the other guys and girls, so you were well defended in your absence and I have been your only detractor...I think that is a positive start and hope to debate or concur with you into the future.

PS. X My first attempt at multi posting failed, I will work it out eventually...thanks.

As I have noted I am not a great scholar or historian, my take on things will be looking to address internal consistencies and continuity. Thus the flavor of my initial comment, well perhaps I extended beyond those confines.

I have limted time available to debate and research the various topics so my posts will be less frequent than many but hopefully pithy.

But getting back to my take on things. In reading through some of your posts a couple days ago you seem to be accept that the the Bible as conceived/assembled by the Council of Nicea (sp) has been changed over time with various additions, deletions and modifications. However you also seem to be insisting that various elements are 'factual recordings' of actual events. While in such a large document of collected works there can be much that is true to the original and much that has been altered even if only to make the story compelling. Would you accept that there is some truth and some allegoy in the Bible to even includiing the events surrounding Jesus?

 

[Akhenaten]

Somebody stated believers in Jeebus {Jesus} were fruitcakes, I have a right to prove him dead wrong don't I.

The Ruler of the Upper and Lower Lands is not "somebody".

Lot's of luck in your quest, fellah.


Amenhotep IV
Pharaoh

 

[Akhenaten]

Indeed

Aaaah, the mind boggles. Tell me I can keep the bacon sandwiches. Drool (My attempted alcohol derail a page or two ago didn't catch on, perhaps a bacon sandwich/ roll one might).

A noble cause. Make sure you bring enough bacon rolls for everyone or there will be squabbling.

Actually Akhenaten stated that "some ancient fruitcakes believed in Jeebus" so beliefs of modern day presidents do not refute this.

I believe you are correct. As it is written, so let it be done.

Huh?

Once you have a few more posts under your belt you will be better able to keep up.


Kewl, another fruitcake thread. Things are improving.

Bacon rolls and fruitcake for everyone!

 

[Mr Clingford]

Six7s,

I don't have a dog in this fight. We would both agree that there are a lot of symbolic elements in the birth stories in Matthew and Luke and really we don't know what or where he was born. So maybe Jesus was born in Nazareth, or somewhere else around there in Palestine. Your quote says that Jesus was conceived at Nazareth, but even inerrant literalists would agree and then go on to say that he was born in Bethlehem.

We are agreed that, indeed, there is no account of Christ's birth in John. Furthermore, that error at the start of the Randi talk is typical of the whole talk if what was said in the thread I linked to is true. It appears that Randi has unfortunately let himself down.


OK, one the highlights of my week when I was delivering sinks and taps for a living was a bacon roll and tea with one sugar to start my Friday morning. BUT the sauce has to be BROWN. I am very firm on this and will not budge.

 

[sonofgloin]

But getting back to my take on things. In reading through some of your posts a couple days ago you seem to be accept that the the Bible as conceived/assembled by the Council of Nicea (sp) has been changed over time with various additions, deletions and modifications. However you also seem to be insisting that various elements are 'factual recordings' of actual events. While in such a large document of collected works there can be much that is true to the original and much that has been altered even if only to make the story compelling. Would you accept that there is some truth and some allegoy in the Bible to even includiing the events surrounding Jesus?

Waterman, the atheists on this forum are full on, the Christians on this forum are full on, me I believe that there is a core historical Jesus and he said some pretty amazing things. His synopsis of how man should treat his fellows flies in the face of what the social and cultural norms of the times and place were.

The Jews were looking for the promised messiah but not of the character Christ was, they wanted somebody to kick Romes arse, and Christ comes up with the "give to Rome, give to god" bit. He was so different and revolutionary in his social tenets that I could not believe that such an all encompassing compassion could have come from a meld of many Christs. I think it came from one man, divine or not, the reader decides. But to dismiss this possibility completely is not logical as without a time conveyance the answer can not be factually answered.

When I addressed this point with Pax he dismisses it by throwing Buddah at me as an example of similar social teachings, no surprise I knew that, he knew that, you knew that, but it is a spurious point given we are talking about Judea year dot. Jews had no idea asians existed let alone their culture and beliefs.

Waterman you were the first I addressed on this thread and it was not based on a defence of the divinity of Christ, it was based around "it is all conjecture" and to disregard that on either side of the debate seems foolish....sort of "my country right or wrong" attitude and it stinks, it brings division and corruption to humanity.

