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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lucian said:
Will Part 2 be spread out over upwards of 1400 posts? If not, I don't see how you can expect us to take you seriously.
Click to expand...


Well, my 260 posts are out there to speak for all, so I'll let them see for themselves.


The search for evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

Part 2


At first, things looked promising.


3WiseMen02.gif
 
The search for evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

Part 3


They met a mystic from the far-off land of Aotearoa who had made 498 posts and who recognised them, and told them to follow the 42 Signs of Uncertainty™.


Greetings.gif


There was trouble ahead!eleven!


3WiseMen03.gif
 
Akhenaten said:
They met a mystic from the far-off land of Aotearoa
Click to expand...

That has a familiar rign to it


I saw the Maori Jesus
Walking on Wellington Harbour.
He wore blue dungarees.
His beard and hair were long.
His breath smelt of mussels and paraoa.
When he smiled it looked like the dawn.
When he broke wind the little fishes trembled
When he frowned the ground shook.
When he laughed everybody got drunk.

<snip/>

The Maori Jesus – James K Baxter ​
 
DOC said:
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/phlegon.html
Click to expand...


You count Christian retellings of a non-Biblical, non-Christian sources for an eclipse occurring during Jesus's death as actual non-Biblical, non-Christian references when the supposed source itself (Phlegon) does not link itself in any way to Jesus?

Let's look at the actual facts and decide if this counts as useful evidence, shall we?

First, we have an author, Phlegon, who is generally considered one of the more unreliable writers of his age, one who recounts the fantastic at the expense of the ordinary. He is quoted as saying a variety of different things by different authors, but we can probably trust Eusebius' account of what he said. And what he seems to have said was that there was an eclipse and an earthquake that hit Bithynia in a year sometime around when Jesus supposedly died.

You do recall where Bithynia was do you not? How does a possible earthquake and eclipse 300 something miles away from the area where Jesus supposedly died have any bearing on this story?

There is the other issue as well -- how do you propose for a solar eclipse to occur during Passover week? Eclipses can only occur during the New Moon, and Passover is linked to a lunar cycle so that it occurs around the time of a Full Moon.

I specifically said that reference to something vaguely in the time or place doesn't work, yet you linked to an explanation based on a reference that was only vaguely related in time and space. The claim, to work as actual evidence of non-Christian reference to an eclipse and earthquake at the time of Jesus' death, should include some information about an eclipse and earthquake clearly from a non-Christian at the time of Jesus' death. You have provided no such evidence. In fact, examination of the evidence essentially proves that this reference of Phlegon's (who may or may not have written it in the first place and who may have even made it up for other purposes since we do not have the context in which he wrote it and he was known to have written other things in a fantastical manner) does not fit the bill at all.

Would you like to try again?
 
Last edited:
we can never with certainty say that the gospel writers told the truth. Hell, we don't even know who the gospel writers were for gawds sake!!!
 
amb, I'm surprised by your comment.
The bible tells us they were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
You may, however, prefer this version of the Gospel authorship

 
DOC said:
Unless something is on video tape all historians who write of events they didn't witness are writing hearsay. In other words every college professor today who decides to write a book about something before the invention of film and photography is writing hearsay.
Click to expand...

DOC, do you know what a primary source is?
 
Cactus Wren said:
DOC said:
Unless something is on video tape all historians who write of events they didn't witness are writing hearsay. In other words every college professor today who decides to write a book about something before the invention of film and photography is writing hearsay.
Click to expand...
DOC, do you know what a primary source is?
Click to expand...
A condiment that complements fava beans and chianti when having young schoolchildren for dinner?
 
Cactus Wren said:
DOC, do you know what a primary source is?
Click to expand...

Who cares about primary sources when you have the Gospel writers themselves?
I think think this can be compared to the MDC testing- look at Derek Ogilvie and the "I'm a failure, not a fraud" line, even though his testing was actually filmed, just for one example.
Obviously DOC thinks there is evidence the NT writers told the truth.
He's posted it up, it's been debunked, rinse and repeat.
Speaking of repeat,
any evidence, other than what's been discussed already, DOC?
 
amb said:
Flavius Josephus is brought up again and again as proof for Jesus historical existence. But what is often forgotten is the fact that he devotes ten times the space and references to John The Baptist than he does for the ''son of god''. Isn't that peculiar?
Click to expand...

Not really when you consider Josephus owed his life to the Roman Emperor. He even took his name and lived in Rome. Where do you think his loyalties are? Would it be smart to build up and increase the fame Jesus who was a definite threat to the Roman Gods and as history showed to the empire itself. And it certainly wouldn't be smart to anger your friends in Rome.


amb said:
Furthermore, most biblical scholars assert that the reference to Jesus is a later interpolation by the christians who would not accept that their messiah is not mentioned at all, or very scantily by such a historian as Josephus.
Click to expand...

Actually most scholars believe "one" of the two times Josephus mentions Christ is a "partial" interpolation.

And there are more scholars who believe that the one quote in question was not an interpolation at all then there are scholars who believe it was a total interpolation.
 
DOC said:
And there are more scholars who believe that the one quote in question was not an interpolation at all then there are scholars who believe it was a total interpolation.
Click to expand...

If we went by what scholars believe ... Eh, DOC?
 
DOC said:
And it certainly wouldn't be smart to anger your friends in Rome.
Click to expand...
In other words, Josephus only counts when we can interpret his statements as pro-christian.

Special pleading for $500, Alex!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom