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

[Lucian]

Josephus not only believed it, he claimed it was history and wrote about Moses leading an army in Egypt (which was not in the Bible). Also for the record Josephus was married in Egypt.

Yes, well Bede said that the herdsman Caedmon became a great poet through divine inspiration (quite literally). I have no doubt Bede believed the story, and he included it in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Can we therefore conclude that Caedmon was in fact visited by an angel or messenger from God who bestowed upon him the ability to compose poetry? Personally, I'm a tiny bit skeptical.

 

[Akhenaten]

Josephus not only believed it, he claimed it was history . . .

The same can be said of you, DOC. You believe all manner of things and claim them to be history and yet you have not one whit of evidence to support your claims, thus rendering them completely worthless.

. . . and wrote about Moses leading an army in Egypt (which was not in the Bible).

Which simply demonstrates what utter balderdash Josephus was capable of attempting to pass off as history.

Where are the Egyptian sources for this remarkable acheivement of the mere son of a reedcutter, DOC? If you are unable to cite any such sources, how do you know that Josephus was stating fact when he wrote about this?

And don't forget:

No, I didn't and it's your job to prove it since you made the claim.

Also for the record Josephus was married in Egypt.

So was I. Several times. So bloody what?

 

[Akhenaten]

Probably #15. No Beard see? All the top 10 Wizards have beards.

GB

Indeed.

 

[John Jones]

I wish I had me a beard like that, and some Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

DOC, can you help me out?

 

[Elizabeth I]

JAlso for the record Josephus was married in Egypt.

I'm sure several million people have been married in Egypt. What's your point?

 

[chris epic]

Descartes... The whole "dream/consciousness/reality/subjective thing"?

 

[chris epic]

Ummm...Non-sequitur!???

Care to clue us in about what your posts actually mean?

I'm not sure if you're being satirical, ironic, or actually trying to make a point.

GB

?Descartes... The whole "dream/consciousness/reality/subjective thing"? ,
Referring to the 'reality is wrong' statement

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

?Descartes... The whole "dream/consciousness/reality/subjective thing"? ,
Referring to the 'reality is wrong' statement

If you are referring to Mojo's post, you do know it was ironic don't you?

I'm not asking for a mega-post, but perhaps you could elucidate your ideas a little more fully so we don't have to guess what they mean.

In the meantime you may want to express your views on the veracity of NT authors and DOC's lack of evidence for such. Or exchange some humourous banter while we wait for DOC's next round of illogic.

GB

 

[Craig4]

You do know that the Testomonium Flavian is widely considered to be a corrupted. There is a reference to Jesus' brother James but we cannot conclude from that passage that Flavius Josephus thought that there was anything supernatural about Jesus.

Of course none of this matters until we can see proof of the malleability of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You do know that the Testomonium Flavian is widely considered to be a corrupted. There is a reference to Jesus' brother James but we cannot conclude from that passage that Flavius Josephus thought that there was anything supernatural about Jesus.

Of course none of this matters until we can see proof of the malleability of the laws of thermodynamics.

DOC as usual refuses to acknowledge that his references to Josephus have been thoroughly debunked:

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

So, yes, DOC should know that the Testimonium Flavianum is corrupted.

And DOC continues to maintain that Josephus is a non-Christian, which--if the texts are indeed authentic--is clearly not true.

If the texts in question can truly be attributed to Josephus, then he clearly must have been an Ebionite Christian (which would only further invalidate Josephus as an unbiased source), as the alleged passage quoted above indicates that Josephus believed in the Resurrection and that Jesus was the Christ--which means "the anointed one" or "Messiah."

GB

 

[cj.23]

Oh Lord. do you really want to have a detailed discussion of the TF? Surely it has been done to death on an earlier thread? If not I can point you to half a dozen sites with detailed discussions from exponents of pro and con positions: however Peter Kirby's page from ECW http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html and Alan Humn's http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html should suffice. Interesting stuff, but I still keep meaning to get back to Geisler and Doc's original assertions.

cj x

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh Lord. do you really want to have a detailed discussion of the TF? Surely it has been done to death on an earlier thread? If not I can point you to half a dozen sites with detailed discussions from exponents of pro and con positions: however Peter Kirby's page from ECW http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html and Alan Humn's http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html should suffice.

But Josephus has been described by Sir Somebody-or-other as a famous historian, just like Luke, so his authority is absolute in any subject that he ever mentioned. And he was married in Egypt!!!eleventy!! It raises a red flag that you can still harbour doubts about old Joe's truthiness even after this important new information has been brought in.

Interesting stuff, but I still keep meaning to get back to Geisler and Doc's original assertions.

cj x

You're definitely a glass-half-full person, aren't you?

 

[Craig4]

Oh Lord. do you really want to have a detailed discussion of the TF? Surely it has been done to death on an earlier thread? If not I can point you to half a dozen sites with detailed discussions from exponents of pro and con positions: however Peter Kirby's page from ECW http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html and Alan Humn's http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html should suffice. Interesting stuff, but I still keep meaning to get back to Geisler and Doc's original assertions.

cj x

I was more just trying to point out that TF has been done to death and it's as documentary proof goes it's a steaming pile of horse pooh. If he'd sticking with it, it can only mean he's ill informed on the state of scholarship on the topic.

 

[Mojo]

Actually I didn't say this.

Are you claiming that God makes mistakes? You have stated that there are mistakes in the Bible, resulting from the way it was written. If this does not mean that the Bible is not the word of God, then your position must be that your God makes mistakes.

 

[zooterkin]

If he'd sticking with it, it can only mean he's ill informed on the state of scholarship on the topic.

"If"? You must be new around these parts...

 

[Craig4]

It never ceases to amaze me how religious people can think themselves well informed and only be conversant about one book.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

It never ceases to amaze me how religious people can think themselves well informed and only be conversant about one book.

Actually DOC isn't even conversant in the One Book he lays claim to being "Truthful."



GB

 

[Rincewind]

I'm sure several million people have been married in Egypt. What's your point?

Oooh - I think I know this!

Egypt exists therefore Josephus was married there, therefore the NT writers told the truth....

 

[DOC]

Are you claiming that God makes mistakes? You have stated that there are mistakes in the Bible, resulting from the way it was written.

Where?? or are you one of the skeptics who thinks difficulty (or difficult to understand) means a mistake.

Writing there was a angel at the tomb and someone writing there was 2 angels is a difficulty but it is not necessarily a mistake because both accounts can be true. Now if the gospel said there was "only" one angel at the tomb all day that would be a mistake, if another gospel said there was 2 angels that day.

And these divergent accounts and difficulties only help show the bible was not dishonestly touched up with false information. But the bottom line is I did not say there are mistakes: skeptics should say what I say and not fudge to make their argument.

ETA: Whenever you see someone say something derogatory about something I said and they are not responding to a specific post of mine, or the partial quote they use is not related to the main derogatory point they are making that should send up a red flag that there is a good chance I am be misrepresented. It's happened many times and it will happen again.

 

[Christian Klippel]

... and not fudge to make their argument.

These words spoken by master-fudger ... that's just priceless. Oh boy, it is really sad to see what religion can do to your brain.

Greetings,

Chris