 

[Hokulele]

When I addressed this point with Pax he dismisses it by throwing Buddah at me as an example of similar social teachings, no surprise I knew that, he knew that, you knew that, but it is a spurious point given we are talking about Judea year dot. Jews had no idea asians existed let alone their culture and beliefs.

What? The Silk Road trading routes had been firmly in place for about a thousand years before any historical Jesus walked the earth, extending to Rome and Egypt. You may also want to read up on Emperor Ashoka and what he accomplished.

 

[paximperium]

His synopsis of how man should treat his fellows flies in the face of what the social and cultural norms of the times and place were.

Yes. So?

He was so different and revolutionary in his social tenets that I could not believe that such an all encompassing compassion could have come from a meld of many Christs.

Evidence? Any? What I keep hearing from you is basically "I like it therefore it must be true."

I think it came from one man, divine or not, the reader decides.

No. Reality is not an opinion. It is not "for the reader to decide". It is for the evidence to support.

But to dismiss this possibility completely is not logical as without a time conveyance the answer can not be factually answered.

Still talking to your little strawdoll? The day, you actually stop arguing using logical fallacies and nonsense, is the day I treat your arguments seriously.

When I addressed this point with Pax he dismisses it by throwing Buddah at me as an example of similar social teachings, no surprise I knew that, he knew that, you knew that, but it is a spurious point given we are talking about Judea year dot.

Really? A multitude of other philosophers come up with similar and in many cases better ethical philosophies independently of magic man and it is not significant?

What makes him so special?

Jews had no idea asians existed let alone their culture and beliefs.

Yawn; ignorance at work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great#Invasion_of_India

 

[sonofgloin]

However, for most (ideally ALL) of us, we are here to apply/develop our critical thinking skills with regard to - in this thread - evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth

Oh absolutely, I can vision you critically thinking while I pensively tap away at something slightly less than a Dr Soos. Thanks for directing me as to the subject being discussed. As the subject matter pertains directly at it's initial entry point as to whether Christ existed, the interlocutors biases will be based on their belief. So if I have chosen to persue this line of thought rather than regurgertate the previous 177 pages worth of spherical debate, whats it to you. It is an important component as to your perception of the verasity of the NT.

For all we know, the christ figure in our literary history may well be nothing more than the bestest-ever marketing strategy involving an amalgam of various characters, attributes and values
If you have ANY evidence that suggests otherwise, please DO present it

TYIA

Tis amazing, in all my posts I have not stated that I believe Christ existed or not, all I have presented was the contrary spherical POV. I have mentioned the disheveled nature of the text the Clergy present to us and the contrary nature of the texts....and you smugly choose an egalitarian stance and implore me to DO tell you more, I choose what words and subjects I employ not you my erstwhile logician.

 

[amb]

My shoddy memory - I'm only 37, help.

Having reread the thread I linked to, there appear to be strong arguments, and from an atheist too, that Randi was talking crap. Shrug.

I find it interesting. You have to remember, Randi is not a biblical scholar, but he is not alone in discrediting the existence of Nazareth at the time stated in the N/T.

 

[sonofgloin]

Yes. So?
What makes him so special?
Yawn; ignorance at work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great#Invasion_of_India

My ignorance bows to the absolute nature of yours.

Not the sub continent you translucent, Asia with the population that embraces Buddah...remenber him, I was answering your post refering to Buddah.

 

[Hokulele]

My ignorance bows to the absolute nature of yours.

Not the sub continent you translucent, Asia with the population that embraces Buddah...remenber him, I was answering your post refering to Buddah.

Where exactly do you think Siddhārtha Gautama was from?

 

[paximperium]

Where exactly do you think Siddhārtha Gautama was from?

Ooooh, let me anwer this; let me! let me!

 

[Hokulele]

Ooooh, let me anwer this; let me! let me!

Not you, translucent!

(Whatever that is supposed to mean.)

 

[sonofgloin]

What? The Silk Road trading routes had been firmly in place for about a thousand years before any historical Jesus walked the earth, extending to Rome and Egypt. You may also want to read up on Emperor Ashoka and what he accomplished.

Well thanks Hok, was Buddah on the silk road bc. I believe a Buddist monk travelled it in the 7th century ad, but I don't think too many Buddist were around way back when as your helpful input alludes to.