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

[amb]

DOC is the perfect example of blind faith. If it's in the bible, it has to be correct as it's the word of the Lard. Would he read such a book as TGD by RD? Methinks not beyond the contents page.

 

[paximperium]

Of course you won't be able to give one lie I've have supposedly made in over 4000 posts I've have made since I have been on the system. But that has never stopped you before, so why should this time be any different and it will more than likely continue.

Another unexplained post by DOC

I'm not going to bother. Hokulele did a great job at exposing your lies. Again and again and again etc etc etc.

I find it so ironic that someone who continuously asks where's the evidence has absolutely none for your assertion about lying. It's really quite sad when you think about it.

I find it exceedingly funny that DOC could have wrote that with a straight face. Either he is delusional or just lying as usual.

 

[DOC]

double post

 

[DOC]

DOC quote:

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Which is not only false, but completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This says nothing regarding the resurrection.

It isn't false:

From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"

Article written by Holly Hayes with reference to the following sources:

1. Jerome Murray O'Connor, Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land (1998), p. 47. Dan Bahat (1986). "Does the Holy Sepulchre church mark the burial of Jesus?"Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (1986), 26–45.

"Unlike many historical sacred sites, which often turn out to be based more on pious tradition than historical fact, most historians and archaeologists say the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ. The most important supporting evidence is as follows: [1]

1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)

Based on the above factors, the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes: "Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes."

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-sepulchre.htm

So in your opinion most historians and archaeologists saying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ is completely irrelevant as evidence that the NT writers are telling the truth? That simply doesn't make sense, for it shows most historians believe Christ existed and most historians believe his tomb is empty and most historians believe he died in Jerusalem. That supports that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And you also state that most historians believing that Christ's empty tomb is under this Church says "nothing" about the resurrection. This also doesn't make sense. It certainly does say something -- it says Christ's tomb exists according to most historians and it says it's empty. It might make sense to say "it is not enough evidence for me to believe" but to say it says "nothing" is not logical.

 

[DOC]

Another unexplained post by DOC

I'm not going to bother. Hokulele did a great job at exposing your lies. Again and again and again etc etc etc.

Name just one and give evidence (that you demand from me so much) it is a lie. Guess what, you won't be able to do it.

 

[zooterkin]

DOC quote:

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.



It isn't false:

From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"

Article written by Holly Hayes with reference to the following sources:

1. Jerome Murray O'Connor, Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land (1998), p. 47. Dan Bahat (1986). "Does the Holy Sepulchre church mark the burial of Jesus?"Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (1986), 26–45.

"Unlike many historical sacred sites, which often turn out to be based more on pious tradition than historical fact, most historians and archaeologists say the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ.

And I suppose you have evidence showing how this conclusion was reached? Otherwise, you're just committing the fallacy of argument from authority.

1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)

Based on the above factors, the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes: "Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes."

If Jesus existed, and if he was crucified, and if he was buried, then this is a likely spot.

Remind me how this is evidence for how we know the New Testament is true?

So in your opinion most historians and archaeologists saying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ is completely irrelevant as evidence that the NT writers are telling the truth? That simply doesn't make sense, for it shows most historians believe Christ existed and most historians believe his tomb is empty and most historians believe he died in Jerusalem. That supports that the NT writers were telling the truth.

Where's your evidence that 'most historians' actually believe that?

 

[amb]

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Wrong. Very few even christian archaeologists believe that load of bull dust.
If that were true, why hasn't a dig been done to prove once and for all the truth or otherwise of christianity.
Are they afraid of what they may find?

 

[paximperium]

DOC quote:

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
<snipped irrelvant nonsense>

Here is one such example of a lie.

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

Here is another lie.

 

[joobz]

Name just one and give evidence (that you demand from me so much) it is a lie. Guess what, you won't be able to do it.

Easy. It has already been pointed out above.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

LIAR!

You see, it is a lie of omission. You are intentionally using the quote as proof why we should trust Luke's writings, including why we should trust his accounts of the resurrection.

Yet, Ramsay explicitly excluded religious elements from his analysis of Luke's accuracy. You know this, yet continue to make the claim, which makes it a lie.

evidence on the complete quote is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...85#post5093485

 

[Elizabeth I]

Wrong. Very few even christian archaeologists believe that load of bull dust.
If that were true, why hasn't a dig been done to prove once and for all the truth or otherwise of christianity.
Are they afraid of what they may find?

Well, to be fair, even if they found a skeleton, how would they prove it was Jesus'?

And if they did find a skeleton wouldn't it argue against the resurrection, since didn't He take His bones with Him to heaven?

 

[Mister Earl]

Good grief, Doc. Isn't there a blurb in your religious texts condemning bearing false witness? And if there is, is it in that section that Christians can freely ignore when it doesn't suit their purposes? Your willingness to lie makes me wonder whether you're a Christian at all.

 

[X]

Easy. It has already been pointed out above.


<snip Ramsay quote>


You see, it is a lie of omission. You are intentionally using the quote as proof why we should trust Luke's writings, including why we should trust his accounts of the resurrection.

Yet, Ramsay explicitly excluded religious elements from his analysis of Luke's accuracy. You know this, yet continue to make the claim, which makes it a lie.

evidence on the complete quote is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...85#post5093485

I think the link Joobz is trying to provide is THIS one.

"THIS" is a link, which is why I capitalized it.

 

[Simon39759]

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Well, this is the closest thing to being a fact (at least the bit about Nero). Of course, most of the credit can go to Paul who, as we all know, never met Jesus in person. At best, he had some sort of visionary experience. I would say this point is more evidence that Paul was convincing than what he believed had any basis in truth. Of course, many people have tried to use the spread of Christianity as an argument of its truth, but that rarely ends well, as can be seen here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94853&page=3

Someone smarter than Doc (my mom) made the point to me earlier today that the Nero persecution could not have targeted Christians as they occurred between 64 and 68 CE and, at that time, Christianity was just starting to diverge from Judaism (the Council of Jamnia only occurred in 85 CE) and it is unlikely that the Roman really made the distinction.
Rather, she argue, they were targeting Jews and Christians (immigrants with weird customs and religions) indiscriminately (the text of the period apparently only mention people that reject the traditional Roman pantheon) and only later, at a time when Christianity had clearly merged from Judaism and was overshadowing it, did the author retroactively interpret it as a persecution of Christians...

I have not read the text in question... One thing I wonder is that maybe, at the time, were there very little Jews and many more Chrestians in Rome. I don't know that either... Maybe somebody knowledgeable would...

 

[Hokulele]

Yay! Simon's back!

Good points. I do not know for sure either, but when I have a little free time, I will dig around and see what I can find. If it supports this, I can add it to The List.

 

[amb]

Well, to be fair, even if they found a skeleton, how would they prove it was Jesus'?

And if they did find a skeleton wouldn't it argue against the resurrection, since didn't He take His bones with Him to heaven?

The fact is no one knows where Jesus was buried [assuming there actually was a historical Jesus] But let us pretend they find a skeleton with crucifixion marks,
a sign that read ''King of The Jews'' and any other evidence that points to the skeleton couldn't be anyone else but Jesus, think that will curb people like DOC?
They will paint from the same tub of paint they use to gloss over evolution, nothing is surer.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Using DOC's standard of evidence, Luke was a young nerfherded who lived in a desert under the care of his adopted aunt and uncle but is actually the son of the evil overlord.

No, no, no! Han Solo was the nerfherder! And a very scruffy-looking one, too!

So this guy places a classified ad in the Mos Eisley Tribune, offering a job: he wants to hire someone to herd a thousand nerf, halfway up a mountain.

He gets four applicants: a Corellian, an Alderaanian, a Wookiee, and a Hutt. All of them seem equally qualified, so he tells them, "Why don't you all try it? The nerf are halfway up the mountain. Climb up there. Whichever of you can tolerate the job the longest, I'll hire."

So they all climbed up. But after only a day, the Alderaanian came back down. "The smell!" he said. "How could anyone stand that smell?"

On the second day, the Corellian came down. "I did the best I could," she said, "but I just couldn't deal with the smell."

On the third day, the Wookiee came down. His complaint, when translated from Wookiee, came out to "That smell! I stayed as long as I could stand it, but ... that horrible smell!"

On the fourth day ... the one thousand nerf came down.



(That's the way to make any offensive ethnic joke tolerable: turn it into a science fiction joke.)

 

[amb]

A married couple were trying to smuggle a skunk into Los Angeles airport when the husband realizes the custom officer is heading straight for them. ''Quick'' he tells his wife, ''hide the skunk inside your underwear''. ''What about the smell.'' exclaims the wife.
''Oh well, if it dies it dies, bad luck.'' says the husband.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[DOC]

Good grief, Doc. Isn't there a blurb in your religious texts condemning bearing false witness? And if there is, is it in that section that Christians can freely ignore when it doesn't suit their purposes? Your willingness to lie makes me wonder whether you're a Christian at all.

Of course I have not lied in my almost 3 years on this system. And no one has the ability to explain how one thing I've ever said is a lie. Come on, some one give a reasoned explanation how I have written one lie. It can't be done. And the people who continue to say that I lie are only hurting their own credibility. It is so ironic that people complain about evidence and yet they make very derogatory statements about lying with no evidence.

 

[paximperium]

Of course I have not lied in my almost 3 years on this system. And no one has the ability to explain how one thing I've ever said is a lie. Come on, some one give a reasoned explanation how I have written one lie. It can't be done. And the people who continue to say that I lie are only hurting their own credibility. It is so ironic that people complain about evidence and yet they make very derogatory statements about lying with no evidence.

This is of course another lie:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5484509&postcount=8869

Of course you could just be doing this unconciously but that would just mean you are delusional.

 

[zooterkin]

Of course I have not lied in my almost 3 years on this system. And no one has the ability to explain how one thing I've ever said is a lie.

There you go again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5484509#post5484509