The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

As a person, Sub, I honor and appreciate you. I think we can move on here as we both understand where we stand and on what basis.

No need to waste your time on this thread until we meet again on another thread.

Do hope you have a great rest of your day and that you continue to have a fulfilling life.

I will continue to correct your rather blatant errors. I know, it sucks when one has no valid response to arguments. Why your sources were no good was thoroughly explained to you. Why your arguments fail have been thoroughly explained to you. All that you have in response lately is pretending no such arguments were made and strawman arguments.

You may not like being corrected by an atheist, but you need to remember that many atheists became so due to a superior understanding of the Bible.

 

[lukethethird]

And what evidence do you have that he wasn't? or that he was thee when bodies were raised to life and then heard "The curtain has been from top to bottom"?

Don't just say something... give me some hard evidence!

And don't be such a literalist.

Your beliefs are faith beliefs, they don't require any kind of evidence at all, so why ask me for evidence? What would you do with it?

 

[Kenny]

Your beliefs are faith beliefs, they don't require any kind of evidence at all, so why ask me for evidence? What would you do with it?

Do have a great day.

I don't want to go around in circular thinking/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do have a great day.

I don't want to go around in circular thinking/

Too late.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, history of Rome is interesting but I am not well educated on the subject other than my own self re-education.

Me either, and this is encouraging me to look up more about this. We really don't learn much in the mass media about these things although it is integral to western history. But then there's always Genghis Khan. (OK, just kidding.)
But as I keep reading explanations of what happened, it becomes complex and I think I am not up to understanding all the details about the Roman connection right now particularly in terms of who's who in reference to the census. What I DO know is that Luke writes of a FIRST registration. And accordingly Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria to which the province of Judaea had been added along with the purpose of a census.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why use a black and white fallacy? Yes, there probably was a real man named Jesus that had followers and died on the cross. But that is where his story ends. And you are confused about what happened to early Christians. Yes, some were abused and put to death in terrible ways. But there is no evidence that they were given a chance to recant. The Romans were not that way. If they were going to kill someone they killed someone. And we really do not know what happened to most of the disciples. Two or maybe even three were executed. Peter, Paul, and possibly James.

I believe even here on the forum some do say there was not a 'real man named Jesus' who had followers, even though they may go to church. They have a form of worship but not according to the scriptures. Kind of like those who keep putting the Bible down.
But I might mention that the idea of a cross that he was nailed to may not be accurate but I'll leave that for another time perhaps.
Then there's always the reminder of the Christians (the early ones) that were treated like this: According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.

 

[YoursTrue]

He does not appear to be able to.

Sadly he does not even seem to understand how he could possibly use his bogus sites to help him. Those sites because of their obvious bias are not trustworthy. But he could use them for a source of ideas and see if those ideas are supported by history based sites. The problem with that, at least it was shown in an earlier discussion when I did his homework for him, was that the history based sources showed that his sites distorted what historians were saying. I am refusing to do that for him again.

The problem is, when you make an assertion, you should back it up with accurate and possibly unbiased opinions. As I was reading about some of the great libraries in the distant past, sooo much of what was written is gone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe even here on the forum some do say there was not a 'real man named Jesus' who had followers, even though they may go to church. They have a form of worship but not according to the scriptures. Kind of like those who keep putting the Bible down.
But I might mention that the idea of a cross that he was nailed to may not be accurate but I'll leave that for another time perhaps.
Then there's always the reminder of the Christians (the early ones) that were treated like this: According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.

Correction Nero did that to some Christians. At no time were all of the Christians killed. There was heavy prejudice against them. But not every Christian was living in fear. It would have been mainly the leaders that were attacked in such a way to keep the others in line. You might want to read this. It debunks some of the myths about early Christian persecution. It was a real thing, but don't believe the movies:

Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is, when you make an assertion, you should back it up with accurate and possibly unbiased opinions. As I was reading about some of the great libraries in the distant past, sooo much of what was written is gone.

I found sources. Biblical scholars go back to the oldest documents. Writings that are still in Greek, for the New Testament, and Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament. For history they go the the writings of well known historians. Do you know who Josephus is? He is the historian that Christians refer to the most often when it comes to supporting the New Testament. He is also one of the historians that gave us the date of the Census of Quirinius. The Bible authors did make mistakes at times. Some Christians hate that fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correction Nero did that to some Christians. At no time were all of the Christians killed. There was heavy prejudice against them. But not every Christian was living in fear. It would have been mainly the leaders that were attacked in such a way to keep the others in line. You might want to read this. It debunks some of the myths about early Christian persecution. It was a real thing, but don't believe the movies:

Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions

Never said ALL the Christians were killed. Who said every Christian was living in fear? But I'll tell you what -- if I knew a group was against me for whatever they may have against me you can count on the fact that I'd watch out.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correction Nero did that to some Christians. At no time were all of the Christians killed. There was heavy prejudice against them. But not every Christian was living in fear. It would have been mainly the leaders that were attacked in such a way to keep the others in line. You might want to read this. It debunks some of the myths about early Christian persecution. It was a real thing, but don't believe the movies:

Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions

Isn't that cute? We quoted from the same source --
"According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs."
Tacitus evidently did not like Christianity too much I guess. Do you guess that, too?
"Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson."
Committing the crime of arson? What crime of arson did the Christians commit? They may have been CHARGED with the crime of arson, but let's go back to proof, shall we? Is suggestion or accusation enough? Rubbish, my friend.

 

[YoursTrue]

I found sources. Biblical scholars go back to the oldest documents. Writings that are still in Greek, for the New Testament, and Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament. For history they go the the writings of well known historians. Do you know who Josephus is? He is the historian that Christians refer to the most often when it comes to supporting the New Testament. He is also one of the historians that gave us the date of the Census of Quirinius. The Bible authors did make mistakes at times. Some Christians hate that fact.

I've certainly heard of Josephus. Oh? The date of the census of Quirinius? There were evidently TWO censuses. The FIRST one was when Joseph and Mary were called back to Bethlehem by the Roman governor. Saying there was a first one indicates more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't that cute? We quoted from the same source --
"According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs."
Tacitus evidently did not like Christianity too much I guess. Do you guess that, too?
"Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson."
Committing the crime of arson? What crime of arson did the Christians commit? They may have been CHARGED with the crime of arson, but let's go back to proof, shall we? Is suggestion or accusation enough? Rubbish, my friend.

I forgot the date, but there was a fire in part of Rome under Nero's rule. It was in a part of Rome that Nero was not fond of and people started to accuse him of burning it down. He decided that the Christians would make a good fall guy so he blamed Christians and started to go after some of them. Personally I know nothing about who did it. I have no reason to suspect anyone . But it seems that scholars have doubts about Nero's claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've certainly heard of Josephus. Oh? The date of the census of Quirinius? There were evidently TWO censuses. The FIRST one was when Joseph and Mary were called back to Bethlehem by the Roman governor. Saying there was a first one indicates more.

No. the only ones that claim that are Christian apologists.

Please note, there would not have been a census at that time. King Herod ran a client kingdom. He was an ally of Rome. He would not have been taxed. His job was to be a buffer between Rome and potential attackers. No actual historians seem to support that claim.

Didn't I tell you to go to legitimate sources?

 

[YoursTrue]

I found sources. Biblical scholars go back to the oldest documents.

Documents are continually turned up. That includes information or findings about things like evolution also, which causes scientists to change their conclusions sometimes and rewrite the details.

Writings that are still in Greek, for the New Testament, and Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament. For history they go the the writings of well known historians. Do you know who Josephus is? He is the historian that Christians refer to the most often when it comes to supporting the New Testament. He is also one of the historians that gave us the date of the Census of Quirinius. The Bible authors did make mistakes at times. Some Christians hate that fact.

