Archaeology of the New Testament

[Cypress]

None of the books in the NT were written by a person who a) saw/met Jesus or b) was an eye witness to any of the claims they are making.

There's no reason to believe that the writers of the NT books ever met any of the people close to Jesus.

Do you believe that Benny Hinn supporters believe they are witnessing miracles? Do you believe they are actually witnessing miracles?

We don't know what the Apostles believed because none of them wrote any of the books of the NT.

Belief doesn't create reality. Writing down your beliefs doesn't make them real. Marshall Applewhite's followers writing down their belief that he is a prophet doesn't make him a prophet. Writing down that they are going to be teleported to a nearby comet after death doesn't mean they were teleported to a comet after dying.

My belief in system that puts medicine in my hand doesn't create reality. A deranged pharmacist could give me poison.

I don't know how the universe came into existence and saying "I don't know" is infinitely more honest than manufacturing magical beings.

Neither were any of the books of the NT, so why believe them?

We don't know how close the writers of the gospels were to Jesus. Considering they were originally written in Greek, it seems highly unlikely that the writers were close with the followers of Jesus in Galilee.

None of your Biblical sources were eyewitnesses. Paul, one of Jesus' biggest proponents and the only identifiable author of any NT books, never saw Jesus.

I don't consider it to be good evidence. The question is why you consider the NT books to be good sources of information about much of anything.

So you cannot provide a link to a written source by an eyewitness who said Jesus was fraudulent. Despite having claimed they were numerous in quantity.

By the standards of ancient history, the evidence is quite good for the life, ministry, arrest and execution of Jesus, and that his followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

Jesus is arguably the best attested person of the first century AD.

I am surprised you attempted to equate the historical documentary evidence for Jesus with the paltry and dubious documentary evidence for Appolonius.

Did you get the idea of attempting to make that analogy from some atheist podcast?

 

[Cypress]

if you're not talking directly to the eyewitness yourself, it's hearsay.

there's no such thing as "eyewitness 10 times removed".

You would have to throw out the entirety of ancient history using your standard. The accounts of Alexander the Great were written four centuries after he died.

The rational and intelligent person evaluates the reliability of witness accounts or the second hand reports of witness accounts by corroboration, context, the criteria of multiple attestation, etc.

Never said ten times removed.
Ideally, the ancient historian wants witness accounts either first hand, second hand, or third hand at worst. After that is becomes too unreliable

 

[Ichabod Stain]

You would have to throw out the entirety of ancient history using your standard. The accounts of Alexander the Great were written four centuries after he died.

The rational and intelligent person evaluates the reliability of witness accounts or the second hand reports of witness accounts by corroboration, context, the criteria of multiple attestation, etc.

the more rational person admits there's a chance it could all be fake.

 

[ZenMode]

So you cannot provide a link to a written source by an eyewitness who said Jesus was fraudulent. Despite having claimed they were numerous in quantity.

That was never my point. The point was the Jesus was nothing special. He was just one of many people who was believed to be god-like.

By the standards of ancient history, the evidence is quite good for the life, ministry, arrest and execution of Jesus,

Yes.

and that his followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

People wrote decades later that Jesus followers believed they saw him alive after his death. Paul, who never met Jesus, thought he saw Jesus, also. How did Paul know what Jesus looked like? Who knows, but it's a great story!

Jesus is arguably the best attested person of the first century AD.

Ok.

I am surprised you attempted to equate the historical documentary evidence for Jesus with the paltry and dubious documentary evidence for Appolonius.

As I said above, Jesus was just one of many people who was believed to be god-like.

Did you get the idea of attempting to make that analogy from some atheist podcast?

Nope. From Bart Ehrman.

View: https://youtu.be/EHZuaD6dvtw?si=tjFxgtQ6GyJuDHgZ

 

[Ichabod Stain]

You would have to throw out the entirety of ancient history using your standard. The accounts of Alexander the Great were written four centuries after he died.

The rational and intelligent person evaluates the reliability of witness accounts or the second hand reports of witness accounts by corroboration, context, the criteria of multiple attestation, etc.

Never said ten times removed.
Ideally, the ancient historian wants witness accounts either first hand, second hand, or third hand at worst. After that is becomes too unreliable

Search Assist
Edward Kelley was an English Renaissance occultist known for his work with John Dee and his claimed ability to communicate with angels and perform alchemy, including creating forged ancient stonework to manufacture medieval peerage. His forgeries, like the Black Cruciform Stone, were pious frauds created to deceive for the benefit of the faith or personal gain.

Wikipedia​

Mental Floss​

Edward Kelley: The Stone Engraver of Forged Antiquities​

Background​

Edward Kelley, born on August 1, 1555, in Worcester, England, was an English Renaissance occultist. He is best known for his collaboration with John Dee, a prominent figure in the study of alchemy and the occult. Kelley claimed to possess the ability to communicate with angels and perform alchemical feats, including the transmutation of base metals into gold.

Forged Ancient Stonework​

Kelley was involved in creating forgeries of ancient stonework, which were often referred to as pious frauds. These forgeries were designed to deceive others for personal gain or to benefit the church. One notable example is the Black Cruciform Stone, which was purportedly discovered in the temple of Shamash in Sippar, Iraq. This stone was inscribed with false claims of its ancient origins, likely produced to enhance the prestige and financial benefits of the temple's priests.

Impact on Medieval Peerage​

Kelley's forgeries played a significant role in the creation of a fabricated medieval peerage. By producing these ancient-looking artifacts, he aimed to lend legitimacy to claims of nobility and heritage that were otherwise unsubstantiated. This practice not only enriched Kelley but also contributed to the broader phenomenon of forgery in antiquities during the Renaissance.

Summary of Key Points​

Birth	August 1, 1555, Worcester, England
Death	1597/8 (aged approximately 42)
Known For	Work with John Dee, angel communication, alchemy
Notable Forgery	Black Cruciform Stone
Purpose of Forgeries	Deceive for personal gain or church benefit

[th]

Aspect​

[/th][th]

Details​

[/th]​

Kelley's legacy is marked by his controversial practices in the realm of alchemy and forgery, leaving a lasting impact on the perception of medieval artifacts and peerage.

Wikipedia​

Mental Floss​

 

[Cypress]

the more rational person admits there's a chance it could all be fake.

If you talked to a firefighter who was at ground zero on 9-11, I think you could give your mother a fairly accurate report about what he told you, and that your mother could then tell her sister what you told her with fairly decent accuracy.

You are applying a level of hyper-skepticism to Christian authors you never apply to anyone else. That makes it seem like you have a preconceived agenda

By the standards you want to apply, we would have to completely abandon the study of ancient history

 

[Ichabod Stain]

If you talked to a firefighter who was at ground zero on 9-11, I think you could give your mother a fairly accurate report about what he told you, and that your mother could then tell her sister what you told her with fairly decent accuracy.

You are applying a level of hyper-skepticism to Christian authors you never apply to anyone else. That makes it seem like you have a preconceived agenda

By the standards you want to apply, we would have to completely abandon the study of ancient history

I apply it to everything.

all of our history is up for grabs.

academia and publishing have been controlled for so long that a complete fabrication of reality has been enabled.

did you see my stuff above aboud edward Kelly helping fabricate an entire generation of European peerage?

see Coverup of Tartarian Civilization.

 

[Cypress]

I apply it to everything!

No you don't. You've never questioned the historicity of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

all of our history is up for grabs!

E. Jean Carroll's successful civil lawsuit for sexual assault was supported by second hand witness testimony. They reported what Jean Carroll told them after the sexual assault by Trump.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

No you don't. You've never questioned the historicity of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

E. Jean Carroll's successful civil lawsuit for sexual assault was supported by second hand witness testimony. They reported what Jean Carroll told them after the sexual assault by Trump.

I do question all history.

I just don't have the time to do it all pro-actively.

you're such a fucking idiot.

 

[Cypress]

That was never my point. The point was the Jesus was nothing special. He was just one of many people who was believed to be god-like.

Yes.

People wrote decades later that Jesus followers believed they saw him alive after his death. Paul, who never met Jesus, thought he saw Jesus, also. How did Paul know what Jesus looked like? Who knows, but it's a great story!

Ok.

As I said above, Jesus was just one of many people who was believed to be god-like.

Nope. From Bart Ehrman.

View: https://youtu.be/EHZuaD6dvtw?si=tjFxgtQ6GyJuDHgZ

Ehrman should have told you we have only one significant extant source for Appolonius; that it was not a witness report or account; and that it was written in the third century long after Appolonius' life in the first century.

That is very paltry and dubious evidence.
You have to be honest and open about the reliability of your sources.


I am satisfied that you have agreed with me that the evidence is sufficient to establish the historicity of these facts:

A Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth lived in first century Galilee.​

​

He had a ministry and disciples.​

​

He was arrested and executed by the Romans.​

​

His followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.​

 

[Ichabod Stain]

No you don't. You've never questioned the historicity of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

E. Jean Carroll's successful civil lawsuit for sexual assault was supported by second hand witness testimony. They reported what Jean Carroll told them after the sexual assault by Trump.

did you go see the Coverup Of Tartarian Civilizations?

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Ehrman should have told you we have only one significant extant source for Appolonius; that it was not a witness report or account; and that it was written in the third century long after Appolonius' life in the first century.

That is very paltry and dubious evidence.
You have to be honest and open about the reliability of your sources.

I am satisfied that you have agreed with me that the evidence is sufficient to establish the historicity of these facts:

A Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth lived in first century Galilee.​

​

He had a ministry.​

​

He was arrested and executed by the Romans.​

​

His followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.​

Ehrman should have told you we have only one significant extant source for Appolonius; that it was not a witness report or account; and that it was written in the third century long after Appolonius' life in the first century.

That is very paltry and dubious evidence.
You have to be honest and open about the reliability of your sources.


I am satisfied that you have agreed with me that the evidence is sufficient to establish the historicity of these facts:

A Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth lived in first century Galilee.​

​

He had a ministry and disciples.​

​

He was arrested and executed by the Romans.​

​

His followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.s​

he has done no such thing, hallucinating, desperate, moron.

 

[ZenMode]

Ehrman should have told you we have only one significant extant source for Appolonius; that it was not a witness report or account; and that it was written in the third century long after Appolonius' life in the first century.

There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

That is very paltry and dubious evidence.
You have to be honest and open about the reliability of your sources.


I am satisfied that you have agreed with me that the evidence is sufficient to establish the historicity of these facts:

A Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth lived in first century Galilee.​

​

He had a ministry and disciples.​

​

He was arrested and executed by the Romans.​

Yes

​

His followers genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.​

Maybe. Maybe not. We know Paul believed he saw Jesus, despite not knowing what Jesus looked like.

 

[Into the Night]

Dodgeball is a boring sport that lazy unmotivated PE teachers make kids play in gym class.

If you want to work on the skill set needed to throw a ball, then baseball, football, and basketball are what sports-oriented kids need to be playing.

I don't remember any dudes in high school who wanted to play dodge ball in gym class.

You should watch a dodgeball championship. It is anything but boring!

 

[Into the Night]

We loved Dodgeball in Gym! Nothing like hitting someone in the face from point blank range

You can't. You have to stay behind the attack line. Obviously, you have never played dodge ball.

 

[Into the Night]

In English translations from the Greek.

In Hebrew, Greek, and English.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly. There's only divine preference or non-divine preference.

Morality is not 'preference', Void. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

its moral because it facilitates human well-being.

So a gang boss facilitates the well-being of the gang. He is moral.

what are man's laws based on?

The laws of a gang are set by the gang boss.

there is objective morality.

This part is correct.

morality is the set of attitudes and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.

So a gang boss facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships of the gang. Gang members join voluntarily. The gang boss is moral.

human predators, like internationalist fascists such as you, hate this definition because you prey on other humans as a way of life, and under this obvious definiton of morality, you fail specatularly as your evil is revealed openly to all.

You have defined 'morality' in such a way that a gang boss and his gang members are mora.
You still don't know what 'facism' is.

it's why you hate jesus.

So does a gang boss. What does THAT have to do with anything? Non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

If you are saying that objective morality comes from the experience of conscious creatures, then I would agree. There's no need to smuggle any magical beings into the conversation.

What 'magical beings'?

 

[Ichabod Stain]

So a gang boss facilitates the well-being of the gang. He is moral.

but he victimizes others.

with the golden rule there is no ingroup/outgroup.

it goes to all individuals.

The laws of a gang are set by the gang boss.

This part is correct.

So a gang boss facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships of the gang. Gang members join voluntarily. The gang boss is moral.

You have defined 'morality' in such a way that a gang boss and his gang members are mora.
You still don't know what 'facism' is.

So does a gang boss. What does THAT have to do with anything? Non-sequitur fallacy.

the gang victimizes others.

with the golden rule there is no ingroup/outgroup.

it goes to all individuals.