The testimony of the NT writers

[lukethethird]

Mmmh, well, to the effects of this topic, Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts. If you want to discuss that I guess we need to open other topic.

This is how the Gospel of Luke starts:

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
5 In the days of Herod, king of Ju·deʹa, there was a priest named Zech·a·riʹah of the division of A·biʹjah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth ...

And he said later:

... 3:1 In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, 2 in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.

Can you recognize historicity in that beginning?

I am just supporting the claim that you asked me to support, if it is a “so what” claim then why did you ask for support?

The fact that the authors got all these details about Jesus and his surroundings correct show that the authors where well informed, and where in a position to know stuff about Jesus. ..for example they would have known if he was buried or thrown in to a common grave.





You don’t see the point.

You are the one with the ridiculous standards , you are the one who claims that only documents written by witnesses are acceptable………………. So provide your documents written by witnesses that show that people where buried in graves after being crucified………….or admit that your standards are riducously too high

I agree that most crucified people where thrown in common graves ……… but using your ridicuouls standards there wouldn’t be evidence for that claim


how do you know that?



An example of a guy who was burried after being crusified by the romans

Examination of Yehohanan’s bones showed one of the many Roman crucifixion methods. Both of his feet had been nailed together to the cross with a wooden plaque while his legs were bent to one side. His arm bones revealed scratches where the nails had passed between. Both legs were badly fractured, most likely from a crushing blow meant to end his suffering and bring about a faster death. Yehohanan was probably a political dissident against Roman oppression. In death his bones have helped fill in gaps in the history of crucifixion.

A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods



Do you know who the president from Israel was 40 years ago? (Probably not) the average person doesn’t know that type of details, only people who lived in Israel or people with access to good sources would know who was the president of Israel 40 years ago

The same is true with the Gospels, the average person who lived in the years 80s or so would not know who was the governor of Judea in the 30s only a wtiness or someone with good sources would have known that. ………… this means that the authors of the gospels ether lived in that area in the 30s or they had access to good sources

But I have an open mind, if you don’t accept this as evidence that the authors were well informed, please tell me what criteria would you use and why the gospels fail




We´ve been over this before,

You are expected to support your claims, regardless if I support mine or not,




Well we have the testimony of well-informed people, who are telling us that Jesus was crucified for basifying against the Jewish God ………. What alternative hypothesis do you suggest? Why is that hypothesis better than mine?

Not to mention that Paul confirms that Jesus was buried…………..Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus, so obviously he had access to good reliable testimonies on what happened to Jesus after he died. (people usually know if their brothers where buried)………………..if Jesus would have been thrown to a common grave, James (-and Paul) would have known that

You might want to read Paul's epistles because Paul stated that the Jerusalem group, which included James, added nothing to his message. They agreed to disagree and Paul went on his way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do realize that that is just a myth created by modern critics of the Bible, right?

Let's compare this with the Holocaust. Some people today do not believe that those events happened in real life, even if we still have a few victims alive and we can listen what they have to say. There are museums that remind us what happened then; documented history and eyewitnesses.

What will happen in a few years about the reliability of these accounts of the Holocaust? Will that change the history?

It is the same with the historicity of the events we can learn about in the NT records. When was the moment when "scholars" stopped believing those testimonies?

PS: The International Students of the Bible (who became later Jehovah's Witnesses) were also victims of the Holocaust. We got our own eyeswitnesses of those events.

Hmm, well I don't think "modern critics" wrote the Bible I have, that flat out says the Gospels are anonymous.

 

[pearl]

I did notice looking online that there were some differences. Thx! I knew that Galatians was written first in the NT, so I copied the order from that site.

I thought it was Thessalonians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just supporting the claim that you asked me to support, if it is a “so what” claim then why did you ask for support?

The fact that the authors got all these details about Jesus and his surroundings correct show that the authors where well informed, and where in a position to know stuff about Jesus. ..for example they would have known if he was buried or thrown in to a common grave.





You don’t see the point.

You are the one with the ridiculous standards , you are the one who claims that only documents written by witnesses are acceptable………………. So provide your documents written by witnesses that show that people where buried in graves after being crucified………….or admit that your standards are riducously too high

I agree that most crucified people where thrown in common graves ……… but using your ridicuouls standards there wouldn’t be evidence for that claim


how do you know that?



An example of a guy who was burried after being crusified by the romans

Examination of Yehohanan’s bones showed one of the many Roman crucifixion methods. Both of his feet had been nailed together to the cross with a wooden plaque while his legs were bent to one side. His arm bones revealed scratches where the nails had passed between. Both legs were badly fractured, most likely from a crushing blow meant to end his suffering and bring about a faster death. Yehohanan was probably a political dissident against Roman oppression. In death his bones have helped fill in gaps in the history of crucifixion.

A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods



Do you know who the president from Israel was 40 years ago? (Probably not) the average person doesn’t know that type of details, only people who lived in Israel or people with access to good sources would know who was the president of Israel 40 years ago

The same is true with the Gospels, the average person who lived in the years 80s or so would not know who was the governor of Judea in the 30s only a wtiness or someone with good sources would have known that. ………… this means that the authors of the gospels ether lived in that area in the 30s or they had access to good sources

But I have an open mind, if you don’t accept this as evidence that the authors were well informed, please tell me what criteria would you use and why the gospels fail




We´ve been over this before,

You are expected to support your claims, regardless if I support mine or not,




Well we have the testimony of well-informed people, who are telling us that Jesus was crucified for basifying against the Jewish God ………. What alternative hypothesis do you suggest? Why is that hypothesis better than mine?

Not to mention that Paul confirms that Jesus was buried…………..Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus, so obviously he had access to good reliable testimonies on what happened to Jesus after he died. (people usually know if their brothers where buried)………………..if Jesus would have been thrown to a common grave, James (-and Paul) would have known that

Sorry leroy, you were inconsistent. Do you want to continue? Then don't ask others to do what you can't do. I was willing to grant you your rather weak claims because they did not really support your case. Some of them were questionable. You need to use the same standards that you applied to yourself that you apply to others. Do you want to take back all of your claims and start again, or are you going to accept my claims in the same way that I accepted yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, well I don't think "modern critics" wrote the Bible I have, that flat out says the Gospels are anonymous.

Whoa! Major edit on my part. The coffee had not kicked in yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought it was Thessalonians.

There is some debate about that. Most take Thessalonians as being the oldest, but some argue for Galatians. Neither one has a date on them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds to me like he's telling us his testimony is based on hearsay.

I know. It is amazing how so many Christians misinterpret what the phrase says rather openly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whoa! Major edit on my part. The coffee had not kicked in yet.

I've had four coffees.

 

[lukethethird]

I know. It is amazing how so many Christians misinterpret what the phrase says rather openly.

It's also amazing how many Christians conflate their scripture with history, they just can't seem to make the distinction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ABSOLUTELY! I was wrong when I thought I was wrong. (as the old overused saying goes)

But the problem was that your sources did not use critical thinking, nor were they scholars. Due to their very nature apologists cannot be scholars. I have also found that the whole lot are so incredibly dishonest that I reject them out of hand automatically. Your second source was just a believer. Not a scholar. He was like a very ardent game player that understood the rules of the game that he played very well. That does not mean that the game applies to the real world.

Biblical scholars do not study just the Bible. They also study the history of the time and how the Bible came to its present state. Some of the conclusions drawn by that tends to bother the weak in faith. The example that we were discussing was an example of that. Where Quirinius was and when can be traced. That people in the Roman Empire rose up until they retired or failed is rather well understood from my understanding also tells us that Quirinius would have not been governor a second time tells us that that argument fails. That people from other countries, Joseph did not live in Judea, he lived in Israel. The purpose of the census was so that people could be taxed. People are taxed based on where they live and make money. It makes no sense that he would be taxed through Israel when he lived in Judea. Do you not understand how that is counterproductive? The whole story falls apart top to bottom. It is why apologists have no respect from historians. They know that they are willing to distort and even lie to support their beliefs. That that part of the story was not true should not bother you as a Christian. When you cannot even admit to the smallest of flaws in the Bible. That is an act of, as I already stated, the weak in faith. The strong in faith will believe the message of Christianity regardless of the flaws of the source. They do not make their beliefs look ridiculous by trying to state that the things that the Bible got wrong are true, especially when those things tell us that God has to be evil and not good.

 

[leroy]

Sorry leroy, you were inconsistent. Do you want to continue? Then don't ask others to do what you can't do. I was willing to grant you your rather weak claims because they did not really support your case. Some of them were questionable. You need to use the same standards that you applied to yourself that you apply to others. Do you want to take back all of your claims and start again, or are you going to accept my claims in the same way that I accepted yours.

I accept the claim that usually crucified people where thrown to common graves. … is that the claim that you are talking about?

Or are you talking about other claims?

You also have to be specific, where according to you is my inconsistency?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept the claim that usually crucified people where thrown to common graves. … is that the claim that you are talking about?

Or are you talking about other claims?

You also have to be specific, where according to you is my inconsistency?

You should have used the back symbol that you can see in each post. You can still do it. You made a bunch of claims that you expected others to accept, and I was willing to do so. In the same vein I presented a list of well accepted facts and you should have accepted them by the same standards. You did not, you demanded that I support them. That violated the implied agreement that I gave to accepting your claims.

Do your homework for once. Go back and look at your post and then my response.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I thought it was Thessalonians.

Well, I guess there is some discrepancy. I see James listed, Galatians, as well as 1 Thessalonians. Oy.

 

[Sand Dancer]

But the problem was that your sources did not use critical thinking, nor were they scholars. Due to their very nature apologists cannot be scholars. I have also found that the whole lot are so incredibly dishonest that I reject them out of hand automatically. Your second source was just a believer. Not a scholar. He was like a very ardent game player that understood the rules of the game that he played very well. That does not mean that the game applies to the real world.

Biblical scholars do not study just the Bible. They also study the history of the time and how the Bible came to its present state. Some of the conclusions drawn by that tends to bother the weak in faith. The example that we were discussing was an example of that. Where Quirinius was and when can be traced. That people in the Roman Empire rose up until they retired or failed is rather well understood from my understanding also tells us that Quirinius would have not been governor a second time tells us that that argument fails. That people from other countries, Joseph did not live in Judea, he lived in Israel. The purpose of the census was so that people could be taxed. People are taxed based on where they live and make money. It makes no sense that he would be taxed through Israel when he lived in Judea. Do you not understand how that is counterproductive? The whole story falls apart top to bottom. It is why apologists have no respect from historians. They know that they are willing to distort and even lie to support their beliefs. That that part of the story was not true should not bother you as a Christian. When you cannot even admit to the smallest of flaws in the Bible. That is an act of, as I already stated, the weak in faith. The strong in faith will believe the message of Christianity regardless of the flaws of the source. They do not make their beliefs look ridiculous by trying to state that the things that the Bible got wrong are true, especially when those things tell us that God has to be evil and not good.

You mean they take it in context? Horrors!!!

 

[leroy]

You should have used the back symbol that you can see in each post. You can still do it. You made a bunch of claims that you expected others to accept, and I was willing to do so. In the same vein I presented a list of well accepted facts and you should have accepted them by the same standards. You did not, you demanded that I support them. That violated the implied agreement that I gave to accepting your claims.

Do your homework for once. Go back and look at your post and then my response.

Wow and magically and once again you found a waY to avoid supporting your claims

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow and magically and once again you found a waY to avoid supporting your claims

Wow! I offered to support my claims. You ran away not me. As a courtesy I accepted your post where you made a bunch of unsupported claims. My acceptance included similar claims that to be consistent you needed to accept. When you did not accept my claims then you put the burden of proof for your claims back on you. I offered to support mine once you supported yours. You ran away at that point.

You need to be consistent. Don't be a jerk and demand of others what you refuse to do yourself. This sort of behavior is why you are in corrections only mode.

 

[pearl]

Well, I guess there is some discrepancy. I see James listed, Galatians, as well as 1 Thessalonians. Oy.

Its understandable as scholars continue the study into the NT writings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The existence of Jesus is an establish fact

I don't agree, but I can stipulate to the idea that somebody resembling the description of Jesus less the miracles lived in that time and place. As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me if that is true or not if Jesus was just another man.

To me the fact that we have multiple independent sources confirming the crucifixion is enough to establish it as an “almost certain historical fact”

Same answer. It doesn't matter to an unbeliever.

If your standards are higher than that, then all I can say is that you should be agnostic about everything in ancient history

I am. That doesn't mean that I don't consider some claims more likely than others. I don't know who actually wrote Shakespeare, but it also doesn't matter. It might be interesting to know, but what if Shakespeare is the work of two women? OK. Same plays, no better, no worse. That's the important difference between words said to come from a deceased human being and those said to come from a god, where the words might matter here and now in an important way and should not be lightly tossed aside. Other words can be violently flung across the room without much cost if it suits one.

Yes Pilate was making a favor to the Jewish liders...... he didn't had anything personal against Jesus

I doubt that Pilate was doing favors for the Jews. Jesus was accused of calling himself the king of the Jews. The Jews saw that as blasphemy against their god, whereas the Romans considered it treason against their emperor. The Romans didn't care if the Jews thought Jesus was a blasphemer. Had his blasphemy been something irrelevant to the Romans, such as saying that Jehovah didn't exist, why would the Romans even take interest? It was no doubt the treason that got the Romans' attention, not the Jews' complaint.

But this brings to mind something interesting. Was Jesus the only defendant convicted of two different capital crimes by two different courts?

 

[Eli G]

Just to rectify one thing: there is another apostles in the a): Matthew.

That is exactly the point that I brought on this topic: it is discrimination.

The NT is a collection of documents of diferent inspired men, all of them Jews ... Even the leaders of the Christian-Roman religion that arose in the third century could not add any additional writings to those already accepted in the first century to this already virtually existing and complete collection. What they did was gather those that were already circulating as inspired and put together the book. But they were documents that had been created independently.

Although modern Bible critics now want to discredit those well-known writers as well (they never stop their attacks), they are:

a) two apostles: John and Peter
b) two half-brothers of Jesus: Jude and James
c) two disciples: Luke and Mark
d) Paul

... 7 men, all by their own side ... no matter if these modern critics want to say they were kind of connected on the source of their information just to disqualify the personal testimony and made it a collective illusion. ... And of course they were connected: they knew each other; they heard about the other's writings, and they may have read them. BUT each of them wrote their own inspired book/s independently. Only Paul didn't meet the human Jesus in person, but the rest did or were close to someone who did.

To try to disqualify the NT as a book is to try to disqualify as reliable 7 independent contemporary writers, not one. They were medic, fishermen, tax collectors, etc ... diferent backgrounds. Is it realistic to try to disqualify 7 people just because they were part of the same community?

So they were:

a) three apostles:Matthew, John and Peter
b) two half-brothers of Jesus: Jude and James
c) two disciples: Luke and Mark
d) Paul

8 Jews, all of them related to Jesus or to someone who met Jesus directly.

This is my last post on this forum. I have not been treated with respect, and yet the very ones who have disrespected me are continually demanding what they do not provide. However, while no one calls those others out (usually atheists or impostors pretending to be believers), the forum moderation has been constantly calling me out... same discrimination as they do to the NT, so nothing new . I already ask for my account to be deleted from this website. Hopefully they will respect my wish.

My time is priceless and if they don't value it, I do. See you somewhere else. The network is huge.

 

[lukethethird]

Just to rectify one thing: there is another apostles in the a): Matthew. So they were:

a) three apostles:Matthew, John and Peter
b) two half-brothers of Jesus: Jude and James
c) two disciples: Luke and Mark
d) Paul

8 Jews, all of them related to Jesus or to someone who met Jesus directly.

This is my last post on this forum. I have not been treated with respect, and yet the very ones who have disrespected me are continually demanding what they do not provide. However, while no one calls those others out (usually atheists or impostors pretending to be believers), the forum moderation has been constantly calling me out... same discrimination as they do to the NT, so nothing new . I already ask for my account to be deleted from this website. Hopefully they will respect my wish.

My time is priceless and if they don't value it, I do. See you somewhere else. The network is huge.

We have read the NT's collection of fables. They are no matter to the non believer and if they matter to the believer, that's fine too. Trying to convince the non believer of your belief is a long shot anyways.