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

[RoboTimbo]

The 2nd paragraph above is a philosophical/logical argument about Luke 12:47 which is in the NT. If giving some lashes as punishment for the crime of the servant who beat several men and woman is a less severe punishment then would be given today (where a person might get several years in jail for beating several men and beating several women) then all this talk about Jesus being so cruel for not speaking out against the giving of lashes is much ado about nothing.

DOC, you've made it clear that beating another person is ok in your book since Jesus endorsed it.

How are you with owning another person?

I'll put this at the top of page 324 so you won't forget to answer it.

 

[DOC]

Hi DOC,

I'm puzzled.

What are you trying to achieve here, please?

Thank you.

I'm trying to give you evidence that the historical person Jesus Christ was exactly who he said he was -- the Messiah, and the eternal God in the flesh.

http://www.biblesearch.com/whoisjesus/claims.htm

 

[paximperium]

I'm trying to give you evidence that the historical person Jesus Christ was exactly who he said he was -- the Messiah, and the eternal God in the flesh.

http://www.biblesearch.com/whoisjesus/claims.htm

So why haven't you?

 

[DOC]

Can you please show us some evidence for this historical man Yeshua outside of the N/T ?

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus mentions Christ twice -- one is contested as a "partial" interpolation by most scholars, the other is deemed legitimate by most scholars.

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

 

[DOC]

Note – I’ve put my replies in bold to make my responses clearer.

Reason #1
The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

This is a literary device that uses the disciples as proxies for bad believer. By doing this, the writers are trying to show believers how they should behave by using the contrast of how not to behave.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

These details you mention were recording what non-believers during Jesus’ time were saying about him. It is meant to show how he was ridiculed by many. It serves to contrast what the writers want the reader to come away with, that Jesus’ was not anything like what these other people claimed he was.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

If that is what Jesus really said, then of course they will include it. They weren’t trying to win popularity contests; they were trying to teach believers what they should believe. It also supports the central early Christian idea that being truly faithful was a VERY difficult thing, up to and including the believer’s death.

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

You are making an assumption based on 21st century ideas of what is “news worthy”. The writers considered these things to be true and reported them as such. They weren’t trying to write a Greek or Roman tragedy and they weren’t trying to impress outsiders, they were writing a guide for the faithful, people who were already believers, so there was no reason to resort to grandiose and extravagant images.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

This proves nothing. The most zealot of believers are converts to a new belief system. As far as dying and being persecuted, so did the followers of Rama, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Mithras, and don’t forget the million of soldiers who died for their kings and generals. All that proves is that people will die for things they believe deeply in.

In conclusion, your “evidence” is based on supposition, conjecture and a lack of understanding of historical literary criticism. It certainly wouldn’t qualify as evidence in a rational and scientific inquiry.

Also, you seem to assume that the writers of the New Testament were the actually disciples. Only the Epistles of Peter, the Epistles of John, and Jude (held to be written by James) could in anyway be considered to be written by an actual disciple of Jesus, and even these are only considered so by tradition, not by any actual evidence as none of the original books or letters of the bible are actually known to exist.

The Gospels themselves and the rest of the epistles, except those writen by Paul (who was not a disciple of Jesus and never actually saw, heard or met Jesus in his lifetime) were written by author’s unknown.

The earliest Gospel known to have existed in anything like its current form wasn’t written until well over 100 years after the death of Jesus and all of the Gospels were based on earlier lost writings or oral traditions.

All the New Testament is evidence of is the beliefs and teachings of early communities of believers spread about Asia Minor in the teachings of a man called Jesus during the first few centuries BCE. The majority of modern Christian thoughts and beliefs (anything after say 150 BCE) is actually the result of the teachings of one man and he is not Jesus. He is Paul of Tarsus (St Paul). By rights, Christianity should be called Paulism or Paulianity because it has far more to do with Paul’s own ideas and beliefs than any that Jesus may have taught.

I suggest taking some time and studying the history of the early Christian community, especially it’s writings and how they became the New Testament we know today. And make sure you study ALL of the sources, not just the Christian apologists’ ones.

If I would have known this thread was going to become what it has, I would have spent much more time on my first post. I tried to condense Geisler's and Turek's 22 page chapter 11 on this topic into 1 post. They go into much more detail on the the 10 reasons. People in the US can read much of that chapter in this link.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...s&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

Those outside the US won't be able to read it and might read this other article by one of the authors

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

If I ever get the time I will take a closer look at your points but we've already spent much time on the 10 reasons in this thread.
So I invite you to read the links above (especially the first one) to see if they deal with any of the points you've made.

 

[joobz]

I'm trying to give you evidence that the historical person Jesus Christ was exactly who he said he was -- the Messiah, and the eternal God in the flesh.

http://www.biblesearch.com/whoisjesus/claims.htm

Is that the same Jesus who thought beating slaves (or as some bibles incorrectly state, servants) was ok?

If he really is "the messiah", then the messiah is immoral.

 

[six7s]

I'm trying to give you evidence that the historical person Jesus Christ was exactly who he said he was -- the Messiah, and the eternal God in the flesh.

http://www.biblesearch.com/whoisjesus/claims.htm

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus mentions Christ twice -- one is contested as a "partial" interpolation by most scholars, the other is deemed legitimate by most scholars.

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

Are you seriously suggesting that the above list of names somehow supports your goal of providing 'evidence that the historical person Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and the eternal God in the flesh'?

If so... well... words fail me...



Your so-called arguments are an even bigger joke than your so-called god!

 

[Lucian]

I'm just leaving this part in because it may be first time someone has ever said such a thing.



får: I'd like to see the etymology of that one!

[offtopic] Old Icelandic fá, East Norse faa: to grasp with the hands, get hold of; to take, capture; to get, gain, win (etc.). East Norse faar: sheep (plural); presumably cognate of Old Icelandic fé (genitive fjár): cattle, esp. sheep; property, money. Also the first letter in the runic alphabet. (Sources: A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic by Geir T. Zoëga and An Introduction to Old Norse by E. V. Gordon, 2nd ed. revised by A. R. Taylor).

(Because the bulk of Old Norse literature was written in Iceland, most Norse dictionaries and glossaries use the Old Icelandic forms. East Norse (Old Swedish and Old Danish) are harder to find.) [/offtopic]

 

[Helen]

Just a question; Mara Bar-Seraption, is that the Syrian Mara bar Serapion, who, if I remember correctly, mentions an unamed Jewish king once in a letter? if it is, how is that evidence of anything?

 

[Helen]

I'm just leaving this part in because it may be first time someone has ever said such a thing.

I would have thought it happened all the time...

får: I'd like to see the etymology of that one

Briefly, and very simplified (and OT, but what isn't, in this thread); Får, as in sheep, is from fä, a Norse word for cattle. Får, get/acquire (infinitive få), is from fånga, Norse, as well as modern Swedish, for catch.

ETA: I see Lucian had already answered this, and so much better...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

[offtopic] Old Icelandic fá, East Norse faa: to grasp with the hands, get hold of; to take, capture; to get, gain, win (etc.). East Norse faar: sheep (plural); presumably cognate of Old Icelandic fé (genitive fjár): cattle, esp. sheep; property, money. Also the first letter in the runic alphabet. (Sources: A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic by Geir T. Zoëga and An Introduction to Old Norse by E. V. Gordon, 2nd ed. revised by A. R. Taylor).

(Because the bulk of Old Norse literature was written in Iceland, most Norse dictionaries and glossaries use the Old Icelandic forms. East Norse (Old Swedish and Old Danish) are harder to find.) [/offtopic]

There's a very obvious joke about all the Sheep-loving people of the world out there...but I hesitate to make it...

 

[Helen]

There's a very obvious joke about all the Sheep-loving people of the world out there...but I hesitate to make it...

Says the donkey

 

[carlitos]

liar

The 2nd paragraph above is a philosophical/logical argument about Luke 12:47 which is in the NT. If giving some lashes as punishment for the crime of the servant who beat several men and woman is a less severe punishment then would be given today (where a person might get several years in jail for beating several men and beating several women) then all this talk about Jesus being so cruel for not speaking out against the giving of lashes is much ado about nothing.

That's not what the verse says and you you know it, liar. It says that a servant who does not obey his master's wishes may be beaten, and a servant who didn't even know his master's wishes, but doesn't meet expectations, may also be beaten. You are a lying liar.

For the fifteenth time - Jesus said that it's ok to whip DOC until he's bleeding, for disobeying an order that DOC never even received. Is Jesus moral?

 

[dafydd]

That's not what the verse says and you you know it, liar. It says that a servant who does not obey his master's wishes may be beaten, and a servant who didn't even know his master's wishes, but doesn't meet expectations, may also be beaten. You are a lying liar.

For the fifteenth time - Jesus said that it's ok to whip DOC until he's bleeding, for disobeying an order that DOC never even received. Is Jesus moral?

No,mythical.

 

[Belz...]

Do you have any evidence you were born on earth and not transported here by aliens A birth certificate could be forged (Some say that is what happened with Obama). Your relatives could be lying to you. Do you have film of your actual birth. Even that could be a fake.

So, basically, you understand so little about evidence and reasonable doubt that you'd rather skip that process entirely and believe in anything that suits your fancy ?

I'm sorry but I can't function this way. Blind faith is simply useless and idiotic.

 

[Belz...]

It is if God chooses to punish those who sin in a similar manner to the servant who beat several men and woman like the servant did in Luke 12:47.

So basically what's "moral" is anything god does, no matter how crazy and psychotic it is ?

Excuse me, but for someone who claims there's an objective moral truth, that's not very reliable.

Bottom line if you read the bible, there is a price to pay for any unforgiven sin. God, being perfect, is not flippant about sin.

I'm sorry, but using physical and mental punishment on people when you're omnipotent is not perfect, it's despotic.

 

[Belz...]

What are you talking about? Are you saying respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay just made up some character named Luke and then said he was one of the world's greatest historians (regarding facts that can be proved by history and archaeology).

<sigh> DOC, we're simply saying that it's his opinion, and that it doesn't prove anything. In addition, in this case, it's pretty easy to tell on your own that his claim isn't true. The world's greatest historian would, first, cite his sources.

 

[Akhenaten]

What are you talking about? Are you saying respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay just made up some character named Luke and then said he was one of the world's greatest historians (regarding facts that can be proved by history and archaeology).

No, that's just another of your straw man fallacies.

What I'm saying is that your claims about young Luke Skywanker and Sir Billy M Kenobe have been debunked so many times that your continuance in mentioning them is nothing more than spam.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you DOC?

Some skeptics like you and Pax love shock words like "lie".

Shock words, DOC? Have a listen to 'Little Lies' by Fleetwood Mac. It'll do you some good on a number of levels.

And will use them at the drop of a hat.

Only if someone describes the hat as a banana.

Unfortunately you lose credibility when you use them so often and then they are shown to be just that - empty meaningless unfounded shock words.

Would you like to run a three-way poll and have people vote for who has the most credibility out of yourself, paximperium and me?

What do you think would be the result of such a poll, DOC?

Keep in mind that consensus, or appeal to popularity, is actually a valid tool in determining credibility.

Also keep in mind that this is one of those questions that isn't going to go away, in similar fashion to:

1. Do you think it's OK to beat ***slaves***, ***servants***, ***butlers*** or other ***employees***?

2. Why are you unable to provide evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?​

 

[Akhenaten]

Note – I’ve put my replies in bold to make my responses clearer.

<snippies>

Sadly, DOC has 'special needs' and this week it's asterisks.

Welcome Jaywalker.
Unfortunately like any punching bag, DOC is immovable and only useful for practice.

I second what the real Doc says. Welcome to the Zoo, jwalker.




Are you related to Luke?

 

[amb]

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus mentions Christ twice -- one is contested as a "partial" interpolation by most scholars, the other is deemed legitimate by most scholars.

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

Each one of those were writing hearsay. Not one was a witness or knew of any witnesses.
A countryman of Jesus who lived at the same time, and wrote extensively about Pilate and the Romans and Jews of that particular time, is completely silent on the matter of Jesus. I speak of Philo of Alexandria.