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

[Gandalfs Beard]

Perhaps the gospelers were writing the truth as they heard it. The birth and death of a Jesus like character could have happened centuries before, not necessarily several decades before. With the evidence at hand now, there's no way of knowing.
One thing is sure, Christianity did not become so widespread until Constatine's time in the third century, some 270 years after the supposed Jesus existed.

The problem with this is that the Gospels were written while Rome was still Pagan, and long before Constantine was Emperor. And we can be reasonably certain that they weren't written before the time Jesus was alleged to have been born.

And we also know that the points of comparison between Jesus and other Mythological figures (particularly Mithras, Mithra, Mitra and othe dying and reborn Sun Gods) are far too numerous to be coincidence.

So in a way, you are partially correct. The Gospelers were telling a tale that had been around for centuries if not millennia, but of a Mythological Archetype, not of any historical figures.

It's really hard to equate this though, with the notion that the NT authors were even "writing the 'truth' as they heard it".

GB

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Mind you, I don't want people to go around making posts about my naughty bits on a regular basis, but it couldn't possibly get any worse than that one, could it?

Naughty? I would think that any rational person would see them as very good and necessary bits.

 

[DOC]

Perhaps the gospelers were writing the truth as they heard it. The birth and death of a Jesus like character could have happened centuries before, not necessarily several decades before. With the evidence at hand now, there's no way of knowing.

So you believe the non-Christian historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Jesus twice (one is partially contested, but not the second one), John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ.

One thing is sure, Christianity did not become so widespread until Constatine's time in the third century, some 270 years after the supposed Jesus existed.

Who is sure, certainly not the Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away) and certainly not to Roman governor Pliny the Younger who wrote a detailed letter to the emperor asking if he was correct to execute Christians (as he had already done) who would not deny their faith .

 

[joobz]

So you believe the non-Christian historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Jesus twice (one is partially contested, but not the second one), John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ.

Wrong about what?

Who is sure, certainly not to Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away) and certainly not to Roman governor Pliny the Younger who wrote a detailed letter to the emperor asking if he was correct to execute Christians who would not deny their faith as he had already done.

What is your point here? It does not make sense at all against the post you responded to.

 

[six7s]

One thing is sure, Christianity did not become so widespread until Constatine's time in the third century, some 270 years after the supposed Jesus existed.

Who is sure, certainly not the Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.

More evidence that your claims of being an A-grade logician are complete and utter bollocks

Note that it is NOT necessary for a cult to be widespread in order for a fire to start

 

[paximperium]

So you believe the non-Christian historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Jesus twice (one is partially contested, but not the second one), John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ.

Wrong about what?

Who is sure, certainly not the Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away) and certainly not to Roman governor Pliny the Younger who wrote a detailed letter to the emperor asking if he was correct to execute Christians (as he had already done) who would not deny their faith .

What about it? There are Christians...so?

 

[DOC]

What is your point here? It does not make sense at all against the post you responded to.

That's your opinion. A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

From the article "Pliny the Younger on Christians" by Brian Tubbs

"For one, Pliny {the Roman governor in Asia Minor} confirms that there were Christians who believed Christ to be "as a god" as early as AD 112. Common sense would agree that Christians believed this earlier than AD 112, for it had to take some time to get to Pliny's notice and for him to feel compelled to even pay this religion attention - let alone start executing its adherents.
<Snip>
But even if one stubbornly refuses to accept that assumption, all one has to do is point to the Roman historian Suetonius who confirms the presence of Christians in Rome as early as the late 40s AD and their willingness to die for their beliefs as early as 64 AD. Case closed.
It is absurd to say that Jesus' followers didn't embrace his divinity in the first century. There is strong, non-biblical evidence to demonstrate that there were first and second century people who believed Jesus was God and were willing to die for that belief."

http://www.suite101.com/blog/briantubbs/pliny_the_younger_on_christians

 

[paximperium]

That's your opinion. A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

From the article "Pliny the Younger on Christians" by Brian Tubbs

"For one, Pliny confirms that there were Christians who believed Christ to be "as a god" as early as AD 112. Common sense would agree that Christians believed this earlier than AD 112, for it had to take some time to get to Pliny's notice and for him to feel compelled to even pay this religion attention - let alone start executing its adherents.
<Snip>
But even if one stubbornly refuses to accept that assumption, all one has to do is point to the Roman historian Suetonius who confirms the presence of Christians in Rome as early as the late 40s AD and their willingness to die for their beliefs as early as 64 AD. Case closed.
It is absurd to say that Jesus' followers didn't embrace his divinity in the first century. There is strong, non-biblical evidence to demonstrate that there were first and second century people who believed Jesus was God and were willing to die for that belief."

http://www.suite101.com/blog/briantubbs/pliny_the_younger_on_christians

There are Christians. So?

 

[John Jones]

So you believe the non-Christian historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Jesus twice (one is partially contested, but not the second one), John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ.




Who is sure, certainly not the Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away) and certainly not to Roman governor Pliny the Younger who wrote a detailed letter to the emperor asking if he was correct to execute Christians (as he had already done) who would not deny their faith .

None of this is evidence that the new testament authors told the truth.

 

[DOC]

None of this is evidence that the new testament authors told the truth.

So then the "probability" of the resurrection being true would be "exactly the same" to you if we had no evidence that Christianity spread 1400 miles in 16 years and also we had no evidence that a Roman Governor was executing Christians in Asia Minor for their belief in "Christ as a god". This evidence of rapid growth and willingness to die should be given 0 weight in your opinion regarding reported resurrection of Christ (31years) earlier as reported by the NT authors. If that is the case we have a difference of opinion.

 

[John Jones]

So then the "probability" of the resurrection being true would be "exactly the same" to you if we had no evidence that Christianity spread 1400 miles in 16 years and also we had no evidence that a Roman Governor was executing Christians in Asia Minor for their belief in "Christ as a god". This evidence of rapid growth and willingness to die should be given 0 weight in your opinion regarding reported resurrection of Christ (31years) earlier as reported by the NT authors. If that is the case we have a difference of opinion.

Please present some evidence that the new testament authors told the truth

 

[joobz]

That's your opinion. A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

From the article "Pliny the Younger on Christians" by Brian Tubbs

"For one, Pliny {the Roman governor in Asia Minor} confirms that there were Christians who believed Christ to be "as a god" as early as AD 112. Common sense would agree that Christians believed this earlier than AD 112, for it had to take some time to get to Pliny's notice and for him to feel compelled to even pay this religion attention - let alone start executing its adherents.
<Snip>
But even if one stubbornly refuses to accept that assumption, all one has to do is point to the Roman historian Suetonius who confirms the presence of Christians in Rome as early as the late 40s AD and their willingness to die for their beliefs as early as 64 AD. Case closed.
It is absurd to say that Jesus' followers didn't embrace his divinity in the first century. There is strong, non-biblical evidence to demonstrate that there were first and second century people who believed Jesus was God and were willing to die for that belief."

http://www.suite101.com/blog/briantubbs/pliny_the_younger_on_christians

You've become wholly incoherent.

To a post which stated-- quite factually --that christianity became wide spread when Emperor Constantine became christian you said that christians were killed by earlier emperors. When I asked the very simple question "What's your point?", You respond with a quote that asserts early christians believed in Jesus' divinity.

This is honestly nothing but a series of disjointed arguments. There may be a logic behind them, but you've failed to show it.

As such, I ask again, "What's your point?" How does any of this relate to the OP?

 

[joobz]

So then the "probability" of the resurrection being true would be "exactly the same" to you if we had no evidence that Christianity spread 1400 miles in 16 years and also we had no evidence that a Roman Governor was executing Christians in Asia Minor for their belief in "Christ as a god".

Exactly. Because either of those points are not evidence. They are unrelated points. truth isn't made more truthful because people believe it. EVIDENCE which support people's beliefs make it true.

This evidence of rapid growth and willingness to die should be given 0 weight in your opinion regarding reported resurrection of Christ (31years) earlier as reported by the NT authors. If that is the case we have a difference of opinion.

It isn't a difference of opinion. It's a difference in reason. One is a logical conclusion, the other (your position) isn't. Someone who had had a course in logic would know this.

 

[Akhenaten]

So you believe the non-Christian historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Jesus twice (one is partially contested, but not the second one), John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ.

Hard to tell, DOC. What did he say? Do you have one of those reference thingies?

Who is sure, certainly not the Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.

How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb light a fire, DOC?

(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away)

There's no evidence that this even happened. Someone was going to provide some, as I recall. Do you know anything about that?

. . . and certainly not to Roman governor Pliny the Younger who wrote a detailed letter to the emperor asking if he was correct to execute Christians (as he had already done) who would not deny their faith .

I wish he'd written to me.* I might just go through the Amarna Letters and see if I've overlooked anything.



* perhaps I was on his ignore list.

 

[Akhenaten]

What is your point here? It does not make sense at all against the post you responded to.

That's your opinion.

No, DOC, it's the consensus. What's more, it remains the consensus despite your > 2000 attempts to change it.

How sad is that?

A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

Your credulity is the complete opposite of what is required to make the point that you are attempting.

What's needed is the evidence that you promised more than 14½ thousand posts ago. Made any progress with that yet?

<snip evidence that there were Christians>

We know there were Christians, DOC. What we're waiting for is evidence for the nonsense that they believed in.

 

[Mojo]

That's your opinion. A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

From the article "Pliny the Younger on Christians" by Brian Tubbs

"For one, Pliny {the Roman governor in Asia Minor} confirms that there were Christians who believed Christ to be "as a god" as early as AD 112. Common sense would agree that Christians believed this earlier than AD 112, for it had to take some time to get to Pliny's notice and for him to feel compelled to even pay this religion attention - let alone start executing its adherents.
<Snip>
But even if one stubbornly refuses to accept that assumption, all one has to do is point to the Roman historian Suetonius who confirms the presence of Christians in Rome as early as the late 40s AD and their willingness to die for their beliefs as early as 64 AD. Case closed.
It is absurd to say that Jesus' followers didn't embrace his divinity in the first century. There is strong, non-biblical evidence to demonstrate that there were first and second century people who believed Jesus was God and were willing to die for that belief."

http://www.suite101.com/blog/briantubbs/pliny_the_younger_on_christians

You seem to be trying to advance your (for want of a better word) 'argument' using something very like Kumar's Veracity Table:

For maximum authenticity, by the way, the actual phrase you should be using is "mass existing in well distributed people since long".

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Bringing up Josephus's references to Jesus is problematic on any number of fronts.

First, Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, so his writings are based on "hearsay".

There is a question of authenticity of attributing the passages in question to Josephus.

Then there is the question of translation errors, and/or later textual additions by Christians, as surviving copies of Antiquities of the Jews date from the 11th century as copied by Medieval Christian Monks.

If one accepts those copies as valid, then there is the question of whether Josephus was truly "non-Christian".

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is a second reference by Josephus to Jesus as the brother of James. But given that it also occurs in Antiquities of the Jews it has the same problems as the first.

So, sorry DOC, but Josephus doesn't qualify as evidence for the veracity of the NT authors.

GB

 

[Rincewind]

Tell you what DOC...

Why don't you put everybody on ignore?

Then at least from your point of view, everything you read in this thread will be exactly what you want to see!

Regards,

 

[Akhenaten]

So then the "probability" of the resurrection being true would be "exactly the same" to you if we had no evidence that Christianity spread 1400 miles in 16 years and also we had no evidence that a Roman Governor was executing Christians in Asia Minor for their belief in "Christ as a god".

That there were Christians is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

That Christians can travel at the astonishing rate of 1.7 miles per week is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

That Roman governors routinely executed troublemakers is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

This evidence of rapid growth . . .

Hasn't been shown. It is transparently dishonest to claim that it has.

. . . and willingness to die should be given 0 weight in your opinion regarding reported resurrection of Christ

Such willingnes, even if it had been demonstrated, which it hasn't, is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

(31years) earlier as reported by the NT authors.

The veracity of the NT is the very thing for which you are supposed to be providing evidence. Is it possible that you are still unaware of the fallacy of circular reasoning?

Would you like me to draw you a picture?

If that is the case we have a difference of opinion.

Opinion has nothing to do with it DOC.

Dead people don't come back to life. That you choose to believe that they do is not a difference of opinion, it's a complete denial of the available evidence.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Just so no one misses a word of this argument:

So you believe the non-Christian historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Jesus twice (one is partially contested, but not the second one), John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ.

Hard to tell, DOC. What did he say? Do you have one of those reference thingies?

Who is sure, certainly not the Roman Emperor Nero who blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome in 66 a.d.

How many Christians does it take to change a light bulb light a fire, DOC?

(31 years after Christ was crucified 1400 miles away)

There's no evidence that this even happened. Someone was going to provide some, as I recall. Do you know anything about that?

. . . and certainly not to Roman governor Pliny the Younger who wrote a detailed letter to the emperor asking if he was correct to execute Christians (as he had already done) who would not deny their faith .

I wish he'd written to me.* I might just go through the Amarna Letters and see if I've overlooked anything.



* perhaps I was on his ignore list.

What is your point here? It does not make sense at all against the post you responded to.

That's your opinion.

No, DOC, it's the consensus. What's more, it remains the consensus despite your > 2000 attempts to change it.

How sad is that?

A religion that we know had adherents in Rome 1400 miles away from Jerusalem 31 years after the crucifixion (16 years according to the site below) and also in Asia Minor 112CE seems pretty widespread to me.

Your credulity is the complete opposite of what is required to make the point that you are attempting.

What's needed is the evidence that you promised more than 14½ thousand posts ago. Made any progress with that yet?

<snip evidence that there were Christians>

We know there were Christians, DOC. What we're waiting for is evidence for the nonsense that they believed in.

So then the "probability" of the resurrection being true would be "exactly the same" to you if we had no evidence that Christianity spread 1400 miles in 16 years and also we had no evidence that a Roman Governor was executing Christians in Asia Minor for their belief in "Christ as a god".

That there were Christians is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

That Christians can travel at the astonishing rate of 1.7 miles per week is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

That Roman governors routinely executed troublemakers is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

This evidence of rapid growth . . .

Hasn't been shown. It is transparently dishonest to claim that it has.

. . . and willingness to die should be given 0 weight in your opinion regarding reported resurrection of Christ

Such willingnes, even if it had been demonstrated, which it hasn't, is not evidence that dead people can come back to life.

(31years) earlier as reported by the NT authors.

The veracity of the NT is the very thing for which you are supposed to be providing evidence. Is it possible that you are still unaware of the fallacy of circular reasoning?

Would you like me to draw you a picture?

If that is the case we have a difference of opinion.

Opinion has nothing to do with it DOC.

Dead people don't come back to life. That you choose to believe that they do is not a difference of opinion, it's a complete denial of the available evidence.