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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc said:
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."
Click to expand...

I don't really get this one at all. Serving in the army is not an easy career path- people do it. And to be honest, was this really any harder than a rigorous observance of the Law? I the authors werelying, and making up the thing out of the whole cloth then I would expect them to make it demanding; because in religions, demanding seems to be very appealing. The 1st century sees a big move towards Judaism in Rome; simply because it was more demanding and fulfilling than the dreadful state of that cities moral in the eyes of many pagans. (of course there were plenty of other options: Stoicism is pretty demanding!) I don't think we can use this at all as an argument: a better argument would be that hyperbole is common to the Historical Jesus in allsources, much as agricultural metaphors are, suggesting again a real speaker whose words are being recalled.

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
I don't really get this one at all. Serving in the army is not an easy career path- people do it. And to be honest, was this really any harder than a rigorous observance of the Law? I the authors werelying, and making up the thing out of the whole cloth then I would expect them to make it demanding; because in religions, demanding seems to be very appealing. The 1st century sees a big move towards Judaism in Rome; simply because it was more demanding and fulfilling than the dreadful state of that cities moral in the eyes of many pagans. (of course there were plenty of other options: Stoicism is pretty demanding!) I don't think we can use this at all as an argument: a better argument would be that hyperbole is common to the Historical Jesus in allsources, much as agricultural metaphors are, suggesting again a real speaker whose words are being recalled.

cj x
Click to expand...

I've heard it opined that this is the reason for the increasing popularity of Islam -- it's not a wishy-washy religion, and makes serious demands of its adherents.
 
Last edited:
Islam is more than just a religion to its adherents. It is a way of life. Sharia laws are part and parcel of islam.
 
cj.23 said:
I don't really get this one at all. Serving in the army is not an easy career path- people do it. And to be honest, was this really any harder than a rigorous observance of the Law? I the authors werelying, and making up the thing out of the whole cloth then I would expect them to make it demanding; because in religions, demanding seems to be very appealing. The 1st century sees a big move towards Judaism in Rome; simply because it was more demanding and fulfilling than the dreadful state of that cities moral in the eyes of many pagans. (of course there were plenty of other options: Stoicism is pretty demanding!) I don't think we can use this at all as an argument: a better argument would be that hyperbole is common to the Historical Jesus in allsources, much as agricultural metaphors are, suggesting again a real speaker whose words are being recalled.
cj x
Click to expand...


Nah.
Really, Christianity, as Paul defined it, was not so difficult. Especially where it initially spread, among poor gentile with little goods to be jealous off.
Later, you will notice, as it became more prevalent among higher social classes, the communitarian lifestyle was abandoned.

But, at the time Paul created it, it was actually probably easier a lifestyle than Judaism. It's very clear in the conflict between Paul and the church of Jerusalem, the church do want the adept to convert to Judaism and follow Judaic laws, and Paul, who is preaching to gentiles, argue that they should not. Because gentiles were not likely to follow something as drastic as the Judaic laws and they needed to be toned down...
 
DOC said:
Here is some new evidence for this thread and it regards Caiaphas who had a prominent role in the bible. His ossuary was found in Jerusalem.


http://www.formerthings.com/caiaphas.htm
Click to expand...

Well, that's just wonderful news!
I mean, earlier today I read that comic where Spider-Man saves Barack Obama's life and I am fairly certain Obama is a real historical character. So, obviously, that is evidence that Spider-Man is real and, for one, I can't wait to develop super-powers.
Ok, I am leaving now, I am to get myself a live lobster. Then, I'll put it in the micro-wave and have it bit me... I'll let you guys know how it went!
 
Hokulele said:
So, because there is evidence that JFK existed, "Forrest Gump" was a documentary?
Click to expand...
No, but it is evidence that Forrest Gump was not making up Kennedy when he talked about him, just like we have evidence the NT writers were not making up Caiaphus.
 
DOC said:
Here is some new evidence for this thread and it regards Caiaphas who had a prominent role in the bible. His ossuary was found in Jerusalem.


http://www.formerthings.com/caiaphas.htm
Click to expand...

And it would seem that Caiaphas' relatives, friends, fellow sect members, and children (if any) would not be to happy about the NT writers writing about him if the things they said about him were not true.
 
DOC said:
Here is some new evidence for this thread and it regards Caiaphas who had a prominent role in the bible. His ossuary was found in Jerusalem.


http://www.formerthings.com/caiaphas.htm
Click to expand...


From your link:

Matthew, Luke and John each identify Caiaphas as the high priest that presided over the arrest and trial of Jesus. The historian Josephus also identifies “Joseph Caiaphas” as the Jewish high priest from 18 to 36 AD (Jewish Antiquities 18:35). Josephus also refers to him as “Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood” (Jewish Antiquities 18:95).
Click to expand...

<redacted>
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And it would seem that Caiaphas' relatives, friends, fellow sect members, and children (if any) would not be to happy about the NT writers writing about him if the things they said about him were not true.
Click to expand...


<Redacted>
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And it would seem that Caiaphas' relatives, friends, fellow sect members, and children (if any) would not be to happy about the NT writers writing about him if the things they said about him were not true.
Click to expand...

So? You mean Caiaphas's family would have sued the gospel writers for libel if what they said about Caiaphas wasn't true?
 
DOC said:
And it would seem that Caiaphas' relatives, friends, fellow sect members, and children (if any) would not be to happy about the NT writers writing about him if the things they said about him were not true.
Click to expand...

But the earliest Gospel to mention him was, according to most serious scholars, at least 50 years after the alleged crucification. And Caiaphas was appointed around 18CE, 60 years, at least, before the writing of the Gospel... And he must already have been a middle-aged man by that time, so be appointed in such a position...

So, by the time the Gospel was written, Caiaphas was certainly long dead. His children were also likely dead. His grand-children, may even have been dead themselves...
And, of course, it's not like anybody had access to the Gospels, these were, at first, rare text, not readily available, especially to non-Christians...
 
Nice to see this thread hasn't died yet.

Lucian said:
A discovery made in 1990 is your "new" evidence? It's not particularly new, and it's evidence of nothing other than the existence of Caiaphas.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but a Caiaphas. How does DOC know he has the Caiaphas.

And evan then, so what? Doesn't prove that JC existed, that he performed his alleged miracles, that DOC's deity exists, and/or that we should obey it.
 
Last edited:
Achán hiNidráne said:
Nice to see this thread hasn't died yet.



Not only that, but a Caiaphas. How does DOC know he has the Caiaphas.

And evan then, so what? Doesn't prove that JC existed, that he performed his alleged miracles, that DOC's deity exists, and/or that we should obey it.
Click to expand...


I thought about that to. But, in that particular case, the date seems to match pretty closely, as does the general wealth of the tomb.
It is quite likely that it was THE Caiaphas... But, yes, it does not prove anything.
I could write a short fiction about Gary-sue's unfair condemnation by the corrupt judge Alito. The existence of an actual high ranking magistrate of this name would not make the story magically true.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom