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

[Craig4]

Probably the post linked below; but it doesn't present all the evidence I've presented in my 2,200 posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646



Yes,

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Plus the rapid spread of Christianity under a brutal Roman regime where being a Christian could get you killed before 313 ad. I can understand how Islam spread originally because they had a powerful army, but the growth of Christianity under a brutal regime doesn't make much sense without the resurrection being true.

And it also doesn't make sense for Christianity to even be in existence to the extant it is if the resurrection is not true, because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion. Thus the very fact that Christianity is in existence to the extent it is is some evidence for the resurrection.



Yes, the famous non-Christian Roman senator/historian Tacitus reporting that Christus {Latin for Christ} received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate. Plus the crucifixion was reported by a world class historian (gospel writer Luke). World class at least according to Sir William M Ramsay regarding non-supernatural events, and being crucified at that time was nothing out of the ordinary and thus a non-supernatural event.

While there were some major pogroms against Christians prior to Constantine being a Christian was generally pretty safe in the Roman Empire. Nero led one rather short lived porgrom and then there were major actions against Christians under Marcu Aurilius and Diocletian (none were ever fed to lions, that's a pet peeve of mine). To say the spread of a religious superstition in antiquity is proof of a super natural act is absurd on its face. It's especially absurd considering how many early Christians didn't believe in the resurrection.

Yes being crucified was not then nor will it ever be a supernatural event. Wood, four by fours, rail road spikes and post hole diggers all exist without the need for super natural explanations. Dying, being buried and coming back from the dead is a super natural event for which there is no reliable evidence.

This is belief, pure and simply it's not evidence. It's dishonest to say your belief in the resurrection is evidence based; it is not. If you want to have this as your belief that's fine without evidence that's fine. In fact, it's better for you that you just admit you believe without evidence. Once you try to superimpose evidence over your superstition it becomes subject to scrutiny and you don't want that.

 

[carlitos]

none were ever fed to lions, that's a pet peeve of mine

Don't give DOC any reasons to validate his martyr complex, now.

 

[carlitos]

oops - double post.

 

[Mr Clingford]

It was only the cricket that got me looking at the thread again.

 

[dafydd]

I too was entertained, but now I'm a little worried about his mental health. To be shown so many times from various reputable authorities, yet still spout the same excremental dogma surely points to mental instability. I'm no mental health professional, but this shoite surely can't be good for him. Can it?

Got to fly the flag mate, living in Yorkshire for ten years now, the 'hiraeth' grows stronger by the day. Sorry to hear about your Grandpa!

Hiraeth mawr,a hiraeth creulon.....

 

[welshdean]

Hiraeth mawr,a hiraeth creulon.....

Indeed, the more it pulls, the more it hurts.

Diolch

 

[TSR]

Indeed, the more it pulls, the more it hurts.

Diolch

.
< employs a great deal of self control by *not* posting that if it hurts when you pull it, you shou... >

Wait, that was out loud, wasn't it?

How many times of self-reporting *does* it take for a suspension?
.

 

[DOC]

While there were some major pogroms against Christians prior to Constantine being a Christian was generally pretty safe in the Roman Empire. Nero led one rather short lived porgrom and then there were major actions against Christians under Marcu Aurilius and Diocletian (none were ever fed to lions, that's a pet peeve of mine)...

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

 

[Agatha]

If only there were any credible reports of miracles or a resurrection.

 

[Christian Klippel]

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

First, there are no credible reports of those miracles happening.

Second, everyone with a bit of a clue will see that it makes perfect sense from a marketing viewpoint. People are fearing to follow the new cult. So they make up stories about resurrection to give them the false hope of "everything will be OK, see, we can call you back from the dead".

Only the religiously indoctrinated people somehow fail to see that point. If i would like to sell some cult to the people, you can be damn sure that i would come up with lots of false promises just to make them comfortable in their minds.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Akhenaten]

While there were some major pogroms against Christians prior to Constantine being a Christian was generally pretty safe in the Roman Empire. Nero led one rather short lived porgrom and then there were major actions against Christians under Marcu Aurilius and Diocletian (none were ever fed to lions, that's a pet peeve of mine)...

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

You lose credibility when you extract one minor point out of a post and address that rather than actually responding to the main thrust of the question.

In any case, where are your references for the treatment that you are claiming to have been meted out to these alleged early Christians?

And for well over the thousandth time I'll remind you that all you are pointlessly attempting to provide evidence for here is the existence of Christians. It's pointless, DOC, because we know without shadow of a doubt that Christians exist, and nobody has ever even hinted that you need to demonstrate this.

What you're supposed to be doing is providing evidence that the miracles and resurrections that they believe in actually took place.

And please don't reply with that ridiculous "anything that increases the likelihood" banter that you've tried and failed with so many times before, because it's boring. Try some new material, at least.

 

[Aepervius]

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

And yet later the chrisitan impaled, tortured , burned people, hanged them, in the name of their religion. Buy hey. I guess the "don't make unto other what you would not have them do unto you" isn't a commandment so I guess it is OK.

Anyway an *EASY* rebutal of your stuff is that people believe all sort of silly thing for all sort of reason, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, or do you think *XENU* exists ? Well people believe in scientology.

Heck people do *MASS SUICIDE* without even a shred of evidence. They do it on faith.

ETA: Actually what you are in essence saying, is that those early christian had a WEAK faith because they could not believe in the christ without proof of resurection ! Contrary to today where people believe in all sort of thing, FAITH, without evidence...

Weak DOC, weak.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

because they could not believe in the christ without proof of resurection ! Contrary to today where people believe in all sort of thing, FAITH, without evidence...

Weak DOC, weak.

You want to talk about weak? DOC expects us to blindly follow some ancient writings from 2000 years ago without having seen anything in front of us because what they saw should have been good enough.

Okay... Let's flip some pages in DOC's holy book. We have an entire nation of soon to be jews living in egypt as slaves. Naturally they are being tortured on a daily basis. Then comes god, sends them this Moses kid, who can turn his staff to a snake, brings the 10 plauges to egypt, takes them through the desert with pilars of fire and smoke, parts the sea, drowns the egyptians, brings them food from the skies and performs more miracle than any other person ever before (and I'm preety sure after too).

Then he goes up a mountain to bring them the word of this god and barely 5 minutes later, they go "Nah, let's go worship someone else".
Seriously, they dropped their faith just like that without having any reason to even after witnessing all those miracles?!?

So DOC... Either this story is the dumbest story ever and there is absolutely no reason to take it seriously which makes everything that followed it (including jesus) completely bogus as well.

Or... You should accept the fact that even witnessing these miracles first hand isn't enough evidence to prove the existence of a god which means we certinly 2000 years later shouldn't bother going for something that's simply written in a book.

 

[Lothian]

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

I was in Rome last year. They were fairly adamant that there was no evidence of Christians being persecuted and it was myth. I had been under the same misconception as you.

What evidence do you have that this actually happened?

 

[Craig4]

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

You really have to read those stories with a grain of salt. It's important to understand just how hated Nero was by the higher status plebes, equestrians, and Senators and the main source for these stories is Tacticus. Tacticus hated and I mean hated Nero. Nero's pogrom was short lived and restricted principally to Rome.

My point really wasn't the no Christians were killed, they certainly were. It's just they weren't fed to lions. That's just a myth. Of course so is the Bible.

None of this does anything to support the idea that miracles ever happened.

 

[Aepervius]

Wiki is not all-knowing , one should check reference, some of it come from NT which has no to few historical value etc... yada, yada.

But :

Christian persecution

Basicaly the way I read it, Christian had a rough start, but afterward decided to turn the serving back and persecute everybody else, including heretic among christian themselves.

Heck what I read below , is SUICIDE. I mean go to somebody and ask them to kill you ? It ain't martyrdom DOC, it is suicide. A sin, isn't it ? So some of your early martyrer were sinner.

According to Droge and Tabor, "in 185 the proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus, was approached by a group of Christians demanding to be executed. The proconsul obliged some of them and then sent the rest away, saying that if they wanted to kill themselves there was plenty of rope available or cliffs they could jump off."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Ancient, medieval and early modern hagiographers were inclined to exaggerate the number of martyrs. Since the title of martyr is the highest title to which a Christian can aspire, this tendency is natural". Estimates of Christians killed for religious reasons before the year 313 vary greatly, depending on the scholar quoted, from a high of almost 100,000 to a low of 10,000.

Sure it is a lot. But keep in mind that this is the common estimate for WITCH HUNT :

The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1700, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 100,000 executions. [1] The most common estimates are 40,000-60,000.

OK, there were about 3 times as much people in 1500 AD (about 600 Mi human) than in one 1AD (about 200 million humans), but that still give you an idea of what is persecution DOC.

Which means , that the lowest estimate , counting the factor 3, the lowest estimate for which hunt has the same number of victim than the lowest estimate for christian perscution , over a similar length of time.

What does it say about your religion doc ? Think about it.

 

[Craig4]

The lions myth (sorry to keep harping on this) probably comes from a Bishop named Irranius from what is now Turkey who was for reasons not fully explained taken to Rome for execution. We can assume he was getting executed for being Christian but why we went all the way to Rome is unclear. Along the way it appears (or this could all be pseudonymous which was very common in the period) he wrote letters to his flock about how eager he was to be fed to lions. The letters are pretty uncomfortable to read as his tone takes on something of an erotic desire to be killed slowly. It's also unclear as to why the guards taking him to Rome allowed him to send letters. If this happened at all he was probably killed by having his head lopped off or crucifixion.

There's a pretty significant body of evidence to suggest that many early Christians were not eager to die for their beliefs. Read the "Gospel of Judas" by Elein Page for a description of the debates about this point in the pre Constantine Church.

 

[Sun Countess]

No, they just had animal skins tied to them and were fed to wild dogs, or were impaled and then set on fire to provided light for Nero's parties. Not exactly great selling points for attracting new converts. But multiple credible reports of miracles and a resurrection could have even overrode those fears.

I'm sure they found it much easier to attract "converts" when it was the Christians themselves who were lighting witches and heretics on fire.

 

[Rincewind]

I'm sure they found it much easier to attract "converts" when it was the Christians themselves who were lighting witches and heretics on fire.

Didn't the Pilgrim Fathers (Puritans) leave for the New World not because they were being persecuted, but because they weren't allowed to persecute others?

I dimly recall reading that ages ago, so sadly can't give any reference.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Didn't the Pilgrim Fathers (Puritans) leave for the New World not because they were being persecuted, but because they weren't allowed to persecute others?

I dimly recall reading that ages ago, so sadly can't give any reference.

Whether that's actually the case or not, once they got here they certainly took up enthusiastic persecution of others.