Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Convince Me!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by daddyugi
    Hello chair,

    iv) "Is the New Testament report of what Jesus did and said accurate?" I'll return later to give more examples of the historical
    accuracy of the New Testament.

    God bless you.
    The fact that a document mentions some real historical facts does not mean that everything iin the document is historical.

    Today we call it historical fiction.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by chair
      The fact that a document mentions some real historical facts does not mean that everything iin the document is historical.

      Today we call it historical fiction.
      When it is written down by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and passed around as truth, and the result is such as we see happened in this case ... it's hard to call it fiction as you seem to want to.

      Comment


      • Boycott this thread, stake a stance against attention-seeking trolls.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Middlemoor
          Boycott this thread, stake a stance against attention-seeking trolls.
          And your posting here a pointless post, and bumping the thread accomplishes this how? If you want to avoid the thread, by all means avoid it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Berean Todd
            When it is written down by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and passed around as truth, and the result is such as we see happened in this case ... it's hard to call it fiction as you seem to want to.
            You only have the evidence of the book itself that there were eyewitnesses to the events.

            Comment


            • It is not our job to convince chair. It is our job to present the truth as we see it. It is everyone’s job to sort the wheat from the chaff.
              a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

              Comment


              • Originally posted by chair
                You only have the evidence of the book itself that there were eyewitnesses to the events.
                Flavius Josephus:

                "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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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."


                Comment


                • Originally posted by pastorkevin
                  Flavius Josephus:

                  "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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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."
                  The passage you just listed, normally called the Testimonium Flavium, is widely acknowledged by scholars, both secular and apologetic, as a later Christian interpolation. Besides being completely out of context, the passage is entirely absent from the work which comes to us from Bishop Origen, the earliest copy of the work we have available. Finally, it would have been blasphemous for Josephus to even acknowledge that Jesus was called Christ, because Josephus was a devout messianic Jew who never converted to Christianity.

                  You've never heard these criticisms of the passage before, Kevin?
                  "The great use of life is to spend it for something that will outlast it." - William James

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eisenreich
                    The passage you just listed, normally called the Testimonium Flavium, is widely acknowledged by scholars, both secular and apologetic, as a later Christian interpolation. Besides being completely out of context, the passage is entirely absent from the work which comes to us from Bishop Origen, the earliest copy of the work we have available. Finally, it would have been blasphemous for Josephus to even acknowledge that Jesus was called Christ, because Josephus was a devout messianic Jew who never converted to Christianity.

                    You've never heard these criticisms of the passage before, Kevin?


                    People are still relying on Josephus?

                    Good job Eisenreich, although you'll have to forgive me for not slapping your back too hard due to the obviousness of the Josephus rebuttal.

                    Also, Josephus was under Flavian patronage and was considered a Roman citizen. He was the "king's man" so to speak. It would have been signing his own death warrant to have written this.
                    The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Berean Todd
                      When it is written down by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and passed around as truth, and the result is such as we see happened in this case ... it's hard to call it fiction as you seem to want to.
                      Eyewitnesses? Ever hear of Markan Priority? It's been established and accepted by most NT scholars that none of the authors of any of the four gospels were eyewitnesses to any of the events they recorded. Matthew and Luke relied upon Mark for up to 85% of their gospels. Eyewitnesses wouldn't have had to do that. No where in any tradition is Mark attributed with the role of an eyewitness. There's a quote by an early church father (Iranaeus I think) that Peter gave dictation to Mark, but the name of the gospel is wrong I think, and there's no way to know if it was the same Mark. The non-synoptic Gospel According to John is so far removed chronologically (date of composition) from the other three that it would be impossible to establish his status as an eyewitness, that and his account is so incongruous with the first three it would be ludicrous to believe that the first three corroborate his. That's unreliability in the testimony.

                      Besides, the authors of the gospels, at least Matthew and Luke, are only spoken of as being eyewitnesses in the stories themselves. That's a truck load of circular reasoning. Shame on you for trying to pass off evidence as evidence of the same evidence's reliability

                      Plus, their having not been eyewitnesses, as well as their intent having been to write an allegorical account of a fictional god man, would explain textual anomalies and contradictions such as the incongruous genealogies given by Matthew and Luke. The facts simply make more sense when you take these as fictional accounts.
                      The most important thing anyone can learn from 1st century greco-roman mystery cults is that complex religious systems can arise and develop without an historical founder.

                      Comment


                      • Hello chair,

                        I knew when I started your challenge that you had your mind made up and that's ok. I've
                        enjoyed all the studying that I've done and thank you for pushing me to better understand
                        my beliefs and the Old Testament. I've been studying the Old Testament for years but a
                        lot of times we, Christians, tend to neglect what it says. I do want to ask you to think
                        about the Messianic prophesies that I quoted. Reading Scripture, we see the two ways
                        that Messiah is to come to Isreal. Once on a donkey (Zechariah 9:1-10) and once in the
                        clouds (Daniel 7:13-14). Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how he can come in the
                        clouds? How did he get there in the first place? What about Daniel 9:24-27? Why does
                        Messiah have to die? With that in question in mind, please reread Isaiah 53. You don't
                        have to comment because I know that I'm not going to change your mind. I'd like you to
                        ask yourself three questions. 1) Do I believe what Scripture says? 2) Do I really want to
                        know more about Messiah? 3) Am I ready for follow what God shows me? If you are
                        willing to say yes to these three things, then this dialogue has been useful to both of us.
                        Take care, Joel. Pop in and say hi occasionally. I pray that God will bless you and keep
                        you in all you do. I pray for the peace and safety of Israel and for you as well.

                        God bless you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eisenreich
                          The passage you just listed, normally called the Testimonium Flavium, is widely acknowledged by scholars, both secular and apologetic, as a later Christian interpolation. Besides being completely out of context, the passage is entirely absent from the work which comes to us from Bishop Origen, the earliest copy of the work we have available. Finally, it would have been blasphemous for Josephus to even acknowledge that Jesus was called Christ, because Josephus was a devout messianic Jew who never converted to Christianity.

                          You've never heard these criticisms of the passage before, Kevin?
                          I have indeed. But there is also a much older Arabian version of the The Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) that dates back to about the 9th century. And this is how the TF was rendered then:

                          "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today."

                          Actually the works of Origen also contained the following:

                          "Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." (On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15) [om]

                          "For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine" (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:47) [oa]

                          Origen is not the greatest source of info in most cases, because he didn't quote Josephus directly.

                          There is really no way to know for sure if the TF was or wasn't in the works of Josephus to be honest. Many believe that it is not mentioned until by Eusebius, in 324, and that at that time there was a forgery added to Josephus. Because no early versions of Josephus' work is available, all one can do in fact is speculate. There are many who would place the TF in Josephus' work, but many who do not. Let me make it clear that I would not argue the preservation of or inerrancy of Josephus. It is far inferior to the Bible in terms of it's reliability. But you are begging for extrabiblical evidence BECAUSE the Bible itself is preserved far beyond that of the works of Josephus. So I understand completely why you would rather not use the Bible's references to witnesses.



                          God bless


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by chair
                            Take the Chair challenge! Convince me that Christianity is true.
                            If you are earnestly seekingthe truth of Jesus, pray and immerse yourself in the Christian teachings, beg forgiveness and seek him honestly with absolute faith.]

                            If you are merely trying to debate, then I am afraid that the answers will escape you and you will be doomed.

                            Comment


                            • In fact the skeptics are correct in that it is very easy to destroy anything claimed out of Josephus or most other ancient writings as unreliable. That is because they all pale in comparison to the reliability of the Scriptures. That is why they always insist on trying to prove a point apart from the Scriptures!


                              Comment


                              • Allsmiles,

                                I asked once before in a different thread where the "fact" that Matthew and Luke
                                copied from Mark. Your quote that "It's been established and accepted by most NT
                                scholars that none of the authors of any of the four gospels were eyewitnesses to any of
                                the events they recorded" is about as big a crock as I seen. Matthew was one of the
                                twelve disciples(Matthew 10.1-4), as was John, the beloved. Both of these were
                                eyewitnesses. Who are these "most of the NT scholars" that you are talking about? All
                                of the NT scholars that I have met have said that both of these men were eyewitnesses.
                                Mark, whom you say Luke and Matthew copied off of (as if they were school children
                                taking a test), was John Mark. Mark is called by some as Peter's Gospel since Peter is
                                accredited to leading John Mark to the Lord. So we have a Gospel dictated by an
                                eyewitness. Next we come to Luke, physician and historian. If ever there is a person to
                                trust on getting the facts right, Luke is your man. He thoroughly investigated the claims
                                of the eyewitnesses. Again, a Gospel dictated by eyewitnesses. Then we have John.
                                John the beloved, the best friend of Christ, one of the first three disciples, an eyewitness.
                                Off subject just a little. Let's say that there was an incident at the center of North St. and
                                West St. and there were four witnesses to this incident, one on each corner. What would
                                each report say? Do all witnesses see the same thing? No, they all see the same
                                incident from different angles, different view. The same can be said for the Gospels. Each
                                writer see Christ from a different view. Matthew shows Christ as the Kingly Messiah.
                                Mark shows Christ as the tireless Servant of God and man. Luke shows Christ as the
                                Son of Man. John shows Christ as the Son of God. As to the "incongruous genealogies
                                given by Matthew and Luke", I suggest you start reading a little more. Matthew gives the
                                genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Heli was Mary's father.
                                Remember that Matthew was showing the Christ as the Kingly Messiah, thus he traces
                                Joseph's linage back to Abraham while John shows Christ as the Son of God and so he
                                traces Mary's linage back to Adam concluding with "Adam, the son of God". The fact that
                                these are two different genealogies is well know to those of us who study Scriptures, so
                                I suggest that you start studying Scripture more if you want to have your facts right when
                                you talk about them, not to mention not getting your information off of websites who are
                                trying to prove there point. I've been studying the Talmud, the Jewish Rabbinical
                                teachings, and I'm a Christian because I want to be able to converse with chair and to
                                make sure I know what I'm talking about. A scholar does such things. Study Scripture
                                and Christianity of you want to really discuss or debate properly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X