The testimony of the NT writers

[Left Coast]

you ought to read history. If you don't, you will continue to make the same error that others in the past have made.

Reading history is why I'm not a Christian anymore, my friend. I think we're done unless you have something of substance to contribute to why we should believe what the New Testament says. Particularly its unique claims.

 

[rational experiences]

A theist a human isn't God.

The theists use their own conscious stories then tell themes as if they were the God creating.

Lied. Stories.

They first I claimed CH arose heavens by my man's thinking review of it for themselves only. A theist..

Man's thinking didn't own it. Body man biology isn't there and isn't the inheritor.

Space womb was with God earth. Laws why CH arose.

Voided vacuum law.

He knowingly burnt it out above himself by using it in his equations temple pyramid machine reactions.

So he goes back over the laws he first discussed himself saying Christ was put there instantly. Isnt there now however. Body mass...body mass sacrificed told.

I'm wrong myself says thinker.

Isn't the past explained reasons why any human said they needed Christ to be present to be a heavens and support biology living.

As theists in legal review were proven evil thinkers. As no man is God a legality in fact. Versus humans bad behaviours as theists.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read what actual, non-apologist historians have to say about these quotes you're pulling?

Firstly, you should know that there is a legitimate scholarly debate as to whether the section, "Christus....Pontius Pilate" is a later Christian interpolation into the text.

Secondly, if authentic, we don't know where Tacitus got this information. From Pliny? From what Christians told him? He doesn't say.

Thirdly, even if we just assume that he's right...it doesn't corroborate any miraculous claims of the New Testament. It corroborates at best that some guy named Christus was executed and his followers were later also persecuted. Okay. That doesn't make the New Testament writ large believable or reliable. Not even close.

It makes it clear that Jesus was worshiped as God. Not just another rabbi.

 

[Kenny]

Which contemporaries? What did they know?

I'll leave your insults to the side.

Paul, Polycarp, Ignacius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Peter... there are others, but I thought you already knew that. My mistake.

 

[Kenny]

Reading history is why I'm not a Christian anymore, my friend. I think we're done unless you have something of substance to contribute to why we should believe what the New Testament says. Particularly its unique claims.

Like I said, intelligent people read the same material and come to different conclusion. It is the nature of free-will spirit beings.

I was waiting for substance from you.

 

[Left Coast]

It makes it clear that Jesus was worshiped as God. Not just another rabbi.

Okay. So some group of people worshipped a guy like a god. Alright. People have worshipped lots of other people like gods through history. What does that have to do with whether we should regard the New Testament as a reliable source of information?

 

[Kenny]

Okay. So some group of people worshipped a guy like a god. Alright. People have worshipped lots of other people like gods through history. What does that have to do with whether we should regard the New Testament as a reliable source of information?

I think that is the point. No one says you have to receive it as "reliable". Likewise, there is no reliable source of information that says we shouldn't either.

For those who receive it, we receive on the basis of its historical reliability, its fulfilling of applicable TaNaKh prophecies, the fact that all they had to do was produce a dead body and the immediate sudden surge of those who lived in his time that did believe what they knew or saw among other things.

 

[Left Coast]

Paul, Polycarp, Ignacius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Peter... there are others, but I thought you already knew that. My mistake.

Paul is part of the New Testament, so that's a bit of a circular argument. And he admits his information about Jesus came from private revelations, not from ever seeing Jesus do a thing on Earth. Peter we don't have any writings for.

But I thought you already knew that.

Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement - what is it you think these figures demonstrate? It would be helpful to actually review passages of their (alleged) works, how they claim to know what they claim, etc. If it's just bald assertions with no substantiation (because they are Christians and thus just accept Christian claims as truth), it's not terribly helpful.

I'm signing off for the evening but we can continue at another time.

 

[Left Coast]

I think that is the point. No one says you have to receive it as "reliable".

Fundamentalist Christians certainly do. Without it, your religion collapses on its face.

Likewise, there is no reliable source of information that says we shouldn't either.

Of course there is. Your own daily lived experience should inform you what events are plausible or implausible. Do you walk on water often?

 

[Kenny]

Paul is part of the New Testament, so that's a bit of a circular argument. And he admits his information about Jesus came from private revelations, not from ever seeing Jesus do a thing on Earth. Peter we don't have any writings for.

But I thought you already knew that.

Nice.

But that is why he is a contemporary. And then, after he got private revelations from Jesus, he check to see if he just had a bad pizza night with those who did know and found out it was real, true and perfect revelation.

gnatius, Polycarp, Clement - what is it you think these figures demonstrate? It would be helpful to actually review passages of their (alleged) works, how they claim to know what they claim, etc. If it's just bald assertions with no substantiation (because they are Christians and thus just accept Christian claims as truth), it's not terribly helpful.

Wow, that was quite a jump. Would you also like it pre-recorded on a DVD?

But the fact they quote scripture and speak of Jesus validating what was written.

So, we see that you just don't want to believe without substantive evidence other than modern conspiracy theories.

 

[Kenny]

Fundamentalist Christians certainly do. Without it, your religion collapses on its face.



Of course there is. Your own daily lived experience should inform you what events are plausible or implausible. Do you walk on water often?

Does any of this really have a need to be answered? Should I even consider foolish questions or statements?

Running out of overused statements and irrelevant positions?

 

[Viker]

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

1) These testimonies were not compiled and documented until generations after the alleged events.

2) There is no time specific corroboration from the time of the events. This would be letters from figures mentioned or notable witnesses documenting at that time among many other forms of corroboration.

3) There are conflicts, inconsistencies in and missing components tying together the testimonies into a coherent narrative.

 

[danieldemol]

I see it at just two critical thinkers looking at the same evidence but arriving at different conclusions. One isn't better than the other.

I believe the two critical thinkers aren't seeing the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions, they are both leaving fundamentalist Christianity if they are completely applying critical thought processes to their religious beliefs.
In my opinion.

 

[Heyo]

The Iliad by Homer... at least "supposedly".

Who accepts the Iliad as history?

 

[Heyo]

Like I said, intelligent people read the same material and come to different conclusion. It is the nature of free-will spirit beings.

I was waiting for substance from you.

If there is truth in any of the claims of any side and there is a consensus about the premises, there should be a path to verify it and good faith interlocutors should be able to reach a conclusion.
I see at least three obstacles here.

1. A general disagreement whether the universe is orderly or magical.
2. A dedication that prevents critical thinking, at least on one side.
3. The (seemingly) inability to drop points that are currently not solvable.

Let's start with the last. Are you willing to drop those points that are disputed even within the community of dedicated magical thinkers?

 

[ChristineM]

The Iliad by Homer... at least "supposedly".

Which is accepted as a greek fantasy

 

[leroy]

Not quite true. There are many academic scholars who do not accept the nt as anything more than a religious book.

Maybe, but no scholar rejects the NT by default , just because it was written by Christians......... they would treat the NT in the same way they would treat any other document

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe, but no scholar rejects the NT by default , just because it was written by Christians......... they would treat the NT in the same way they would treat any other document

I think we know different scholars. I know if several who consider the NT to be to far fetched and in opposition to the way life was at that time.

The only ones i know of who unquestioningly accept the NT as gospel (pardon the pun) are Christian who for the most part ignore history

 

[Kenny]

I believe the two critical thinkers aren't seeing the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions, they are both leaving fundamentalist Christianity if they are completely applying critical thought processes to their religious beliefs.
In my opinion.

if that makes you happy I just don't agree.

 

[Kenny]

Who accepts the Iliad as history?

who accepts that Homer wrote it?