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

[Moss]

Evidence for why we know DOC is unswayable by fact or scholarship.

 

[paximperium]

DOC Quote:

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

Where is this citation again? You didn't present any.

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

That is not evidence. That is making crap up and confirmation bias. But what do you expect from DOC.

 

[joobz]

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.

Hey, I recognize that name! That's the same scholar who said that Luke invented stories about jesus to fit with a prophetic narrative.

thanks for reminding us of evidence for why we KNOW the biblical writers made crap up.

 

[Simon39759]

Nomination for Akhenaten, I so wish I'd thought of that (sums up the futility of debating with Doc quite well). Well here's to a thread of infinite length, we may not ever come up with any evidence of why the NT writers told the truth but we might just warp the universe with the L-Space effect! Hey if we warp it enough we might find god hiding in a pocket dimension!

Since you're new to the thread you might have missed this information I brought into the thread:
There are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.
Respected archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian with regard to facts that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.
The fact that there are about 40 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.
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.
Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.
Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection and how he considered them to have more historical evidence then any other fact in history up to that point.
The Moral Argument,
The Cosmological Argument,
11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.
Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.
A Jewish Rabbi stated that the Oral Torah {and thus oral tradition evidence} is more important than written the Written Torah.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434
PhD. in astrophysics Dr. Hugh Ross claims there are about 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

I believe the means, any compelling evidence, the kind that has not been shot down multiple times within minutes.

And, I too, would like some evidence that a significant numbers of actual scholars (not a bunch of fanatics and church sponsored apologetics) support that incredibly suspicious claim.

Because, when one say "a majority of scholars believe", it should not translate as: "the majority of the members of the creation institute". Considering yours and your mentors' repeated lack of intellectual honesty, I suspect that it does.
I also note that your quote of Ramsay is quite murky and misleading. By "facts that can be confirmed" he does not mean that when facts are found, they all confirms the Gospels. He means that, unless confirmed by another source, scholars should not trust the Gospels as a historical source.

 

[Toke]

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.

Have you never seen churches/temples build on hilltops?
Tearing down the forum to build a temple, how do you think that would go down with the soccer* fans.

*or whatever they did in the forum.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

"DOC's posts are drivel" - old jungle saying
​

 

[Toke]

"DOC's posts are drivel" - old jungle saying
​

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."

So those gospel writers could not even get the continent right.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Nope, you said:

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

And I asked:

Evidence? And I mean citations.

To which you replied:

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

In no way is this evidence that "most archaeologists" believe that Jesus' tomb is where you say it is.

This is eight "points" versus how many archaeologists in the world? And how many of those archaeologists don't study biblical archaeology, have no idea where the site of Jesus' tomb supposedly is, and care even less than that? You do know that there are archaeologists working in Asia, all over South America, in Mexico, and in the U.S. and Canada, don't you? I have no definite information on this, but if I had to bet, I would put my money on the probability that biblical archaeologists are a relative minority of the profession.

And, as someone else has pointed out, a number of your "citations" aren't citations at all, but "local tradition" (read: "gossip") and speculation.

 

[DOC]

Hey, I recognize that name! That's the same scholar who said that Luke invented stories about jesus to fit with a prophetic narrative.

Actually his wording was that Luke guessed wrong. other scholars disagree. And as far as I know he is still a priest who believes in a divine Jesus.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Actually his wording was that Luke guessed wrong. other scholars disagree. And as far as I know he is still a priest who believes in a divine Jesus.

So how about you answer any number of posts immediately above this one about the invalidity of your "citations"?

 

[joobz]

Actually his wording was that Luke guessed wrong. other scholars disagree. And as far as I know he is still a priest who believes in a divine Jesus.

Actually, the full quote is:

Not get him to Bethlehem because, for Matthew, Jesus is born in Bethlehem because that is the residence of his parents. They have a house, according to the text. They end up in Nazareth as refugees. Luke made a mistake. "Jesus of Nazareth? Ahh...But then how come he was born in Bethlehem?" So, he [Luke]has to invent the census. To get him to Bethlehem. Interviewer: But how can you know it was Luke that made the mistake and not Matthew that made the mistake? O'Connor: Because the census is nonsense. The census, we're told, was for the Roman empire. This wasn't part of the Roman empire. This was an independent Jewish kingdom. It's a complete nonsense. But Luke had to try and find a motive why a heavily preagnant woman would travel the length of the country. He made a guess and he got it wrong.

DOC, inventing history = making it up = lying = story telling.

It does not equal great historian.

 

[DOC]

Nope, you said:



And I asked:



To which you replied:



In no way is this evidence that "most archaeologists" believe that Jesus' tomb is where you say it is.

This is eight "points" versus how many archaeologists in the world? And how many of those archaeologists don't study biblical archaeology, have no idea where the site of Jesus' tomb supposedly is, and care even less than that? You do know that there are archaeologists working in Asia, all over South America, in Mexico, and in the U.S. and Canada, don't you?...

He was most likely implying historians and archaeologists who study that area and time since that is what the article was talking about. But the wording from the Oxford Archaeological Guide stated most archaeologists and historians.

If I'm talking to a local sports reporter and he asks who is the best high school coach in the city? And I say most other coaches think Joe Smith is the best. Obviously I'm not talking about coaches from all over the world even though I didn't specify.

 

[joobz]

He was most likely implying historians and archaeologists who study that area and time since that is what the article was talking about. But the wording from the Oxford Archaeological Guide stated most archaeologists and historians.

If I'm talking to a local sports reporter and he asks who is the best high school coach in the city? And I say most other coaches think Joe Smith is the best. Obviously I'm not talking about coaches from all over the world even though I didn't specify.

So it's an irrelevant Appeal to authority. ok.

 

[DOC]

Actually, the full quote is:


DOC, inventing history = making it up = lying = story telling.

It does not equal great historian.

Do you have a source, and even if you do it's just his opinion that many scholars disagree with. And we must assume O'Connor is still a priest who believes Christ is divine since we have no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Lucian]

Do you have a source, and even if you do it's just his opinion that many scholars disagree with. And we must assume O'Connor is still a priest who believes Christ is divine since we have no evidence to the contrary.

Yes, a believing priest who thinks Luke invented the census and that the census is nonsense.

 

[joobz]

Do you have a source,

Yes. of course. I've presented this multiple times now. But I'm happy to.
http://www.tripatlas.com/videoplay/E0onf1-eC1A

and even if you do it's just his opinion that many scholars disagree with.

So Jerome is only a good source when he agrees with you and is a bad source when he disagrees....hmmm.

So Evidence count so far:
Bible: Supports Slavery
Bible: Contains Made up stories

Evidence for the Christianity (and the bible) being true: Zero.

 

[carlitos]

.

If I'm talking to a local sports reporter and he asks who is the best high school coach in the city? And I say most other coaches think Joe Smith is the best. Obviously I'm not talking about coaches from all over the world even though I didn't specify.

Just out of curiosity, if he said that he saw Joe Smith walk on water, what would you think of his opinion?

 

[DOC]

Yes, a believing priest who thinks Luke invented the census and that the census is nonsense.

What is your source the word invented was used by O'Connor.

 

[DOC]

Just out of curiosity, if he said that he saw Joe Smith walk on water, what would you think of his opinion?

If he laid down his life for that belief and Joe Smith gave us "the world's most moral and sublime teachings" according to the opinion of someone chiseled on Mt. Rushmore I might seriously consider he was telling the truth.

 

[joobz]

What is your source the word invented was used by O'Connor.

Did you see my post? I provided it. It also has the actual video.
That should make you happy. A transcript and video of a leading scholar on biblical exegesis basically calling Luke a liar.