Is the New Testament Accurate and Reliable? Archaeology?

but this would probly not be good enough for you since you wouldnt even want to make the trip on the off chance you could be proven wrong

Absolutely wrong my friend. You should know me better. I don't need to make a trip to Jerusalem to confirm my faith.

Originally posted by edsingerI guess you have not read through the whole thread, here is one for you.


One of the most important Romans historians is Tacitus. In 115 A.D. he recorded Nero's persecution of the Christians, in the process of which he wrote the following:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, . . . but even in Rome.[3]

Am I to conclude singer that you prefer to deal in deception? I presented you with Tacitus' take on Christianity on this thread: 1628939, which you have not responded to, but yet you carry on as though Tacitus' statement does in fact confirm that Jesus was/is God.

Your interest in religious discourse does not seem to me to be based on a discussion of fact, but rather that which you can push in accordance with you believe. Why else, singer, would you ignore the fact that Tacitus called your belief in "a Christus" a "superstition" and continue on to represent that as though calling a belief a superstition is in fact endorsing said superstition?

Not only am I aware that you would reduce yourself to such deceitful practice, I am also well aware that you do not understand the words in your scriptures which show that not only did Paul not know Jesus, the accounts of his purported vision of meeting him, cancel each other out.

Your interest in religious discourse does not seem to me to be based on a discussion of fact, but rather that which you can push in accordance with you believe. Why else, singer, would you ignore the fact that Tacitus called your belief in "a Christus" a "superstition" and continue on to represent that as though calling a belief a superstition is in fact endorsing said superstition?

Just as importantly, why depend on the writings of a historian nearly 100 years after the supposed facts? The fidelity of such writings is not significantly higher than if they were penned by a modern historian. You might as well reference James Dobson's writings as proof of a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Am I to conclude singer that you prefer to deal in deception? I presented you with Tacitus' take on Christianity on this thread: 1628939, which you have not responded to, but yet you carry on as though Tacitus' statement does in fact confirm that Jesus was/is God.

Nice try but no dice, I do not even attempt to say that Tacitus's statement is proof that Jesus is God, if you would have read, someone stated that there was no evidence that Christ even existed outside the Gospels.

It would seem odd that a historian would have refered to a myth if

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,

Seems he is refering to an event not a myth.

and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, . . . but even in Rome.

Seems this was something that he did not like but yet acknowledged.

Originally posted by spamandham
Your interest in religious discourse does not seem to me to be based on a discussion of fact, but rather that which you can push in accordance with you believe.

Erm, this comment could equally well be made of you, if one were sufficiently rude. The difference, I think, is that people who share your opinions can't discuss the position they push -- conformity to societal values -- but instead just carp about those of others. Is this a reasonable way to behave? If not, do you want to be associated with the unreasonable?

Just as importantly, why depend on the writings of a historian nearly 100 years after the supposed facts? The fidelity of such writings is not significantly higher than if they were penned by a modern historian.

Few modern historians would agree with you. But this is a discussion you need to have with a professional. He will tell you, if you ask him politely, that Tacitus is the main source for the person and policies of Tiberius. He will also tell you that the main sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio.

I know that some then choose to profess that 'history must be bunk, then'; but with such obscurantists, I think we need not spend time.

You might as well reference James Dobson's writings as proof of a historical Jesus.

Are you sure you want to make so absurd a statement?

Don't carp. It merely makes the person doing it look petty.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by spamandham
Your interest in religious discourse does not seem to me to be based on a discussion of fact, but rather that which you can push in accordance with you believe.

Erm, this comment could equally well be made of you, if one were sufficiently rude.

The first half of my previous post was a cut and paste quote error from SomewherInBetweens post right before mine. For some reason, I can't edit it to remove that section. Sorry for the confusion. By the way his post was rather rude, thanks for noticing.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
But this is a discussion you need to have with a professional. He will tell you, if you ask him politely, that Tacitus is the main source for the person and policies of Tiberius. He will also tell you that the main sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio.

What does that have to do with the degree of knowledge Tacitus would have about Jesus? Is it your contention that he obtained his information about the execution of Christus from Roman records? If so, what is the basis of such a claim? If not, then how can his record be considered solid 100 years after the 'fact'? Suppose the first records for WWI were just now being penned. How reliable would they be?

Originally posted by roger_pearse

You might as well reference James Dobson's writings as proof of a historical Jesus.

Are you sure you want to make so absurd a statement?

Yes. Dr. Dobson at least has the advantage of archaeology, a field that didn't exist in the 2nd century. We can make some definitive statements of fact about the first century as a result, that a 2nd century writer could only record as hearsay retold who knows how many times.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by spamandham]

WOW, after I have wore my eyes out trying to catch up, I will have to go with Mr. ED.
As a common person, ED I can understand BUT when someone like neoamadeus get in with his High and mitty writting were as most common people will never understand to me is a wast of time and Paper.......

Thats why most people will not stay around because they have work Hard with there hands and back will not wast there time trying to understand neoamadeus.. I understane that the OT and the NT was writen for me to understand and everyone else that wants to know to Lord and try to live in his light in this place till he comes back to get us............

Hi JDarby:

Did I frighten you or something by what I've posted?

You might want to take some time to look up some of the facts mentioned in my posts instead of running and hiding under your pillow hoping for some Galilean ghost to fall out of the sky....you'll find that what I've always posted is nothing but good old main-stream biblical historical criticism based on the latest archaelogical research and of course those pesky Dead Sea Scrolls that paint a vastly different picture of the textual consistency of the Bible, as well as the politics of Roman Occupied Palestine in the 1st century AD than the sugar coated view of the world they taught you in Sunday School....!

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi JDarby:

Did I frighten you or something by what I've posted?

You might want to take some time to look up some of the facts mentioned in my posts instead of running and hiding under your pillow hoping for some Galilean ghost to fall out of the sky....you'll find that what I've always posted is nothing but good old main-stream biblical historical criticism based on the latest archaelogical research and of course those pesky Dead Sea Scrolls that paint a vastly different picture of the textual consistency of the Bible, as well as the politics of Roman Occupied Palestine in the 1st century AD than the sugar coated view of the world they taught you in Sunday School....!

Oh don't worry about me, I know I do not know everything in this world and always Know to not follow THE Main-Stream because the ones leading the main- strean is the ones that Lost !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by jfdarby
Oh don't worry about me, I know I do not know everything in this world and always Know to not follow THE Main-Stream because the ones leading the main- strean is the ones that Lost !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My experience is that the main stream is often right.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by jfdarby
Oh don't worry about me, I know I do not know everything in this world and always Know to not follow THE Main-Stream because the ones leading the main- strean is the ones that Lost !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My experience is that the main stream is often right.

I don't understand what you are saying

If the main stream is right, so why do you say (Impeach Bush )

He was elected and is in the Main Stream but yet he is wrong Right ????

Originally posted by jfdarby
I don't understand what you are saying

If the main stream is right, so why do you say (Impeach Bush )

He was elected and is in the Main Stream but yet he is wrong Right ????

No he wasn't. He was elected by the electoral college, not a popular majority.

Regardless, I did say "often", not "always".

[quoteReligion is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in religion.

Nice signature my friend. Of course, I don't consider myself a man of "faith". I consider myself a man of knowing. Therefore I attempt to claim no "religion" also.

Originally posted by spamandham

Just as importantly, why depend on the writings of a historian nearly 100 years after the supposed facts? The fidelity of such writings is not significantly higher than if they were penned by a modern historian. You might as well reference James Dobson's writings as proof of a historical Jesus.

Allow me to clarify your words; what you are truly conveying without knowing it is that, since I cannot depend on Tacitus’ charge of Christianity as being nothing but a superstition, then neither can anyone else who relies on Tactitus’ mention of Jesus, rely on his discourse to prove the existence of teh man Jesus. So you take offense to which of the two, that Christianity as per Tacitus was nothing but a superstitious belief or my not twisting Tacitus’ words which say it was a superstitious belief?

Originally posted by edsingerNice try but no dice, I do not even attempt to say that Tacitus's statement is proof that Jesus is God, if you would have read, someone stated that there was no evidence that Christ even existed outside the Gospels.

Singer, it is necessary to recall my statement to you, obviously, that statement is; "Your interest in religious discourse does not seem to me to be based on a discussion of fact, but rather that which you can push in accordance with you believe. Why else, singer, would you ignore the fact that Tacitus called your belief in "a Christus" a "superstition" and continue on to represent that as though calling a belief a superstition is in fact endorsing said superstition?"

Were you not trying to portray Tacitus’ writings as proof of your Jesus, and had you not misinterpreted his obvious dismissal of your saviour, you would not have offered as proof of your Messianic faith:

Originally posted by edsingerYOU, post OK no.1618083 so One of the most important Romans historians is Tacitus. In 115 A.D. he recorded Nero's persecution of the Christians, in the process of which he wrote the following:…
www.abovetopsecret.com...

AND


YOU- post 1625210 - I figured if anything would have an non-Christian clout it would be a non-Christian Roman. So in what interest would a Roman have for recording that on a man whom did not exist?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So now, since you have decided you wish to take the stance that the material you offer as proof of your Christ, or your god, is not in fact proof that he is your god, then it is safe to safe to say to that you offered up Tacitus’ statement of Jesus to show that his followers were nothing but a superstitious crowd.

Tacitus in effect assigned no importance to your idol, singer. So, when then can I expect you to offer plausible evidence that your Jesus was in fact a god, any god?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
So you take offense to which of the two, that Christianity as per Tacitus was nothing but a superstitious belief or my not twisting Tacitus’ words which say it was a superstitious belief?

I take offense to using the writing of an historian from 100 years after the purported facts to be capable of recording anything high fidelity regarding those 'facts'. If the first records of WWI were just now being penned, how trustworthy would they be?

Further, Tacitus assumed Jesus had been a historical figure, but this assumption clearly rests on the words of Christians around him based on his choice of language. Had he simply been re-recording a prior historical fact, he would not have referred to Jesus as Christus. Clearly the context is discussion of the Christian mythology of his day, not establishment of the historicity of Jesus. Establishment of the historicity of anyone, including Jesus, is a relatively new phenomenon. Ancient historians simply accepted such things unquestioningly. What else could they do? They didn't have the luxury of archaeology, searchable documents and liguistic scholarship.

The argument that Tacitus somehow proves a historical Jesus is beyond silly. What Tacitus proves is that Christianity was a nuisance to Rome in the 2nd century - nothing more.

Originally posted by spamandham
I take offense to using the writing of an historian from 100 years after the purported facts to be capable of recording anything high fidelity regarding those 'facts'.

In antiquity, such ideas are sadly inapplicable. The main historical sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. To ignore them is to lose the overwhelming majority of first century history. Tacitus is the main source for the person and policies of Tiberius, for instance.

This is not a subject on which there is disagreement between Christians and non-Christians, but one between the educated and uneducated, I'm afraid (and in the age of MTV, 'uneducated' in matters of ancient history is nearly everyone). Take it up with a professor of ancient history at one of your universities.

Further, Tacitus assumed Jesus had been a historical figure, but this assumption clearly rests on the words of Christians around him based on his choice of language. Had he simply been re-recording a prior historical fact, he would not have referred to Jesus as Christus.

There is no evidence whatever to substantiate this curious assertion of knowledge of what Cornelius Tacitus must, or must not, have done.

Establishment of the historicity of anyone, including Jesus, is a relatively new phenomenon. Ancient historians simply accepted such things unquestioningly. What else could they do? They didn't have the luxury of archaeology, searchable documents and liguistic scholarship.

I would be interested to know on what the assertion that no ancient writer ever asserted that some historical figure never existed is based.

It is of course true that ancient scholars did not have the apparatus of scholarship, and certainly true that none of them denied the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

The argument that Tacitus somehow proves a historical Jesus is beyond silly. What Tacitus proves is that Christianity was a nuisance to Rome in the 2nd century - nothing more.

No doubt a detailed proof of these assertions will follow?

One reason why Christianity must have some real value is that those who oppose it have to go around trying to ignore evidence. This breeds obscurantism.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

``

there is a tome "The Text Of The Oldest Greek New Testament Manuscripts"

which singles out 69 'manuscripts'
which are dated prior to Constantine !!
if i was a 'believer' in the faith, i would hold these
writings to be less influenced by organized religion

...The earliest manuscripts rarely if ever contained complete New Testaments
(for one thing, the canon of the New Testament was not settled until around the fourth century)
Most manuscripts contained only one section- -Gospels, Paul, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Revelation.
In addition early manuscripts are often incomplete--
pages have been lost, or parts of pages have become decayed or torn or simply illegible. [...]
www.skypoint.com...

imho, the Christianity worldview-philosophy-religion, was Constantines' mystery gift to the world...a Pandoras Box, as it were...and the christian
sect could come out of the underground cities they inhabited around the
Cappadocia region in todays Turkey.... FYI->
turkey.rdricketts.com...


[edit on 12-9-2005 by St Udio]

Originally posted by roger_pearse
In antiquity, such ideas are sadly inapplicable. The main historical sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. To ignore them is to lose the overwhelming majority of first century history.

Who said they should be ignored? Context is important not only today but in ancient times as well. It's clear who the source of Tacitus' information about Jesus was based on his choice of language. That source is not unbiased regarding the historicity of Jesus. The fidelity of any writing is no better than the fidelity of the sources it is based on.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
This is not a subject on which there is disagreement between Christians and non-Christians, but one between the educated and uneducated,

Nice feigned slam arrogant jerk.

All the best.

OK, time to chill gang.

Hey Roger:

I’m surprised you would even mention Suetonius’ vague citation of “Chrestus” into your discussion of the “historical Jesus” in view of the fact that the Suetonius’ citation, (CLAUDIUS 25.1-5) is clearly a poor (and hopelessly vague) example to use as any kind of solid proof to bolster the existence of “Jesus of Nazareth” from “the ancient sources” as you like to say.

Here is the text in Suetonius' original Latin:

“Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.”

For those on this thread not conversant with Suetonius’ language, one can translate the Latin sentence above in several ways:

l. “[Claudius had] expelled from Rome the Jews-- who were incessantly causing riots with Chrestus as their instigator'."

2. Since Jews [in the city] were constantly causing riots at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.

&tc.
Suetonius (in AD 120) was writing long after Rome ground Palestine to powder in the first failed Jewish War of Independence (AD 66-AD 72) which resulted in several hundred thousand Jewish dead if we are to believe anything like the numbers (900,000) bandied about by Josephus in his Jewish War (written in the 90s AD) under Roman patronage.

But nowhere does this passage in Suetonius (written c. 120 AD) mention any specific personage resembling a “Iesus of Nazareth”…only some obscure “Chrestus” figure who started riots in the city.

His phrase “at the instigation of Chrestus” could indeed theoretically refer to ANY Jewish [Christos/Messiah] figures running around Rome during the reign of Claudius, i.e. before the Jewish War actually broke out into open rebellion all of whom (c. AD 50) would naturally bear the generic Greek title “Christos” (Heb. Meshiaq) which Suetonius may have mangled into Chrestus (“kindly”) not being particularly knowledgeable about all the various and sundry Messianic titles of the rebellious Jewish spawn in Palestine, which were known to have been violently riotous since the Roman invasion of Jerusalem by Pompey in BC 63.

In the context of the Latin sentence above, it appears that Suetonius believed that during the time he was describing (i.e. the period of the the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, which Orosius puts in Claudius' ninth year viz. 25th Jan. AD 49 to 24th Jan. AD 50) that this “Chrestus” person/figure was still very much alive and still causing riots in Rome, and could therefore not refer to the Galilean seditionist of 14 years earlier (i.e. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef or “Jesus”) who (according to the gospels at least) armed his disciples with swords on the hill at Pesach in AD 36 during “the Insurrection”

(Mark chapter 14 where we read that Jesus Bar Abbas was arrested) at the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Pompey and whose words placed into his mouth in the gospels certainly do smack of overt sedition against the Roman maiestatis, for which he suffered the extreme penalty by crucifixion, a punishment meted out specifically for seditionists agains the state:

e.g. “the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled…These be the Days of Vengeance of our god…fear not he who can kill only the body, but fear only Him who can kill both body and …repent, and believe in the good news…! Etc.”

At any rate, the term “Christos” (Heb. Meshiaq, “anointed one”) was a title, not a proper name of any one individual in history and can refer to just about anyone in the 1st and 2nd century AD promising deliverance from the Roman Yoke (e.g. notice how during the 2nd Failed Jewish Revolt, the militant Daviddic leader Bar Kokhba is called “Ho Christos” (the Christ) or “Ha-Meshiaq” by his own band of followers, etc.)

Even in the LXX Greek old Testament we read words placed into the mouth of YHWH e.g. “Christos Mou (Isaiah 45:1, “My Christ” ) which likewise cannot refer to any Jesus of any Nazareth, but rather refers to Cyrus of Persia (a gentile !).
So this “Chrestus” of Suetonius does not point out any single historical personage with any certainty or that we can know for sure from any other writing.