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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welshdean,

Thanks for the "Tacitus on Christ" info - when you look at the picture, the letter is clearly different from the rest of the text.

Talk about lying for Jesus, huh!

I wish I, too, had a brother (or cousin) called James. I could also be a Messiah!
 
Rincewind said:
Welshdean,

Thanks for the "Tacitus on Christ" info - when you look at the picture, the letter is clearly different from the rest of the text.

Talk about lying for Jesus, huh!

I wish I, too, had a brother (or cousin) called James. I could also be a Messiah!
Click to expand...

Here's what we'll do, Welshdean can write your biography, the good Pharaoh can illustrate it then just before the second edition comes out, I, being the editor, will put in a passage stating "his brother James, also called joobz, met him in the bar...". Thereby establishing your Messianic credit.
 
kmortis said:
Here's what we'll do, Welshdean can write your biography, the good Pharaoh can illustrate it then just before the second edition comes out, I, being the editor, will put in a passage stating "his brother James, also called joobz, met him in the bar...". Thereby establishing your Messianic credit.
Click to expand...

But we need someone who'll add the emberassing details ;)
Any Exs available?
 
DOC said:
From the article "Historian Tacitus"

"Tacitus wrote at least four historic treatises. Around 115 AD, he published Annals in which he explicitly states that Nero prosecuted the Christians in order to draw attention away from himself for Rome's devastating fire of 64 AD. In that context, he mentions Christus who was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Christus: Annals 15.44.2-8 {by the historian/Roman senator 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,..."

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of-jesus-ancient/jesus-tacitus.shtml
Click to expand...

Since Tacitus was clearly not alive at the time of Pilate and Tiberius, for his account to have any significance, you would have to show that it was based on an independent source and not just what he was told by Christians (or by others who had got the story from Christians). Can you do that?
 
zooterkin said:
Since Tacitus was clearly not alive at the time of Pilate and Tiberius, for his account to have any significance, you would have to show that it was based on an independent source and not just what he was told by Christians (or by others who had got the story from Christians). Can you do that?
Click to expand...

And hasn't this been gone-over a dozens times or more on this thread?

DOC keeps recycling the same failed arguments again and again.
 
zooterkin said:
Since Tacitus was clearly not alive at the time of Pilate and Tiberius, for his account to have any significance, you would have to show that it was based on an independent source and not just what he was told by Christians (or by others who had got the story from Christians). Can you do that?
Click to expand...
So we should not believe anything historians say unless they show us a picture or a voice tape recording or can prove they witnessed what they wrote about because all of their information is otherwise received from what they read or were told by others.

And your statement about independent sources infers we should not consider anything Jews of the World War 2 era say about the Holocaust because they are not independent sources.
 
DOC said:
So we should not believe anything historians say unless they show us a picture or a voice tape recording or can prove they witnessed what they wrote about because all of their information is otherwise received from what they read or were told by others.
Click to expand...
WHAT?

And your statement about independent sources infers we should not consider anything Jews of the World War 2 era say about the Holocaust because they are not independent sources.
Click to expand...
No, the statement would imply..., not infer. Statements imply, people infer. You can infer something from what a statement implies.

And you are wrong about what the statement implies, too.
 
DOC said:
So we should not believe anything historians say unless they show us a picture or a voice tape recording or can prove they witnessed what they wrote about because all of their information is otherwise received from what they read or were told by others.
Click to expand...
+1 for DOC's rule of "So..." :rolleyes:

Please explain how you construe my post to mean anything remotely approaching your comment. No; if two people tell you the same thing, that doesn't mean you have independent reports if it turns out they both heard it from the same place. The veracity of the original source is not increased because the information reached you by two different routes.

And your statement about independent sources infers we should not consider anything Jews of the World War 2 era say about the Holocaust because they are not independent sources.
Click to expand...

Her Majesty has already pointed out your grammatical error. I'll repeat my comment for this inanity, too; please explain how you construe my post to mean anything remotely approaching your comment. If Tacitus had been alive at the time of Pilate, Tiberius and Jesus, and witnessed the alleged events reported in the bible, and I dismissed his report of it, then you could have made your statement. Otherwise, I think I'd like to share what you've been smoking, because mine is clearly not strong enough.
 
welshdean said:
Oh dear DOC, your not being very honest here are you. You've been told numerous times not to rely on apologist sources and yet you continue to do so. Just 10 mins looking and I found this:


So DOC, I can and do still stand by this statement:..
Click to expand...

Then you are in the minority because most scholars consider the passage authentic. Here is how the article you linked summarizes the article.

Summary

The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some scholars have argued that it may not be authentic.[33][34][35][36]

And here is an argument from your link that counters your minority argument.

"Supporters of the passage's authenticity, however, counter that Christians would not promote their faith as a "most mischievous superstition", or a "source of the evil" or as something "hideous and shameful", though "there arose a feeling of compassion" toward the Christians. The criterion of embarrassment suggests authenticity, and there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.[24][25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
 
DOC said:
So we should not believe anything historians say unless they show us a picture or a voice tape recording or can prove they witnessed what they wrote about because all of their information is otherwise received from what they read or were told by others. ...
Click to expand...


No DOC, we should start from Evidence for Why We Know The New Testament Writers Told The Truth.


This thread has been mighty slim of such evidence. Mighty slim indeed.

Maybe you have some?
 
John Jones said:
No DOC, we should start from Evidence for Why We Know The New Testament Writers Told The Truth.


This thread has been mighty slim of such evidence. Mighty slim indeed.

Maybe you have some?
Click to expand...

I´m predicting that DOC will now refer to one or more of his earliest posts in this thread, thus restarting the cycle.
 
Elizabeth I said:
No, the statement would imply..., not infer. Statements imply, people infer. You can infer something from what a statement implies..
Click to expand...

So then I would assume you believe Sir Issac Newton should have used the word imply instead of infer below:

"...I would now add that the hypothesis of matter being at first evenly spread through the heavens, is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity (today a scientific law) without a supernatural power to reconcile them, and therefore it infers a Deity..."
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
...This thread has been mighty slim of such evidence. Mighty slim indeed.

Maybe you have some?
Click to expand...

Amazer said:
I´m predicting that DOC will now refer to one or more of his earliest posts in this thread, thus restarting the cycle.
Click to expand...

No, the cycle was started when John Jones asked a question that I've already responded to at least 10 times, but I'll do it the 11th time if someone new to the thread wants me to summarize some of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No, the cycle was started when John Jones asked a question that I've already responded to at least 10 times, but I'll do it the 11th time if someone new to the thread wants me to summarize some of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Where?
 
I've been lurking in this thread for awhile now and have come to the belief that I am a sado-masichist for staying. Why is it when looking at the Tacitus wiki link provided earlier, the two people cited supporting the passages authenticity just happen to be theologians?
 
DOC said:
So then I would assume you believe Sir Issac Newton should have used the word imply instead of infer below:

"...I would now add that the hypothesis of matter being at first evenly spread through the heavens, is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity (today a scientific law) without a supernatural power to reconcile them, and therefore it infers a Deity..."
Click to expand...


No. I'm not even a grammartician, and I cans see the difference.



DOC said:
No, the cycle was started when John Jones asked a question that I've already responded to at least 10 times, but I'll do it the 11th time if someone new to the thread wants me to summarize some of the evidence.
Click to expand...


Or you could just cut the pretense and say "there isn't any".
 
DOC said:
zooterkin said:
Since Tacitus was clearly not alive at the time of Pilate and Tiberius, for his account to have any significance, you would have to show that it was based on an independent source and not just what he was told by Christians (or by others who had got the story from Christians). Can you do that?
Click to expand...


So we should not believe anything historians say unless they show us a picture or a voice tape recording or can prove they witnessed what they wrote about because all of their information is otherwise received from what they read or were told by others.
Click to expand...


No, what we should do is avoid posting idiotic false dichotomies.


DOC said:
And your statement about independent sources infers we should not consider anything Jews of the World War 2 era say about the Holocaust because they are not independent sources.
Click to expand...


DOC, given that this entire discussion is meant to be about history, and that it's meant to be conducted in English, you're completely snookered, aren't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom