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

[Waterman]

Waterman, the atheists on this forum are full on, the Christians on this forum are full on,

I can understand some of the intensity that some non-believers express on this site. New person ‘A’ arrives on the scene with he latest and greatest convincing argument for Religion ‘X’ he just knows that he is going to show those folks at JREF something they haven’t thought about. After one paragraph in, the board says, ah ha this is argument 27b we’ve discussed this three times in the last 2 years, it comes from this author and here is the path to dismantle it. 1, 2, 3 pounce. Then there are those that repeat the same mantras over and over regardless of how many times it has been pointed out that the reasoning is fallacious or how irrelevant they are to the discussion point that raise the ire of the board members.

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.

I have observed that there are many who will accept that there was most probably an individual that was the kernel around whom the Jesus story was wrapped and that many of the sayings are good (but not necessarily unique). You previously pointed out in that time the literacy rates for the general population were very low. I can not confirm or deny that but it seems to make sense. Given this much of the early days of Christianity would have been base on an oral traditions passed on from one to another before being written down some decades later. There was plenty of time for the stories to be told and retold, embellished and elements added for emphasis.

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.

I belive that he was attempting to address you claim of uniqueness of the message. If others have similar ideas in a similar setting and gain followers the contenct of the doesn't really support a divine source unless you accept a 'many faces of god' argument.

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.

I will look over my earlier post, I don’t think that I intended to state that it was ‘all conjecture’ I was trying to address the supporting argument presented by the poster.

Let me go look…

OK I’ll grant you the tone DID convey the idea that the details of THAT EVENT were likely to be conjecture and dramatic story telling even though I didn’t say that directly. Also the crack about the book by committee also lent credence to that idea. However the main point I was trying to make was that the statements presented by the poster in support of his argument actually undercut his argument in the eyes of the non-believer.

Attempting to ‘rerail’ this thread to theme of the OP.

 

[Waterman]

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

The presidents were overwhelmingly Christian = Fact

Using this fact to support the validity of Christianity = Appeal to Authority / Popularity Fallacy

Can you truly not see the distinction?

 

[Longfellow]

Still waiting

Still waiting for the evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

And before anyone asks: Yes, I have read every post in this thread. And, yes, I am a glutton for punishment. Shoot, me and the missus still play snooker on a semi-regular basis even though I can count the times I've beaten her on one hand. . .through nearly 40 years of marriage.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

My gf just made me not one, but TWO BLTs. Mmm...all kinds of bacony goodness.

 

[six7s]

I take it all back, I was wrong, I have been taught something thanks.

With that one statement, you have more of my respect than a hundred DOCs could achieve in a lifetime.

Likewise

sonofgloin, please note that my earlier invitation for you to furnish evidence was/is sincere

 

[DOC]

Yes, skeptics demand extraordinary evidence for Christ but don't demand extraordinary evidence for Alexander the Great who did the extraordinary thing of conquering much of the known world.

There are no contemporary historian accounts of Alexander the Great (who conquered much of the world), but I don't see anyone doubting him.

People who actually knew Alexander the Great and wrote about him:
His historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callisthenes
His General: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_I_Soter
The liar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesicritus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Alexander_the_Great
You may want to read about him from the Indians, Babylonians as well.

Callisthenes -- his works have perished

General Ptolemy -- his works have perished

Onesiscritus -- why do use someone you call "the liar" a source?? But I can understand why you called him the liar. Here is a passage from your source:

"Though an eye-witness of much that he described, it appears that he intermixed many fables and falsehoods with his narrative, so that he early fell into discredit as an authority. Strabo is especially severe upon him.[12] Plutarch cites him as one of those who related the fable of the visit of the Amazons to Alexander, for which he was justly ridiculed by Lysimachus,[8] and Arrian accuses him of falsely representing himself as the commander of the fleet, when he was in truth only the pilot.[13"

And here are passages from your last source:

There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin sources on Alexander, as well as some oriental texts. None are contemporary.

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[1]

Here is what the book cited in post #1 says:

"The truth is, we base virtually everything we know about the "extraordinary" life of Alexander the Great from historians who wrote 300 to 500 years after his death! In light of the robust evidence for the life of Christ, anyone who doubts Christ's historicity should also doubt the historicity of Alexander the Great. In fact, to be consistent, such a skeptic would have to doubt all ancient history."

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, skeptics demand extraordinary evidence for Christ but don't demand extraordinary evidence for Alexander the Great who did the extraordinary thing of conquering much of the known world.

Conquering the world doesn't contradict known laws of physics.

Your definition of extraordinary in this context leaves much to be desired.

 

[paximperium]

Yes, skeptics demand extraordinary evidence for Christ but don't demand extraordinary evidence for Alexander the Great who did the extraordinary thing of conquering much of the known world.
<Snipped>
"The truth is, we base virtually everything we know about the "extraordinary" life of Alexander the Great from historians who wrote 300 to 500 years after he death! In light of the robust evidence for the life of Christ, anyone who doubts Christ's historicity should also doubt the historicity of Alexander the Great.

