Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[pakeha]

...As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam (the so-called religion of peace) spread by use of their swords on others. So the beginning growth of the two religions happened in almost opposite ways.

What does this have to do with the truthfulness of the NT writeres?

...And Jesus did say there would be many false prophets come after him.

What does this have to do with the truthfulness of the NT writers?

... We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years...

Could you cite your source for that information, please?

 

[Craig B]

As someone once said about the "beginning" of the two religions, Christianity spread when the sword was used on them, and Islam (the so-called religion of peace) spread by use of their swords on others. So the beginning growth of the two religions happened in almost opposite ways.

That someone (and I would like you to identify the person) is misleading. Christianity spread most vigorously after Constantine started to favour it. Before that, it was the religion of a small minority. And once it had received imperial sanction, it applied the sword more ruthlessly against other religions than early Islam did in the areas it conquered. It treated others when it took power much more cruelly than it had been treated in the early years of its own existence.

Christianity survived under Islam, as did Judaism, but Islam could not survive (in for example Spain and Sicily) under Christianity. And Christian treatment of Jews was, until the most recent times, a perpetual disgrace.

 

[ddt]

Either that or they must have had confidence in themselves to be able to preach to every person in the world (including such known places as Spain, England, Africa, and Asia) in their lifetime and while much of this area was controlled by the brutal Romans who had their own gods they built huge temples in honor of.

I just saw today the bones of James son of Zebedee - no, I should correct that: I saw a silvery chest that is purported to contain the bones of James son of Zebedee. How did he get here near the west coast of Spain? Weren't the disciples alleged to have travelled the world to bring the gospel?

BTW, the cathedral is impressive for its size, but as for art, I've seen better.

 

[Moss]

The tendency of Christianity to get violent not only to non Christians but also to fellow Christians makes it look like every other closed worldview with a tendency for orthodoxy (with the latter being the usual smattering of local tribal traditions and power consolidation with claims to antiquity). It still has a bugger a hedgehog to do with the veracity of the New Testament writers.

 

[pakeha]

I just saw today the bones of James son of Zebedee - no, I should correct that: I saw a silvery chest that is purported to contain the bones of James son of Zebedee. How did he get here near the west coast of Spain? Weren't the disciples alleged to have travelled the world to bring the gospel?

BTW, the cathedral is impressive for its size, but as for art, I've seen better.

That silvery chest is from the 19th century.
The 'gem' is the stone base or altar it stands upon- a Persian tomb translated to to Santiago to serve as an altar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Santiago_de_Compostela.

For art in Spain?
Madrid for El Prado.
Toledo for El Greco.

 

[DOC]

We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years.

... We, or more specifically, you, have no such thing...

You must have missed my multi-paged thread entitled

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

Here is the first post:

Quite certain, well that's what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says in its article on Peter "the apostle". You know, the Peter who weakly denied Christ 3 times to a woman. But then it was reported he saw something about a week later (and this gave him unusual boldness). Apparently, that newfound boldness ended up getting him martyred in Rome. I guess it could be argued, though, that Peter and the Christians got the last laugh on the Romans because St Peter's Basilica (one of the largest if not the largest religious structure in the world) and St. Peter's Square are still going strong and the Roman Empire is on the ash heap of history.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says in an excerpt about Peter:

"It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome. The first of the two epistles ascribed to him was written from "Babylon," a code name for Rome... St. Clement of Rome wrote, about ad 95 in his "Epistle to the Corinthians" (6-6): "To these men [Peter and Paul], whose lives were holy, there is joined a great multitude of elect ones who, in the midst of numerous tortures inflicted for their zeal, gave amongst us a magnificent example." St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his "Epistle to the Romans" a few years later says that it is not for him to give them orders as Peter and Paul did. In the first half of the 2nd century Papias wrote that Mark's Gospel was a record of Peter's Roman preaching (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl 3.39.15). From the second half of this century comes the testimony of Irenaeus, a man well acquainted with the universal Church of his day; he is quite explicit on the activity of Peter in Rome (Adversus haereses 3.3.3) By the late 2d and early 3d centuries, the tradition of Peter's Roman sojourn and martyrdom is solidly established. His martyrdom is usually dated 64 or 65 during the Neronian persecution. The tradition that he was crucified goes back to Tertullian (De praescriptione 36; Scorpiacus 15).
The earliest testimony to Peter's burial on the Vatican Hill comes from the Roman priest Caius during the reign of Pope Zephryinus(199-217). The tradition has been constant since then, and recent acrcheological discoveries have confirmed it. For details see the article on the "Vatican". "


forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85633

 

[zooterkin]

You must have missed my multi-paged thread entitled

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

This one? No, I expect he's seen it. More to the point, I expect he's read some of the responses, which, as usual, you appear not to have done.

Here is the first post:

Quite certain, well that's what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says in its article on Peter "the apostle". You know, the Peter who weakly denied Christ 3 times to a woman. But then it was reported he saw something about a week later (and this gave him unusual boldness). Apparently, that newfound boldness ended up getting him martyred in Rome. I guess it could be argued, though, that Peter and the Christians got the last laugh on the Romans because St Peter's Basilica (one of the largest if not the largest religious structure in the world) and St. Peter's Square are still going strong and the Roman Empire is on the ash heap of history.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says in an excerpt about Peter:

"It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome. The first of the two epistles ascribed to him was written from "Babylon," a code name for Rome... St. Clement of Rome wrote, about ad 95 in his "Epistle to the Corinthians" (6-6): "To these men [Peter and Paul], whose lives were holy, there is joined a great multitude of elect ones who, in the midst of numerous tortures inflicted for their zeal, gave amongst us a magnificent example." St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his "Epistle to the Romans" a few years later says that it is not for him to give them orders as Peter and Paul did. In the first half of the 2nd century Papias wrote that Mark's Gospel was a record of Peter's Roman preaching (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl 3.39.15). From the second half of this century comes the testimony of Irenaeus, a man well acquainted with the universal Church of his day; he is quite explicit on the activity of Peter in Rome (Adversus haereses 3.3.3) By the late 2d and early 3d centuries, the tradition of Peter's Roman sojourn and martyrdom is solidly established. His martyrdom is usually dated 64 or 65 during the Neronian persecution. The tradition that he was crucified goes back to Tertullian (De praescriptione 36; Scorpiacus 15).
The earliest testimony to Peter's burial on the Vatican Hill comes from the Roman priest Caius during the reign of Pope Zephryinus(199-217). The tradition has been constant since then, and recent acrcheological discoveries have confirmed it. For details see the article on the "Vatican". "


forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85633

Pretty much proof by assertion, then. Please point out which of those items is evidence that Peter spent his last days in Rome. A hint; a tradition that starts nearly a century after an event is not evidence of that event.


Oh, and thanks for the reminder of the thread where you produced this classic:

Pope is the head of the Catholic Church -- Catholic Church created the Catholic Encyclopedia -- The pope believes in and approves of what is in Catholic Encyclopedia -- The pope was extremely admired by the world and 4 US presidents who traveled 6000 miles to his funeral. The world and 4 US presidents extremely admire someone who trusts and believes that the wafers become the actual body of Christ after blessings. We know the world and 4 US presidents believe the pope is trustworthy. As far as objectivity one could say objectivity is in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Maybe one day you'll realize there are things of greater importance than objectivity.

 

[welshdean]

You must have missed my multi-paged thread entitled

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

Here is the first post:

Quite certain, well that's what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says in its article on Peter "the apostle". You know, the Peter who weakly denied Christ 3 times to a woman. But then it was reported he saw something about a week later (and this gave him unusual boldness). Apparently, that newfound boldness ended up getting him martyred in Rome. I guess it could be argued, though, that Peter and the Christians got the last laugh on the Romans because St Peter's Basilica (one of the largest if not the largest religious structure in the world) and St. Peter's Square are still going strong and the Roman Empire is on the ash heap of history.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says in an excerpt about Peter:

"It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome. The first of the two epistles ascribed to him was written from "Babylon," a code name for Rome... St. Clement of Rome wrote, about ad 95 in his "Epistle to the Corinthians" (6-6): "To these men [Peter and Paul], whose lives were holy, there is joined a great multitude of elect ones who, in the midst of numerous tortures inflicted for their zeal, gave amongst us a magnificent example." St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his "Epistle to the Romans" a few years later says that it is not for him to give them orders as Peter and Paul did. In the first half of the 2nd century Papias wrote that Mark's Gospel was a record of Peter's Roman preaching (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl 3.39.15). From the second half of this century comes the testimony of Irenaeus, a man well acquainted with the universal Church of his day; he is quite explicit on the activity of Peter in Rome (Adversus haereses 3.3.3) By the late 2d and early 3d centuries, the tradition of Peter's Roman sojourn and martyrdom is solidly established. His martyrdom is usually dated 64 or 65 during the Neronian persecution. The tradition that he was crucified goes back to Tertullian (De praescriptione 36; Scorpiacus 15).
The earliest testimony to Peter's burial on the Vatican Hill comes from the Roman priest Caius during the reign of Pope Zephryinus(199-217). The tradition has been constant since then, and recent acrcheological discoveries have confirmed it. For details see the article on the "Vatican". "


forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85633

Baseless assertions DOC.

I can only assume that during your no doubt extensive research on the subject, you must have missed this:

Peter’s Tomb - Recently Discovered In Jerusalem

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

Wrong again DOC, wrong again. For someone that is prepared to lie in defence of his/her religion, you don't know much about it do you DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

We have evidence Peter (Jesus' right hand man) spent his last years in Rome, the center of Christianity for at least 1500 years.

... We, or more specifically, you, have no such thing...

You must have missed my multi-paged thread entitled

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

Here is the first post:

<drivelsnip>

Of course I didn't miss it. How do you think I know you don't have any evidence?

Also, lern 2 kwote.

 

[Craig B]

You must have missed my multi-paged thread entitled

"It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome"

Here is the first post ...

"It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome. The first of the two epistles ascribed to him was written from "Babylon," a code name for Rome...

Your evidence is laughable. If Peter had spent decades in Rome as the leader of myriads of Christians, we would know about it. Peter was not there, and the number of Christians - if they were not at that time simply regarded as a Jewish sect - has been exaggerated.

It matters little what the epistles "ascribed to him" have to tell us, as they were most certainly not written by Peter, nor even by the same pseudonymous author. See wiki

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous.

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

<snip>
the Christian martyrs of the 1st century were willing to sacrifice their lives at different times and places when they had nothing visible to gain.

On the other hand the Muslims of the time of Muhammed had something visible to gain. They gained territory, war spoils, almost guaranteed converts, and slaves.
<snip>

Hey, DOC, I want to see if I understand you correctly. You're basically saying that the Muslim martyrs had something to gain while the Christians didn't, therefore the Christians were right and the religion true?

Hmm.... Interesting... I can totally see the logic in that.
Well, I would say that the next logical step was to find people who died because they left Christ or refused to be converted into christianity and had absolutely nothing to gain other than keeping their faith.

Damn, I can't find any such examples.

Except this guy

or this guy?

or this guy?

or him?

and him?

almost forgot about him

her too?

or her?

another one?

who knew

that

there

were

so

many

So I think it's the how many time that I would ask you this DOC:
Why are there still Jews in the world?

 

[DrDave]

Why are there still Jews in the world?

Because we won WWII?

 

[DOC]

Baseless assertions DOC.

I can only assume that during your no doubt extensive research on the subject, you must have missed this:

Quote:

Peter’s Tomb - Recently Discovered In Jerusalem

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

Wrong again DOC, wrong again. For someone that is prepared to lie in defence of his/her religion, you don't know much about it do you DOC?

If true, that is just more evidence the NT writer's were telling the truth. If true, now, in addition to Peter, we have evidence of Mary, Martha, and Lazareth. And if they were indeed Peter's bones, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't spend his final years in Rome.

On another note an ossuary of Caiaphus, the Jewish high priest in the bible (who called for the death of Christ) has been found.

 

[DOC]

Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus)....

You will of course be giving a proper cite for this claim, won't you..

On page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?", Bart Ehrman writes this:

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews. In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier. Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James. They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."
_____

Some might say, well you are using what's in the bible as evidence.

Here is a quote from Bart Ehrman on page 73 of the book cited above;

"To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly".

___

Remember the gospels were written by 8 or 9 writers who had no idea their writings would end up in something called a bible. And one of those writers was Luke, a man archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian {regarding non-supernatural events}.

 

[Mudcat]

Pope is the head of the Catholic Church -- Catholic Church created the Catholic Encyclopedia -- The pope believes in and approves of what is in Catholic Encyclopedia -- The pope was extremely admired by the world and 4 US presidents who traveled 6000 miles to his funeral. The world and 4 US presidents extremely admire someone who trusts and believes that the wafers become the actual body of Christ after blessings. We know the world and 4 US presidents believe the pope is trustworthy. As far as objectivity one could say objectivity is in the eyes and mind of the beholder. Maybe one day you'll realize there are things of greater importance than objectivity.

Are you kidding me, DOC? The catholic church and the most recent pope are what you're using as your ace in the hole for this argument? Really?

Perhaps you're aren't aware of it, but because of of the abuses of the RCC in just the past hundred years (and it gets much worse the further back you go) it, and the pope, doesn't have much credibility. Even amongst the adherents to the catholic faith.

You fail. At life. At failing. Please stop, you're just embarrassing yourself.


Ah crap, I just resurrected a zombie thread becaused the quoted section was quoted in the evidence thread. Can a mod please move this to that thread?

 

[Akhenaten]

Baseless assertions DOC.

I can only assume that during your no doubt extensive research on the subject, you must have missed this:

Quote:

Peter’s Tomb - Recently Discovered In Jerusalem

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

Wrong again DOC, wrong again. For someone that is prepared to lie in defence of his/her religion, you don't know much about it do you DOC?

If true, that is just more evidence the NT writer's were telling the truth.

In what way?

And when are you going to learn how to quote properly?

If true, now, in addition to Peter, we have evidence of Mary, Martha, and Lazareth.

