• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
In other words, Josephus only counts when we can interpret his statements as pro-christian.

Special pleading for $500, Alex!
Click to expand...

Don't forget the special pleading of skeptics who want to use Josephus when they talk about Luke's census, but then say Josephus is wrong about his writing that Moses existed, and lived in Egypt.
 
DOC said:
Don't forget the special pleading of skeptics who want to use Josephus when they talk about Luke's census, but then say Josephus is wrong about his writing that Moses existed, and lived in Egypt.
Click to expand...

It's not special pleading because it's talking about two completely different things. One which happened during living memory and the other which happened over a thousand years before. Unless he had some undivulged independent source, his stories of Moses were based on what we now call the Old Testament.
 
Why did the NT writers abandon their long held sacred religion?

Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

My bolding.
That's an interesting claim, DOC.
Josephus, well known for his ingenious solution to dying by the sword (see Josephus problemWP ) took the name of Titus, the Emperor Vespasian's heir, not that of the Emperor himself.
Titus, who was passionately attached to Herod Agrippa's daughter Berenice, showed no signs of thinking Jesus and the beliefs built up around his person, were any sort of threat to Rome, correct me if I'm wrong.

In fact, the Emperor only became aware of Josephus' captivity because of a 'profecy' Josephus made. You also forgot to mention Vespasian was considered a Messiah in his own right.
Still, it's interesting to go over this material. A shame it doesn't support your (Josh McDowell's) claims.
 
DOC said:
Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."
Click to expand...

Lots of questions. No evidence.
 
DOC said:
Don't forget the special pleading of skeptics who want to use Josephus when they talk about Luke's census, but then say Josephus is wrong about his writing that Moses existed, and lived in Egypt.
Click to expand...

How would Josephus know anything about Moses unless he was writing hearsay and legends. He was thousands of years removed from any life of Moses.
 
DOC said:
Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."
Click to expand...
So it was a cult. Have you any evidence that this cult's leader was any different to more recent ones? Certainly the actions of the believers cited does not materially differ from those in other cults.
 
DOC said:
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?
Click to expand...


With, as the Bee Gees would say, "Stayin' Alive."



DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


Jesus was a threat to Rome? 36 Legions vs 1 hippy? I don't think so.

In what way did Josephus build up and increase the fame [of] Jesus?



DOC said:
And it certainly wouldn't be smart to anger your friends in Rome.
Click to expand...


Even dumber to antagonise your enemies, which is probably what you meant, but the point is that what you're providing here is part of the reason that many people think some of the Josephus stuff was actually written by another hand.

What comment do you have on these allegations?



DOC said:
Actually most scholars believe "one" of the two times Josephus mentions Christ is a "partial" interpolation.
Click to expand...


I thought you said Josephus was "building up and increasing the fame [of] Jesus". With two "mentions"? What a campaigner.



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...


I think you're extrapolating.
 
DOC said:
Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."
Click to expand...


Yes, it's an interesting quote -- one that reveals an amazingly ignorant understanding of early Christianity even as it is reflected in the New Testament.

They didn't start a new religion. They were Jews. They believed they were practicing one form of Judaism, of which there were at least four that Josephus himself identifies; and of which there were probably many other variants.

They simply believed that God had elevated a man, resurrected him, and ushered in the beginning of the Kingdom and the general resurrection. Read Paul's letters and the gospels yourself if you don't believe me.

The "new religion" was an evolution of this brand of Judaism being rejected by Jews and embraced by gentiles who lived near Jewish settlements in large urban areas, a melding of Judaism and Hellenism, Judaism and mystery cults, Judaism and Platonism, etc.

They didn't "almost immediately" reject the centrality of the Temple, circumcision, etc. Read the New Testament for crying out loud. None of that is reflected there. Paul argued that circumcision and the Law would not save people in and of themselves so there was no reason for a gentile to become a Jew in order to follow the Christ. He firmly believed that Jews should continue to observe the Law and that Jews should continue to be circumcised because that is what it meant to be a Jew. He argued that gentiles needn't follow the Law or be circumcised. There was obvious controversy in the community over this very issue -- so any argument that "they almost immediately rejected x" is just ignorant. Temple worship, as far as any one can tell was "rejected" when there was no more Temple. There is no indication that Paul urged Jews to avoid the Temple.

I'm sorry that people lie to you and you believe them when you could read this stuff for yourself. Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the New Testament and less time listening to the distortions of that book you keep quoting you might gain some degree of enlightenment on this topic?
 
DOC said:
Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers
I had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."
Click to expand...


Wow, further evidence that Geisler's a moron. Thanks for that, although, I doubt that we need any more evidence to make that conclusion. You've provided ample already.
 
joobz said:
Wow, further evidence that Geisler's a moron. Thanks for that, although, I doubt that we need any more evidence to make that conclusion. You've provided ample already.
Click to expand...
Well, DOC did say one true thing; it really is "interesting" in how utterly moronic apologist arguments are.
 
What's the difference in the gobbledygook that's found in the babble and the likewise gobbledygook found in the qu'ran?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom