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

[Wolrab]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

Alchemy much?

 

[Lucian]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

Not necessarily, of course, but older research in any field is often superseded or modified by newer findings.

 

[joobz]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

Of course not, but if newer research (new information and more accurate) and refutes older research (as is the case with the bible), than yes.

Out of curiosity, why are you ignoring my link?

 

[zooterkin]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

No, but it is wrong if new information has come to light which shows the older research to be incorrect.

ETA: Yet another example of the rule of "So...".

 

[Lucian]

Of course not, but if newer research (new information and more accurate) and refutes older research (as is the case with the bible), than yes.

Out of curiosity, why are you ignoring my link?

Because he has a really slow connection, and non-biblical/non-apologist links are notorious for loading slowly.

Because there are so many other questions/comments that he has to respond to with carefully thought out replies copy and paste jobs.

Because the Bible told him so.

 

[Hokulele]

List all the people in the NT you believe are not real and why?

All of them, and here is why. Several of the characters that appear in the New Testament are obviously based on historical people, but the portrayals in the New Testament are clearly influenced by the biases of the authors as well as those who changed what the authors wrote (intentionally or not). For example, DOC, how much do you know about the references to Pontius Pilate outside of the bible? Was he considered a "good guy" by the citizens in his district? By the residents (and yes, there was a huge difference between the two groups at the time)? Does it match the version of Pilate as shown in the various gospels?

The same kind of argument can be made regarding the Herods as well. Several years ago, National Geographic magazine had a wonderful article about the first king Herod, the one best known from the birth narratives regarding Jesus. (Surprise! There is no mention of him ordering the deaths of infant boys.) You will be surprised at how differently his rule appears to historians than it does to the authors of the NT.

So extending this logically, even if I grant you that Jesus is based on one or more real people, they didn't resemble the various Jesi in the various books of the New Testament very much, if at all. Heck, just compare the Paul of the author of Luke and Acts with the Paul that appears in his letters.

 

[welshdean]

DOC, as essentially a lurker to this thread (I may have posted once or twice), I'm inclined to think that using your evidence, Harry J. Potter is more truthier than Jesus H. Christ, don't think I'm being cute here 'cause I'm not, I've invested ten days of research in this.
My analyzation is this:

HJP wore specs; how embarrassing is that?
JHC didn't wear specs, did he?

HJP was born and lived in England, we know his place of birth, where he was raised (including the street name and number), how he was raised, his schooling and who he fell in love with.
JHC needed a special code written in the bible to give us cryptic clues as to who he fell in love with, be the recipient male or female.

HJP has changed the world, there are buildings, edifices and 'city size' parks in his honour that people of every faith flock to and queue for in their millions every year.
JHC can't boast the same 'homage' numbers as HJP.

I've actually seen, met and shook hands with HJP before he gave my daughter an autograph.
I used to talk to JHC, every single day, for years and years, but he was too full of himself to reply or even show his face, never mind respond. Maybe, that's why HJP is on the front page of 'Hello!' and JHC isn't.

HJP did indeed rid the world of evil.
JHC left it for us to deal with, and we don't got wands!!!

 

[DOC]

Where's your evidence? The burden is on you to provide it. You haven't presented a shred of evidence outside of the Bible or the belief of your fellow Believers...

You obviously have not read all of this thead because I have pointed out the following which is from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

 

[John Jones]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

Not at all. Older research is supplemented or superseded by more recent research.

Do you have a problem with that, DOC?

 

[John Jones]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

Are you asking me a question or making a claim or something?

 

[John Jones]

You obviously have not read all of this thead because I have pointed out the following which is from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

DOC. Go back to the beginning of this thread. Look at the title.

You haven't presented evidence for why we know the new testament authors told the truth.

Don't let your two-year failure stop you now!

 

[RobDegraves]

Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus

Let's see... Josephus only mentions what was believed about Jesus, and certainly not from a first person vantage. He makes no mention of the apostles nor of Mary, etc.

Tacitus mentions Jesus even less. All that you can derive from Tacitus was that Christians existed and believed in Jesus.

Celsus wrote over a century after Jesus, and only mentions what is believed about Him.

All of these authors only prove what is already known. That Christians existed in the 1st century AD.


(I normally lurk but since this is history and more or less in my field, I thought I would respond).

 

[Resume]

You obviously have not read all of this thead because I have pointed out the following which is from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

None of these are facts. They are assertions

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Of course, the celebrations of Disappointment Thursday are only a prelude to the Feasting upon the Fallacies that occurs on Dishonest Friday.

 

[Rincewind]

Because he has a really slow connection, and non-biblical/non-apologist links are notorious for loading slowly.

Not just that - just remember how long it took for the Catholic Church to apologise to Galileo....

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You obviously have not read all of this thead because I have pointed out the following which is from Geisler's book (pg. 223) cited in post # 1 of this thread. All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

3) He was a wonder worker.

4) He had a brother {some say cousin} named James.

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

DOC, How many times should I repost the refutations of the works alleged to be that of Josephus, given that they are based on 11th century copies scribed by Christian Monks, and in which Josephus apparently speaks of Christ in a manner that makes Josephus a Christian?

Tacitus and Celsus can only verify that Christians existed, not Jesus.

Phlegon was a second century "historian", who, likewise, can only demonstrate that Christians existed.

Origen was a Third Century Christian Scholar, who, likewise, can only demonstrate that Christians existed.

So, still no evidence for the veracity of NT authors.

GB

 

[Hokulele]

Let's see... Josephus only mentions what was believed about Jesus, and certainly not from a first person vantage. He makes no mention of the apostles nor of Mary, etc.

Tacitus mentions Jesus even less. All that you can derive from Tacitus was that Christians existed and believed in Jesus.

Celsus wrote over a century after Jesus, and only mentions what is believed about Him.

All of these authors only prove what is already known. That Christians existed in the 1st century AD.


(I normally lurk but since this is history and more or less in my field, I thought I would respond).

Welcome! Judging by your join date, you certainly are a dedicated lurker.

And yes, DOC has had it shown to him several times that the only evidence shown so far has all been hearsay, but it certainly can't hurt to reiterate the point.

 

[Aepervius]

So older research is wrong research by definition in your mind.

Older research can be DISPROVED by newer research. If an older research has not been disproved then it still stand. There are plenty example of stuff which was discovered in the 19th century and still stand (take chemistry for example). And there are even more example of stuff which was only an approximation or was shown to be wrong, with more/better evidence.

The problem for *YOU* is that you want to IGNORE that your old often touted 19th century stuff has been disproved or shown to be incorrect by NEWER research which keep being linked and IGNORED by you.

And we are now again laughing at you for showing your true color when you ignore that intentionally after it has been cited to you many times.

 

[Lothian]

No way Ramsay believed some of the things Lothian attributed to Ramsay as being his beliefs. Lothian should prove me wrong since he brought in those statements. I'm challenging him to bring in the whole paragraphs of his quote mined passages.

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Remind me how many times you quote mined Ramsay on the trustworthiness of Luke after I gave you the full quote in context?

So then you don't think Lothian's post 15353 would confuse or possibly grossly misinform someone who is new to the thread?

Only as much as people would be confused or grossly misinformed by your quote mining.

 

[Lothian]

List all the people in the NT you believe are not real and why?

And there were 30 historical figures listed in the NT that can be verified by non-biblical and archaeological sources. That's a lot of nieces, nephews, children, grandchildren, friends, historians etc. that can say: "hey, my father or my grandfather or my childhood friend, or that historical figure, never did what you wrote he did. But there are no reports of the day of any of these people saying "hey, this stuff about that person is not true". Translation: it was true.

Two quick rebuttals showing your translation "it was true" is plainly wrong.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You do not know whether anyone objected. For all we know the original accounts were heavily qualified until the objections were voted out of the fable by committee.

However that is not relevant to this thread. We have no interest in the mundane elements of the bible. We are interested in the sexy bits. Born of a virgin, son of God, Resurrection. The fact that the bible may have elsewhere referred to a real person does not make these fantasies true.