No. I do not have to.

In fact, to be consistent, such a skeptic would have to doubt all ancient history."

I do. I doubt magical claims that break the laws of physics or reality.

So do you have any of this so called evidence of a resurrection yet?

 

[Simon39759]

Onesiscritus -- why do use someone you call "the liar" a source?? But I can understand why you did so. Here is a passage from your source:

"Though an eye-witness of much that he described, it appears that he intermixed many fables and falsehoods with his narrative, so that he early fell into discredit as an authority. Strabo is especially severe upon him.[12] Plutarch cites him as one of those who related the fable of the visit of the Amazons to Alexander, for which he was justly ridiculed by Lysimachus,[8] and Arrian accuses him of falsely representing himself as the commander of the fleet, when he was in truth only the pilot.[13"

He, look, just like Luke, 'The great historian'^TM that intermixed many fables and falsehood, such as the census story or the birth in Bethlehem or the guiding star!

 

[paximperium]

In the spring of 331 Alexander made a pilgrimage to the great temple and oracle of Amon-Ra, the Egyptian god of the sun, whom the Greeks and Macedonians identified with Zeus Ammon. The earlier Egyptian pharaohs were believed to be sons of Amon-Ra and Alexander as new ruler of Egypt wanted the god to acknowledge him as his son. He decided to make the dangerous trip across the desert to visit the oracle at the temple of the god. According to the legend, on the way he was blessed with abundant rain, and guided across the desert by ravens. At the temple, he was welcomed by the priests and spoke to the oracle. The priest told him that he was a son of Zeus Ammon, destined to rule the world, and this must have confirmed in him his belief of divine origin. Alexander remained in Egypt until the middle of 331, and then returned to Tyre before facing Darius.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html

Alexander was a son of a god. It is evidence that Zeus-Amon is real.

 

[joobz]

Onesiscritus -- why do use someone you call "the liar" a source?? But I can understand why you did so. Here is a passage from your source:

"Though an eye-witness of much that he described, it appears that he intermixed many fables and falsehoods with his narrative, so that he early fell into discredit as an authority. Strabo is especially severe upon him.[12] Plutarch cites him as one of those who related the fable of the visit of the Amazons to Alexander, for which he was justly ridiculed by Lysimachus,[8] and Arrian accuses him of falsely representing himself as the commander of the fleet, when he was in truth only the pilot.[13"

Hey, That sounds just like Luke!

Maybe we should start calling him Luke the liar.

ETA: Darn you Simon!!!

 

[Simon39759]

Yes, skeptics demand extraordinary evidence for Christ but don't demand extraordinary evidence for Alexander the Great who did the extraordinary thing of conquering much of the known world.

That's silly.
That is BECAUSE of his importance and conquest that we have so many other proofs from his existence, in addition to the writings:
We have the account from people after his death
We have the archaeological proofs of the Greek influence and the establishment of three different dynasties.
We have statues and coins representing him that spread on three continents...
We have Greek maps that started to represant details from countries such as India they were not aware of before Alexander got there.


None of that, of course, for Jesus, the closest we have is the apparition of Christianity that does, indeed, strongly suggest that such a person existed but says nothing about the accuracy of the miracle accounts.


You will also notice how people also reject the magical aspects of Alexander's life.

 

[Simon39759]

hey, that sounds just like luke!

Maybe we should start calling him luke the liar.

Eta: Darn you simon!!!

Muhahahahaha!

 

[DOC]

Hey, That sounds just like Luke!

Maybe we should start calling him Luke the liar.

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

 

[paximperium]

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

Except for all that irrelevant magical parts.

 

[joobz]

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

Well, he's dead wrong. That happens, given the fact that he's been dead for almost 100 years.


ETA:
And if I remember correctly, didn't he qualify his statement?

 

[Cleon]

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

Sir William M. Ramsay has no opinion on the matter at all. He's been dead for 70 years.

 

[Simon39759]

Obviously, it means that 'Historian' means 'Liar' in British English.
Like 'Fag' means cigarette or 'vacation' means 'Holiday'...

 

[Hokulele]

Archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay has a different opinion than you. He called Luke one of the world's greatest historians.

Which does not make it true.

DOC, this is precisely why people keep calling you out on your fallacies. You have yet to provide a shred of proof you understand why statements like this are completely unconvincing.

Show us the evidence, primary source evidence, that led Ramsay to this conclusion. Without that evidence, this is simply an assertion, not a fact.

Not. A. Fact.

 

[DOC]

He, look, just like Luke, 'The great historian'^TM that intermixed many fables and falsehood, such as the census story or the birth in Bethlehem or the guiding star!

To be honest you should have said who some opinion intermixed many fables and falsehood, such as the census story or the birth in Bethlehem or the guiding star!