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

[DOC]

Something written by a person whom other academics consider a good or great historian is historical evidence in my book, its not necessarily proof but it is evidence, if you have other criteria so be it.

other academics?
who would those be?
are you calling yourself an academic?

Well other than Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

Oxford scholar A.N. Sherwin-White wrote:

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. - A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.

 

[Lucian]

Well other than Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

Oxford scholar A.N. Sherwin-White wrote:

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. - A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.

Ah, more quote-mining. See here for a discussion of the way apologists distort Sherwin-White's work.

 

[DOC]

You can read Joobz's mind now? You know what scholar he's referring to...

Yes, I know who he if referring to because he has mentioned him before. I don't recall him mentioning anyone else though. And as far as I know the priest is still a priest.

 

[bikerdruid]

Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

evidence please.

 

[DOC]

This is where he was referring to Christianity as The Evil, right? So, do you believe that Christianity is The Evil since fiction hadn't been invented yet?

Here's more of the original quote since you left it out this time: "...thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil..."

So you value the opinion of a Roman Senator on issues of morality. Remember the Roman Emperor Nero thought nothing of impaling Christians and setting them on fire to use as light for his parties. Not to mention killing his mother and wife.

ETA: God, where would the world be now if isn't wasn't for Christianity. I seriously believe Western Civilization might not even exist now if isn't wasn't for Christianity.

 

[bikerdruid]

So you value the opinion of a Roman Senator on issues of morality. Remember the Roman Emperor Nero thought nothing of impaling Christians and setting them on fire to use as light for his parties. Not to mention killing his mother and wife.

now you are discrediting one of your own sources of evidence?
your academic duplicity is disgraceful.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So you value the opinion of a Roman Senator on issues of morality. Remember the Roman Emperor Nero thought nothing of impaling Christians and setting them on fire to use as light for his parties. Not to mention killing his mother and wife.

ETA: God, where would the world be now if isn't wasn't for Christianity. I seriously believe Western Civilization might not even exist now if isn't wasn't for Christianity.

DOC, you brought in the quote. You are the one who values quotes so much. You are the one who said fiction was unheard of in that day. You are the one who must now own Christianity being The Evil.

Speaking of fallacies, when are you going to answer Mojo's post that you specifically asked for and said you wouldn't be afraid to answer?

 

[Aepervius]

Thanks for your opinion.

That loud sound we just keep hearing, is you breaking new wall of illogical and silliness.


by now we are probably at Mach 230.

 

[Ducky]

392 pages proving further that atheists and agnostics score higher on religious quizzing than believers.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Christus: Annals 15.44.2-8 by Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

Not to mention that the Tacitus Quote you posted PROVES THE POINT that Tacitus can only confirm the existence of Christians, not of Christ. In other words, thanks for proving our point.

GB

Not only does it not prove the point, but it is not evidence for the point. Nowhere does Tacitus say he can confirm only the existence of Christians and not Christ. In fact something different can be inferred. From reading the statement he appears to make a statement of fact when he says "Christus {Latin for Christ} from whom the name had its origin suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus".

Also when he says "...thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea..." this does not sound like something a Christian source would tell him, but rather something he got from other sources.

Bottom line is that this passage sounds very much like Tacitus was reporting all of the above as history. Why, because that is what famous historians do, they report history. And at the very least from the non-biblical passage (not to mention Josephus mentioning Christ twice) it is logical to conclude that it is "more likely than not" that there was a person called Christus or Christ who was given the death penalty by Pontius Pilate.

OOOh!!! Zing!!! You got me DOC!

Or did you? The fact is Tacitus never sourced his assertion of Christ's existence, and he most certainly wasn't an eyewitness.

No Source, Not a Witness, therefore not reliable as evidence of the existence of Christ, though it is at least suggestive that he might have been an Historical Personage, which frankly, most of us have been willing to concede is plausible if not proven. But it most certainly is not evidence that Jesus was the Son of God born of a Virgin, Divine, or Resurrected. And it is indeed evidence of the existence of Christian's in Tacitus' own time. So no, you didn't really "get me" DOC.

And the Josephus stuff has been repeatedly refuted WITH FACTS (not opinion), so to continue using Josephus as a source is a blow to your already non-existent credibility.

By the way, how are you doing coming up with a response to this post?:

(bolding added)

This just demonstrates what I've said before, some skeptics are terrified to admit to one speck of evidence and I think that hurts the credibility of those skeptics as being unbiased.

I can see skeptics saying, well Doc, yes that is some evidence but it is not enough for me to believe, but to just come out and say that there is no evidence in the 2,150 posts I've presented in this thread is, in my opinion, definite evidence of a closed mind.

No DOC, the fact is you haven't presented any evidence that the NT authors told the Truth about Jesus Christ. You may have presented some evidence that other characters, artifacts, and places existed. You may have presented evidence that other people spout what they BELIEVE.

But mostly you just present logical fallacies. And nothing, absolutely nothing, that is actually evidence for the existence of, the divinity of, or the resurrection of, Jesus.

You still haven't addressed many arguments (including my own) that would definitively nip in the bud the claims of the OP:

To wit: If the Early Christians who wrote the NT, and other texts expunged from the NT, couldn't even agree on a "True" version or interpretation of the NT until the Council of Nicea, then how can one claim that the NT authors wrote the "Truth?"

That's right DOC, the Early Christians from Day 1 fell roughly into 3 camps, the Strict Monotheists that denied Jesus' divinity (Arians), the Monist/Dualist Mystics that posited a spark of divinity not only for Jesus but for everyone (Gnostics), or those who would eventually become Trinitarians positing the Exclusiveness of Jesus' divinity (Catholics).

But I know if you were to admit, or acknowledge that this is true, you would have no basis at all for your Thesis.

GB

Or a response to This Post?:

This is another example of you trying to transplant our culture into biblical Judea.

Can you name just one Jewish book that was considered fiction by the people in Judea during or before the time of Christ?

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/9780195151428/toc.html

As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh

GB

Or do you only respond to posts which you think you can refute? Thus conceding that the other posts irrefutably demolish your assertions.

GB

 

[Mojo]

The fact is Tacitus never sourced his assertion of Christ's existence...

Perhaps he might have sourced it from the beliefs of the Christians whose persecution he was describing, or, indeed, the beliefs of Christians in the early 2nd century, which is when he wrote the annals (he was only 12 when Nero died).

 

[Mojo]

Hey, DOC, Remember this?

I've might have missed posts, not had enough time to respond, etc... Mojo, you (and only you, since I don't have time to address everyone) are welcome to point out any single post I did not respond and I will respond to it.

I wasn't saying that you had not responded, but that you had not addressed the arguments. But how about this one?

Or did your Sunglasses prevent you seeing it?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Perhaps he might have sourced it from the beliefs of the Christians whose persecution he was describing, or, indeed, the beliefs of Christians in the early 2nd century, which is when he wrote the annals (he was only 12 when Nero died).

Which is precisely why it doesn't really count as evidence. DOC's gonna have to work harder if he wants to score a "Gotcha" point rather than actually responding to our posts, or actually providing some empirical evidence for his case.

GB

 

[Lothian]

Something written by a person whom other academics consider a good or great historian is historical evidence in my book, its not necessarily proof but it is evidence, if you have other criteria so be it.

Doc, you obviously missed my recent post. Ramsay said Luke was a good historian on the facts that can be verified by independent evidence. He made clear that the rest needed faith.

As someone pointed out earlier. Herman Melville is a great historian in that he gave a highly detailed account of whaling. If you were to try to verify Moby Dick you will find support for the mundane parts of the story, the essential part of the tale you will have to take on faith. Exactly what Ramsay said of Luke.

If you are claiming Ramsay said Luke was a great historian and the whole of Luke can be trusted because he is a great historian you are a liar.
I would naturally be willing to retract calling you a liar if you provide evidence I am wrong. Given Ramsay's books are still around that evidence should be easy to find.

 

[welshdean]

<snip>
And have thousands of people been martyred (or would choose martydom) for their belief in Harry Potter.

James Potter,Lily Potter,Sirius Black,Professor Charity Burbage, Hedwig, Alastor Moody, Scrimgeour, Gregorovitch, Grindelwald, Bathilda Bagshot, Dobby, the goblin from Gringotts, Severus Snape, many Hogwarts students (not named), Crabbe, Tonks, Fred Weasley, Lupin, 50 more un-named characters, Ted Tonks, Dirk Cresswell, Gomuk, Colin Creevey, Bellatrix and Lestrange.

These all died, some suffered horrible and agonising deaths, in the name of Harry Potter. When we bear in mind that these people put their life on the line for HJP, while he was still alive and before HJP had even turned 18. I find it to be very compelling evidence of his existence. Nobody died for JHC while he was purported to be alive. Nobody at all.
What you should also consider is that JHC has a 2000yr head-start on HJP. If this amount of people were martyred before HJP turned 18 then I dread to think how many will die in the next 1900 yrs or so.
Of course all of this evidence is to be found in the HJP books, so it must be true.

 

[Mojo]

If you are claiming Ramsay said Luke was a great historian and the whole of Luke can be trusted because he is a great historian you are a liar.
I would naturally be willing to retract calling you a liar if you provide evidence I am wrong. Given Ramsay's books are still around that evidence should be easy to find.

But irrelevant as evidence supporting the truth of the NT because of the findings of more recent historians.

 

[amb]

the bible does not say the earth is flat.

"And god made the the major light [sun] and the lesser light [the moon] to give the earth light during the day and the lesser light for night." In other words, the earth stood still while the sun and moon rose and set over a flat sphere earth.
"And god set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth."
It may not say "the earth was flat" but it insinuates that that is so.

 

[Lothian]

"And god made the the major light [sun] and the lesser light [the moon] to give the earth light during the day and the lesser light for night." In other words, the earth stood still while the sun and moon rose and set over a flat sphere earth.
"And god set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth."
It may not say "the earth was flat" but it insinuates that that is so.

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.​

Only possible if the world is flat. Likewise

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.​

 

[joobz]

Actually that person gave the opinion Luke guessed wrong on one occurrence so why did you falsely say the plural stories; and other scholars disagree that Luke guessed at it. And that scholar you are referring to also believes Christ's tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; also same scholar is still a Christian, isn't he?

And yet Geoffrey Hugo Lampe agrees with him.
As Does Bart Ehrman.
And let us not forget that I provided evidence which shows that modern scholars do not consider the bible to be at all historically reliable.

And I'm curious, When an author knowingly invents a story to create a better narrative, what is that called?
History? Fact? Fiction? Lie?

 

[amb]

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.​

Only possible if the world is flat. Likewise

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.​

Thank you!