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

[DOC]

I didn't ask about Nero I asked for evidence outside the NT that anyone saw the resurected Christ. Your reply did not answer the question.

This thread is about evidence the NT accounts are true. If you don't have any evidence outside the NT of people claiming to have seen the resurested Jesus say so, so we can move on.

Why would the Romans advertise a supposed miracle by an enemy? Notice how Tacitus and Seutonius write about a "superstition". If they publicized that the Christians believed Christ rose from the dead this probably would stir up and greatly interest Roman citizens and others who never heard of this Jesus. It would actually be a wise move for the Romans and some others not to write about the resurrection because we know that Christianity eventually did play a big part in the extinction of the Greek and Roman gods. So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection.

 

[DOC]

scientology started 50 years ago and has >8 million members.

But nobody is torturing, impaling them and using them as torches, tying animal skins to them and letting dogs tear them apart like Nero did to the Christians.

 

[GeeMack]

Why would the Romans advertise a supposed miracle by an enemy? Notice how Tacitus and Seutonius write about a "superstition". If they publicized that the Christians believed Christ rose from the dead this probably would stir up and greatly interest Roman citizens and others who never heard of this Jesus. It would actually be a wise move for the Romans and some others not to write about the resurrection because we know that Christianity eventually did play a big part in the extinction of the Greek and Roman gods. So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection.

Oh, so you're saying that the lack of evidence is evidence itself? Well you're wrong. That's not how evidence works. Your argument is a lie, a gutless, childish lie.

 

[DOC]

I'd be happy if he could point to one eyewitness of this Jesus character who wrote anything down, even in the NT.

The former Christian enemy Paul wrote down of his contact with Jesus.

Peter wrote of he was an eyewitness.

And the 11 of 12 apostles who died at different places and different times were probably to busy preaching and experiencing martyr deaths to do much writing.

 

[GeeMack]

But nobody is torturing, impaling them and using them as torches, tying animal skins to them and letting dogs tear them apart like Nero did to the Christians.

Boy, weren't the Christians stupid to put up with that kind of treatment? Refusal to deal with reality is not evidence of gods. It's evidence of stupidity.

 

[DOC]

Oh, so you're saying that the lack of evidence is evidence itself? Well you're wrong. That's not how evidence works. Your argument is a lie, a gutless, childish lie.

No, it is common sense. You don't blab about the supposed great things done by your enemy to the public

 

[DOC]

DOC, when are you going to get what everyone has been beating their heads against a brick wall saying for over 350 pages? Evidence that people wrote stuff down (2000 years ago) that they believed in, isn't Evidence of TRUTH.GB

But it is historical evidence, ask any historian.

And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

 

[GeeMack]

But it is historical evidence, ask any historian.

And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

The fact that a certain portion of the public is stupid enough to be duped by a con man is not evidence that the con man is honest or the product/service he's "selling" is legitimate. It's evidence that a certain portion of the population is, well, gullible enough to fall for a con. Your argument here is an argument from incredulity and ignorance.

 

[X]

How is it, DOC, that across 14-some-odd thousand posts and nearly 360 pages of this thread, you've learned not one single thing?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why would the Romans advertise a supposed miracle by an enemy? Notice how Tacitus and Seutonius write about a "superstition". If they publicized that the Christians believed Christ rose from the dead this probably would stir up and greatly interest Roman citizens and others who never heard of this Jesus. It would actually be a wise move for the Romans and some others not to write about the resurrection because we know that Christianity eventually did play a big part in the extinction of the Greek and Roman gods. So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection.

So lack of evidence of a miracle is evidence of a miracle? I will give you a dollar if you can honestly tell me of anything that would not be evidence for the truth of Christianity to you. I will give you two dollars if you can finally admit that fundy believers are so blinkered by their faith, that they couldn't see the truth if it bit them on the fandament.

 

[John Jones]

Why would the Romans advertise a supposed miracle by an enemy? Notice how Tacitus and Seutonius write about a "superstition". If they publicized that the Christians believed Christ rose from the dead this probably would stir up and greatly interest Roman citizens and others who never heard of this Jesus. It would actually be a wise move for the Romans and some others not to write about the resurrection because we know that Christianity eventually did play a big part in the extinction of the Greek and Roman gods. So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection.

Unbelievable. So a lack of evidence is evidence that the new testament authors told the truth.

That's incredible.

 

[Sideroxylon]

But nobody is torturing, impaling them and using them as torches, tying animal skins to them and letting dogs tear them apart like Nero did to the Christians.

Doc, can you see any possible problems with this arguement?

 

[Aepervius]

But it is historical evidence, ask any historian.

And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

It might be historical evidence that Paul existed, and if certainly a lot of historien think JC might have existed with a high probability.

But you would be HARD PRESSED to find an historien which think there are any non-faith related evidence the resurection happened.

 

[Simon39759]

Why would the Romans advertise a supposed miracle by an enemy? Notice how Tacitus and Seutonius write about a "superstition". If they publicized that the Christians believed Christ rose from the dead this probably would stir up and greatly interest Roman citizens and others who never heard of this Jesus. It would actually be a wise move for the Romans and some others not to write about the resurrection because we know that Christianity eventually did play a big part in the extinction of the Greek and Roman gods. So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection.

Balderdash!
a) They called it a 'superstition'.
b) Account of miracles were a dime a dozen, all the emperors were rumored to have magical powers...
c) Neither Tacitus nor Seutonius are 'the Roman'. Even if they were able to magically predict the importance Christianity would acquire in the following centuries, there is no reason to believe they would have lied about it.

No, it is common sense. You don't blab about the supposed great things done by your enemy to the public

But Tacitus and Seutonius were not enemies of the Christians.
Some of the Roman emperors might have been described as such. Nero in particular, at the time of Tacitus' writings... Nero that Tacitus despised...
So, following the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my ally', Tacitus would have been likely to lie to emphasize Christianity...

It's silly, of course. Tacitus' interest is to report history as best as he can.
He know that a small sect of Religious fanatic worship a God named 'Jesus' and that the God supposedly performed miracles... So, that's what he reports, in a off-handed passing remark...

The former Christian enemy Paul wrote down of his contact with Jesus.

Peter wrote of he was an eyewitness.

And the 11 of 12 apostles who died at different places and different times were probably to busy preaching and experiencing martyr deaths to do much writing.

The apostles we have no evidence for but the Biblical testimonies, you mean?
Seriously, the Petrine apostles? The consensus is that they are considered not to be from Saint Peter's hand...

But it is historical evidence, ask any historian.
And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

How... A bit like scientology you mean? They have a lot of get out of drugs programs...
Praise Xenu!

 

[dafydd]

How is it, DOC, that across 14-some-odd thousand posts and nearly 360 pages of this thread, you've learned not one single thing?

It's amazing,you would think that it would take a committee to be that obtuse.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why would the Romans advertise a supposed miracle by an enemy? Notice how Tacitus and Seutonius write about a "superstition". If they publicized that the Christians believed Christ rose from the dead this probably would stir up and greatly interest Roman citizens and others who never heard of this Jesus. It would actually be a wise move for the Romans and some others not to write about the resurrection because we know that Christianity eventually did play a big part in the extinction of the Greek and Roman gods. So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection.

As we know, the Romans were notorious for supressing knowledge of other religions, weren't they, DOC?

For instance, the Romans totally never gave any publicity whatsoever to the silly superstitions of ancient Egypt.

Resurrection anyone?​

No, it is common sense. You don't blab about the supposed great things done by your enemy to the public

Common sense, DOC?

 

[Elizabeth I]

But nobody is torturing, impaling them and using them as torches, tying animal skins to them and letting dogs tear them apart like Nero did to the Christians.

You do know that the Romans did this kind of thing to all kinds of people, right? Captured enemy soldiers, disobedient slaves - it was a form of entertainment and they needed fodder for the arena. Your argument is like saying John Cena is evidence of something or other.

The former Christian enemy Paul wrote down of his contact with Jesus.

Peter wrote of he was an eyewitness.

And the 11 of 12 apostles who died at different places and different times were probably to busy preaching and experiencing martyr deaths to do much writing.

As I recall, Paul never met Jesus in person. He said he had a "vision," and it has been explained to you that a certain type of seizure can - and does - cause such "visions" for many people. For that matter, lots of people have said they were abducted by aliens, too.

The apostles "were probably to [sic] busy"? Your argument is based on your speculations?

(...and "wrote down of his contact"? "...wrote of he was an eyewitness"? Come on.)

But it is historical evidence, ask any historian.

No. Any idiot can write anything and more idiots can print it and thousands more idiots can read it. That doesn't mean it's true. I have read books and books full of the Greek and Roman myths. By your argument, Zeus is even now on his throne on Olympus, unless he's cruising single bars for chicks.

And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

Would you please get some new material? All kinds of people have changed their lives for the better for all kinds of reasons. Some of the reasons may have a basis in reality, others do not.

Lots of people have changed their lives for the worse because of the gospel too. Look at Fred Phelps. Jim Bakker. Jim Swaggert. Peter Popoff. Robert Tilton. Ted Haggard. When you can use a book to fool that many gullible people that much of the time, the temptation must be almost irresistible.

 

[Lucian]

I don't know if Pagan is quite right. As far as I know it was made up writen down based on previous oral traditions by some Jewish dudes living in Babylon in about 500 CE.

I don't think it contains any evidence that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

Well, if it isn't evidence that the NT writers were telling the truth, then somebody just isn't trying hard enough. Let's see, if it doesn't appear to contain said evidence, that must be evidence that the Jewish dudes were suppressing the evidence. Hence, it is evidence. There, that'll work.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, when are you going to get what everyone has been beating their heads against a brick wall saying for over 350 pages? Evidence that people wrote stuff down (2000 years ago) that they believed in, isn't Evidence of TRUTH.

But it is historical evidence, ask any historian.

Okie Dokes. Let's ask Edward Gibbon. Have you heard of him, DOC? He is, unlike Norman Geisler, a real historian.

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. The doctrine of the incarnation, and the mystery of transubstantiation, were both adopted, and are both as repugnant to reason, as was the ancient pagan rite of viewing the entrails of animals to forecast the fate of empires!"

- Edward Gibbon (History of Christianity)​

 

[Fox]

Well the date does matter when you claim that the story of Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier was lost when the library was burned. The library was burned before Jesus was born. It brings your credibility into question when you claim the date does not matter.

The library of Alexandria may have been burned once before 'jesus' was born yes, but the library was burned down twice after that. And I'd SOONER believe that Joshua was born a bastard child rather than of a virgin birth... it explains things a whole lot better. Think about it. This account by celsus, was from the Jewish perspective, not the watered downed and soiled Christian perspective, but rather by those who wanted him dead.

Oh and lets not forget, that the apostles stole the body of their former leader, so that they could claim he rose from the 'dead'. I mean people if we stop to think logically about the situation here... it really can make sense.

I'll give you time to think about it.