Findings have been discovered showing that Quirinius had TWO registrations...not just one in 6 CE but one before that. That second registration was mentioned by Luke in the book of Acts (5:37) and by Josephus. But the information I read in Encyclopedia Britannica is very vewy intewesting. Maybe you should think about it and put it in context if possible: "The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the “so-called Christ.” The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ’s divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist." Ohhh so the scholars writing for the Encyclopedia Britannica say the statement just isn't really maybe from Josephus, but == that's what is in print now evidently. So some of the things Josephus wrote about appears to be accurate (true) and others do not, according to 'scholars.'

 

[YoursTrue]

No. the only ones that claim that are Christian apologists.

Please note, there would not have been a census at that time. King Herod ran a client kingdom. He was an ally of Rome. He would not have been taxed. His job was to be a buffer between Rome and potential attackers. No actual historians seem to support that claim.

Didn't I tell you to go to legitimate sources?

Let's go back again for a moment to the term used that Quirinius had a FIRST registration, but I guess you don't want to think about that. It's kind of like a trial with a jury -- some think it means one thing, and another thinks it means something else. Some think that maybe first means only and in 6 CE I guess. Well at this point I'm going to bid you a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Documents are continually turned up. That includes information or findings about things like evolution also, which causes scientists to change their conclusions sometimes and rewrite the details.


Findings have been discovered showing that Quirinius had TWO registrations...not just one in 6 CE but one before that. That second registration was mentioned by Luke in the book of Acts (5:37) and by Josephus. But the information I read in Encyclopedia Britannica is very vewy intewesting. Maybe you should think about it and put it in context if possible: "The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the “so-called Christ.” The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ’s divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist." Ohhh so the scholars writing for the Encyclopedia Britannica say the statement just isn't really maybe from Josephus, but == that's what is in print now evidently. So some of the things Josephus wrote about appears to be accurate (true) and others do not, according to 'scholars.'

Sorry, but I have been debating this recently and no such new documents have been found that anyone could post here.

Why didn't you post a link?

In internet debates the saying is "Links or it didn't happen."

Make sure that you do not rely on Liars For Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go back again for a moment to the term used that Quirinius had a FIRST registration, but I guess you don't want to think about that. It's kind of like a trial with a jury -- some think it means one thing, and another thinks it means something else. Some think that maybe first means only and in 6 CE I guess. Well at this point I'm going to bid you a good night.

No, Quirinius had ONE census.

Post a link. Make sure it is a valid source.

 

[YoursTrue]

I found sources. Biblical scholars go back to the oldest documents. Writings that are still in Greek, for the New Testament, and Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament. For history they go the the writings of well known historians. Do you know who Josephus is? He is the historian that Christians refer to the most often when it comes to supporting the New Testament. He is also one of the historians that gave us the date of the Census of Quirinius. The Bible authors did make mistakes at times. Some Christians hate that fact.

I generally do not use a Catholic source as a resource, but this part is very interesting once again: Quoting Luke 2:2 about the census, enrollment, or first registration:
"Luke 2:2 says, “This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” But according to the Jewish historian Josephus, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until the year A.D.6, long after the events of the nativity were supposed to have taken place."
So, from catholic.com, it acknowledges that Josephus places the year Quirinius became governor of Syria until 6 C.E.. But then it says, "the Greek word translated as “governor” in this passage (or hegemon) can mean simply “leader.” It could refer to the position of a general that oversaw a province, which was called a legate in Latin. Or it could refer to a lower administrative position like a procurator or a prefect." In other words, it doesn't have to be that the "first" registration Luke spoke about took place in 6 CE.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but I have been debating this recently and no such new documents have been found that anyone could post here.

Why didn't you post a link?

In internet debates the saying is "Links or it didn't happen."

Make sure that you do not rely on Liars For Jesus.

Please do look at the reasoning here...which I just posted some of it to say why Luke did not mean the registration of Quirinius took place in 6 CE.