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

[Akhenaten]

You must have made a mistake because I never said I was going to report people in the post you responded to or in any of the edits.

Mistakes have neen made alright, but not the ones you believe. The quality of your posts is such than many have difficulty figuring out what you're trying to say, and that's your problem, not theirs.

 

[DOC]

Actually, DOC is likely to complain that the number of texts doesn't "prove" their veracity. Rather, that they add support to the argument that they are true.

Which, of course, is still a nonsense claim.

I would disagree -- I think, and I believe historians think, they add some support.

As an example:

If a hundred random people in your city say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer Tuesday night, 2/5/2007. And 1 person in your city said they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on 5/1/2009. Which day would you say is more likely to have had an object in the sky that looked like a flying saucer.

 

[Hokulele]

If a hundred random people in your city say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer Tuesday night, 2/5/2007. And 1 person in your city said they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on 5/1/2009. Which day would you say is more likely to have had an object in the sky that looked like a flying saucer.

And which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

Do you see the problem with your logic?

 

[DOC]

And which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

Do you see the problem with your logic?

Why don't your explain the alleged problem with my logic in post 7762 if you can.

 

[Hokulele]

Why don't your explain the problem with my logic if you can.

Answer my question and all will be revealed.

If 100 people say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Friday, and 1 person says they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Saturday, on which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

 

[Akhenaten]

I would disagree

<snip>

Yes, you would. It's all you can do, lacking the ability to present evidence for your assertions.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why don't your explain the alleged problem with my logic in post 7762 if you can.

No real problem, It's just missing.

 

[DOC]

Answer my question and all will be revealed.

You said there was a problem with my logic in post 7762. I asked for an explanation for that statement and you gave none. Now you want me to answer a subsequent question that is different from the info in my post. This is just another example of how the priority is to try to make Doc look bad in some way. Even if you have to invent a subsequent different question in an attempt to do so.

 

[Hokulele]

You said there was a problem with my logic in post 7762. I asked for an explanation for that statement and you gave none. Now you want me to answer a subsequent question that is different from the info in my post. This is just another example of how the priority is to try to make Doc look bad in some. Even if you have to invent a subsequent different question in an attempt to do so.

No, I said there is a problem with your logic. You went and edited your comment to include a reference to that post, which you can see wasn't in the original (this nasty habit of editing after people respond is why I always quote you now).

So, answer this question and it will demonstrate the flaw in your logic.

If 100 people say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Friday, and 1 person says they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on Saturday, on which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

 

[DOC]

Could you post up those 10 non-Christian written sources again?
Thanks.

http://yaba.com/LoverOfWisdom/blog/12856/

Here is a list:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Jewish Talmud.

 

[Hokulele]

And here I thought DOC might actually be serious about learning where the problem with his logic lies. Silly me.

Ah well, on to the latest nonsense.

<snipped blog link>

Whee! Begging the question again!

If one doesn’t want to accept all these sources, for one to be rational just taking one as true (and there is no reason why they rest aren’t true) ...

 

[pakeha]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by pakeha...TE] http://yaba.com/LoverOfWisdom/blog/12856/

Thanks for the link, DOC.
I went around and found Tacitus, Josephus, Celsus, Pliny the Younger and Lucian cited.
These authors discuss the Christians' beliefs than Jess' existence, as far as I can tell and has been posted here repeatedly.
And what about the other five sources, then?

 

[DOC]

And here I thought DOC might actually be serious about learning where the problem with his logic lies. Silly me.

To maintain credibility you should retract your statement that my post 7762 is illogical since you can't explain why without trying to add new information to my post.

 

[amb]

http://yaba.com/LoverOfWisdom/blog/12856/

Here is a list:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Jewish Talmud.

That site is dead wrong on the Josephus reference to Jesus being ''perhaps the messiah'' Most scholars insist that was an interpolation by much later xtians.

And Tacitus is surely writing hearsay. There is precious little evidence outside of the N/T for the historical existence for this man.

 

[Hokulele]

To maintain credibility you should retract your statement that my post 7762 is illogical since you can't explain why without trying to add new information to my post.

Considering I never claimed that your post 7762 was illogical, you should retract your accusation that I did.

And it is by adding my question to your post I can demonstrate where your logic is flawed. For example, what is the difference between the following two questions?

1) Which day would you say is more likely to have had an object in the sky that looked like a flying saucer. [sic]

2) On which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

 

[DOC]

Thanks for the link, DOC.
I went around and found Tacitus, Josephus, Celsus, Pliny the Younger and Lucian cited.
These authors discuss the Christians' beliefs than Jess' existence, as far as I can tell and has been posted here repeatedly. And what about the other five sources, then?

Actually Christ (Or Chrestus) is specifically mentioned in some of these sources. The Roman Sentator/historian Tacitus even mentions he was given the supreme punishment under Pontius Pilate.

Other sources are:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Jewish Talmud.

 

[Hokulele]

Actually Christ (Or Chrestus) is specifically mentioned in some of these sources. The Roman Sentator/historian Tacitus even mentions he was given the supreme punishment under Pontius Pilate.

Other sources are:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Jewish Talmud.

"Some" does not equal "10".

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually Christ (Or Chrestus) is specifically mentioned in some of these sources. The Roman Sentator/historian Tacitus even mentions he was given the supreme punishment under Pontius Pilate.

Other sources are:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Jewish Talmud.

Are you forgetting this, DOC?

"It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . . theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story."

– J. L. Houlden, Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11​

The Rev. J. L. Houlden is Emeritus Professor of Theology at King's College, University of London.​

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the link, DOC.
I went around and found Tacitus, Josephus, Celsus, Pliny the Younger and Lucian cited.
These authors discuss the Christians' beliefs than Jess' existence, as far as I can tell and has been posted here repeatedly.
And what about the other five sources, then?

Not entirely fair of you not to mention you'd edited your post to include a list, is it.
Anyway.
Five of those sources have been debunked here repeatedly. On to the other five.

 

[DOC]

To maintain credibility you should retract your statement that my post 7762 is illogical since you can't explain why without trying to add new information to my post.

Considering I never claimed that your post 7762 was illogical, you should retract your accusation that I did.

And it is by adding my question to your post I can demonstrate where your logic is flawed. For example, what is the difference between the following two questions?

1) Which day would you say is more likely to have had an object in the sky that looked like a flying saucer. [sic]

2) On which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

This is the "exact" post you replied to in your post 7763

"Originally Posted by DOC"
If a hundred random people in your city say they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer Tuesday night, 2/5/2007. And 1 person in your city said they saw an object that looked like a flying saucer on 5/1/2009. Which day would you say is more likely to have had an object in the sky that looked like a flying saucer."

And this is your reply that immediately followed my post

And which day would you claim a flying saucer was seen?

Do you see the problem with your logic?

Now you're trying to blame it on edits which had nothing to do with the post you specifically replied to in post 7763.

And now your also saying that by saying "Do you see the problem with your logic?" in response to post 7762 you did not specifically say that post 7762 was illogical.

The evidence shows you greatly implied my post 7762 was illogical and yet you can't explain why without trying to add something to it.

The evidence also shows you won't retract the statement. I maintain that unless you retract the statement you lose credibility on this system.

ETA:

And you should also apologize for greatly implying that I believe the number of source proves the veracity of those sources. This is downright false and yet you guaranteed it was how I felt.