No, we have evidence of a claim that some boxes of bones have been found that bear the same names as some of the characters in your Big Book of Fairytales.

As well as some bloke named Lazareth, whoever he might be.

And if they were indeed Peter's bones, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't spend his final years in Rome.

Because transporting a dead religious fanatic half way across the known world to be interred in his fave spot was just the sort of thing the Romans would be likely to do.

On another note an ossuary of Caiaphus, the Jewish high priest in the bible (who called for the death of Christ) has been found.

Even if you get a pass on the rest of this claim, where is the evidence for the highlighted bit?

 

[Akhenaten]

Bart Ehrman believes that the apostle Paul met with Peter (Jesus' right hand man) and James (the brother of Jesus)....

You will of course be giving a proper cite for this claim, won't you..

On page 164 of his new book "Did Jesus exist?", Bart Ehrman writes this:

You're going to continue to pretend that you've read the book, are you, DOC?

Do you have any idea how dishonest this makes your already threadbare arguments look?

And don't carry on with that garbage about having read more of the book than most others here or trying to cast aspersions about other members' reading of it. It's transparently dishonest, it's demonstrably wrong and it's completely irrelevant.

"And it is important to remember that Jews were saying that Jesus was the crucified messiah in the early 30s. We can date their claims to at least 32 CE, when Paul began persecuting these Jews.

How can we date these claims and why do need to verify the existence of Christians anyway? Has anyone here suggested that there's no such thing as Christians?

Simply parroting something that someone said in a book isn't providing evidence of anything more than the author's beliefs. What you're supposed to be explaining is how he came to arrive at those beliefs, but of course you can't do that, can you, DOC?

Because you don't own and haven't read the whole book, have you?

In fact, their claims must have originated even earlier.

Why must they, and in what way does this constitute evidence that the claims were in any way true?

Paul knew Jesus's right-hand man, Peter, and Jesus's brother James.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

And if you're simply going to repeat this nonsense that "Ehrman said so" then my obvious follow up question is "Where is Ehrman's evidence?"

They are evidence that this belief in the crucified messiah goes all the way back to a short time after Jesus's death."

Belief in a messiah goes all the way back to centuries before the time when the alleged Jesus was even born, DOC.

Are you now going to start presenting the existence of Judaism as evidence for the truth of Christianity?

That'll be a hoot.

Some might say, well you are using what's in the bible as evidence.

And why wouldn't they? It's exactly what you're doing and as you well know (and even appear to be tacitly acknowledging in this very observation), it's quite fallacious to do so.

Here is a quote from Bart Ehrman on page 73 of the book cited above;

"To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly".

Did he say anything about this only being true where the biblical record is backed up by extra-biblical sources?

If so, which page?

If not, he's flat-out wrong.

Remember the gospels were written by 8 or 9 writers who had no idea their writings would end up in something called a bible.

Even if we knew any such thing, how are you proposing that it's evidence of anything?

And one of those writers was Luke, a man archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian {regarding non-supernatural events}.

As always, it's both hilarious and tragic that you still put this dreck forward as your best argument.

Does it ever occur to you that you haven't advance your cause even one micron from where it was when this thread started?

Ever?

 

[Craig B]

Remember the gospels were written by 8 or 9 writers who had no idea their writings would end up in something called a bible. And one of those writers was Luke, a man archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian {regarding non-supernatural events}.

DOC, we've been over all this more than once. As regards Luke's historiographical skills, Sir Willam Ramsay was talking through his bum. Consider Acts 5

34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

Problem. Theudas came about forty years after Judas of Galilee, and about ten years after Gamaliel's speech. So the "great historian" Luke got it hopelessly wrong? Not according to the apologetic websites:
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/luke-gamaliel-theudas-judas-galilean.htm

Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking. Response: ... The people who make this claim, whether they realize it or not, are assuming that there can only be one person named Theudas, when in fact there might have been more than one person with that name. In other words, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, and Josephus, a first century historian, could simply be talking about two different people named Theudas.

One of whom is known only to Luke. If you argue like that, you can prove anything at all. At least Luke, if he was indeed a "great historian", should have warned his readers: "Here Gamaliel is talking about a Theudas nobody has ever heard of except me. He's not talking about the famous one who led an insurrection more that ten years after Gamaliel is speaking."

 

[wollery]

Did he say anything about this only being true where the biblical record is backed up by extra-biblical sources?

If so, which page?

If not, he's flat-out wrong.

He probably meant that it would be wrong to dismiss them out of hand, i.e. some of the stuff is correct, so we should examine other sources to see which bits, but I'd need to see the quote in context.

Say, DOC, could you quote the whole paragraph that that quote comes from please. Should be easy for you since you have the book.....

 

[Akhenaten]