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

[DOC]

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



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.

So the record shows that you think the following from post 11054 is Zero evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5702420#post5702420

 

[joobz]

So the record shows you think the following is Zero evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5702420#post5702420

Yup.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5702935#post5702935

 

[Hokulele]

So the record shows you think the following is Zero evidence:

The post you linked does contain "Zero evidence".

So then you knew about all of these facts I brought in before you started to read the thread?

All of these "facts", most of which have been refuted, don't even support your premise. But just for fun, here we go:

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

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5093485#post5093485

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2659155#post2659155

The Moral Argument,

Although there are bits and bobs of discussion about this, the best summary of this in all its forms is here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

The Cosmological Argument,

Discussed (ad nauseum) here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4984792#post4984792

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

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5042421#post5042421

The fact that there are 41 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.

Discussion on the 9 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ (ignoring the 31 Christian sources as it is using the NT as evidence for the NT, yellow flag, 15 yard penalty, repeat 3rd down):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3279037#post3279037

Ignoring the bit about Caesar as being a meaningless tu quoque.

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

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.

Refuted here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4705438#post4705438

And here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4708185#post4708185

And here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4720381#post4720381

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

Partially discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5124142#post5124142

More discussion here, with much more detail about any archeological support of any biblical story:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4997467#post4997467

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4664470#post4664470

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points.

The same questions are repeated because these arguments have all been refuted, and just like a Weeble, they keep coming back up again.

And most interestingly, none of these "facts" have much to do with the "evidence" laid out in the OP. Of course, those were dealt with pretty much on page 1.

See?

 

[joobz]

And I did watch the video months ago and I remember him giving the opinion that Luke guessed wrong.

So you questioned my honesty for no reason other than to be jerky?

 

[Simon39759]

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

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.

Actually, no. The sentence is very misleading, first of, because it suggests the idea of a large number of tombs, of a long use as a cemetary, in reality, only two tombs are present.
More importantly, these tombs are unlikely to be from the first century, because Hebrews at the time did not bury their dead West of the city, (upwind for the dominant winds . Indeed, when we look at the East, North, or South of the city, we find a large number of tombs.

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."

They never mentioned 'looking like a skull'. It just that the name translates as 'mount of the skull' it is only an assumption (albeit a logical one) that it is because it looks like one.
The whole description of the garden, on the other hand, is very far stretched. The (putative) existence of a few greens struggling to survive on a piece of rock hardly a garden make, I wouldn't think the 'world greatest historian of all time !!!1!!1eleventone' would make such a mistake....

3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).

Eusebius being born 200 years later, was writing about hearsays.
Socrates Scholasticus, was born even one century after that and based most of his work on this period on Eusebius himself.

4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.

That's actually weird, as the precise perimeter of the city walls at the time was not known, more importantly check point 6, part one.

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.

At best, it would be pure conjecture.
In fact, we know that the temple was in reality constructed there so that to be adjacent to the forum AND located on one of the main crossroad of the city.
It is also worth noting that the whole motivations of Hadrian appear shaky. Why recover the tomb in such a way that it could be found again? Why not just destroy it altogether?
Indeed, father Corbo's reconstruction of the temple, that allows it to recover the tomb, is pretty much discredited.

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.

First of all, can you check point 4 again?
There, it was argued that the site not being constructed was weird. Now it is argued that constructed on the site was exceedingly difficult. The two points are contradictory...
In reality, there are several reasons why the church would have been constructed there.
First of all, churches were often constructed on older pagan monuments. It was even recommended policy for the early English church.
Also, saying that the tradition would have been scrutinized carefully is very much wishful thinking. At any rate, what exactly where they supposed to scrutinize? There is nothing to suggest that there was anything to scrutinize but the local traditions, that would have been firmly established in 200 years.
Indeed, if the traditions were so reliable, how come that we have several "traditional" locations for the burial site?

7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)

He also fails to mention the mother of the emperor being the one discovering it, which is the traditional account.
He also attribute the discovery to a 'miraculous vision' that seems pretty suspicious (or the introduction of a pious fraud).

Finally, the 'original memorial' is misleading. The tradition is that 'remains of the cross' were found, which is way less convincing. I'm pretty sure Jesus was taken down rather than carried on the cross to his burial site. Plus, what exactly is a 'remnant of the cross', an old piece of wood? Hardly seems convincing... to me, but it'd surely be more than enough to convince somebody trying to be convinced...

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

Yeah... right.
First of all, funny how you truncate the article before they start adressing the challenges to the authenticity of the tomb. Sure, they are very dismissive, but at least, they acknowledge the existence of some controversy.

In reality, there are problem with the Holy Sepulcher as the burial place of Jesus, first of all, as said, it is located West of Jerusalem, which contradict the burial traditions of the period.
Furthermore, the Biblical location describe it as "just outside the city walls" and it is unlikely that the walls would have run at this place. First of all, the city would actually have been quite small.
Furthemore, the walls there would have been dominated by a local prominence, it would have made now strategical sense. More sensible would be for them to be constructed at the place where Suleiman the magnificent was to build his... Indeed, we have yet to find any archaeological evidence for a fortification at any emplacement compatible with the Holy Sepulcher.


So, to conclude, I am personally not convinced, mostly because of the walls location. Many scholars might disagree with me, on this, of course but, personally, I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the tradition is correct.
Certainly, I would concede that no other competing location is more convincing but that does not mean that the Holy Sepulcher wins by default, that means that, most likely, the actual location of the Sepulcher is and will remain, like so many parts of the Jesus story, lost to us and enshrouded behind the deep fogs of centuries of mythology.


And, obviously, this is all based on the assumption that Jesus was a real living person that was indeed buried in Jerusalem, as I stated in previous post, I have no reason to doubt it, then again, I hardly have any more reasons to actually believe it either...

->And, of course, it has not bearing on whereas the Gospel writers told the truth considering that they never actually give any precise location...

 

[DOC]

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



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.

The post you linked does contain "Zero evidence"...

So the record shows that you also think this post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5702420#post5702420

contains Zero evidence. I noticed you used the wording discussed, discussion, or partially discussed 9 times in your response in post 11103. Discussing or partially discussing a point does not discount a point as worthless as you seem to think it does.

 

[Hokulele]

So the record shows that you also think this post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5702420#post5702420

contains Zero evidence.

Yes, particularly since you never addressed the arguments against Greenleaf posted by Waterman and Simon39759.

I noticed you used the wording discussed, discussion, or partially discussed 9 times in your response. Discussing or partially discussing a point does not discount a point as worthless as you seem to think it does.

Just because you never admit to being wrong, doesn't mean you haven't been shown to be wrong. If the discussion shows the point to be worthless, your opinion does not make it something else (sow's ears, silk purses, and all that).

 

[Simon39759]

Frack people, I post a long detailled post (the kind that Doc never reads) and, by the time I am done, I missed out on all the Doc kicking drama!

 

[Simon39759]

Just because you never admit to being wrong, doesn't mean you haven't been shown to be wrong. If the discussion shows the point to be worthless, your opinion does not make it something else (sow's ears, silk purses, and all that).

What? Next you are going to tell me that the black knight did not actually win the fight?
Inconceivable!

 

[Hokulele]

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Simon39759]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's tricky, a bit like the word "evidence"...




On an unrelated (but funny) note, a friend of mine used the quote (and accompanying picture) as a reply to creationist using the "it's only a theory" "argument". I was so jealous for not thinking of it myself...

 

[DOC]

Just because you never admit to being wrong, doesn't mean you haven't been shown to be wrong...

This is false and Joobz would tell you that.

 

[zooterkin]

Since it sees we're recycling old posts, here's one of mine

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?

 

[Her Dark Star]

This is false and Joobz would tell you that.

How is that false? The argument can be valid & sound or shown to be unsound without needing your agreement for either. That you wouldn't change your mind about something is not the same as the object not being changed.

 

[Hokulele]

This is false and Joobz would tell you that.

Funny you can't say this about the rest of my post.


Well, not funny "ha ha"...

 

[zooterkin]

I noticed there is no quote marks in the sentence where the word invented was used and there is quote marks in other places. From what I remember of the video he used the wording guessed and not invented. I definitely remember him giving the opinion "Luke guessed wrong." But even if he did use the wording invented the census it is just an opinion of one person, where many other scholars disagree.

If you doubt the transcript on the page, you only have to watch the video to be certain. Just for the record, here is the transcript:

Transcript
Interviewer: But even the two gospel writers who agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem disagree over the circumstances of the nativity. Even those two that mention it are at pains to get Jesus to Bethlehem somehow.
O'Connor: 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 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.

 

[zooterkin]

And another; I knew we'd discussed this before, but couldn't find it. Turned out to be in the Archaeology thread, where joobz again brought in the video. DOC seems to have trouble with his hearing, he can't hear certain words, such as 'nonsense'.

So you want to use an alleged quote from a priest (that is nowhere else on the web) that came from a business website where the author is talking about something she heard on a TV show. But then you don't want to talk about how if he is still a priest then he still must believe Christ is divine or he would be removed from the priesthood?

You somehow missed it last time:

I doubt he called it complete nonsense do you have a link.

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp

Now let us turn to Luke. Mason recognizes (as do all scholars) that the census mentioned in Luke (2:1–2) took place in 6 A.D., which is far too late to be of any relevance to the birth of Jesus in the days of Herod the king (37–4 B.C.): In other words, Joseph and Mary could not have been traveling to Bethlehem for this census. Thus, the linchpin of Luke’s narrative slips out, and the story fragments into a number of individual, unrelated elements. But the fact that Luke is wrong on X (the census) does not necessarily mean that he is wrong on Y (the location of Jesus’ birth).

ETA: Since I know how literal you are, how about this one:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/01/18/story38761.asp

‘‘Luke made a mistake’’ in inventing the census that took Jesus [of Nazareth] to Bethlehem, according to Fr Murphy O’Connor. ‘‘The census was 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. But Luke had to try and find a motive why a heavily pregnant woman would travel the length of the country.

‘‘He made a guess and he got it wrong . . . I think Bethlehem was an embarrassment to the early Christians. Because there was a messianic prophecy centred on Bethlehem, the prophecy of Micah, which promised a warrior king, and Jesus was anything but. He didn’t fulfil the messianic prophecy of Bethlehem.”

(emphasis added.)

And of course, joobz originally linked to a video of the programme itself, so what the priest is quoted as saying can be checked.

 

[DOC]

If you doubt the transcript on the page, you only have to watch the video to be certain. Just for the record, here is the transcript:..

Actually my cheap over 5 year old speakers aren't working for some reason so I can't listen to it again. But even if he did say it -- as I said before -- it's just one opinion among many scholars, past and present. And an opinion of one who is still a priest. If he didn't think Christ was divine why is he still a priest after all his many years of research in Jerusalem.

Also for the record O'Connor gives the opinion that Matthew was right to write Christ was born in Bethlehem. So that would mean that the OT prophecy the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem came true.

 

[zooterkin]

I noticed there is no quote marks in the sentence where the word invented was used and there is quote marks in other places.

You really don't have a clue, do you? The quotation marks are when O'Connor is saying what someone else might say. The words by the names are what the people said, as you can check by listening to the video.

Transcript
Interviewer: But even the two gospel writers who agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem disagree over the circumstances of the nativity. Even those two that mention it are at pains to get Jesus to Bethlehem somehow.
O'Connor: 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 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.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually my cheap over 5 year old speakers aren't working for some reason so I can't listen to it again.

Do you not have a single pair of headphones in your house?