• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DOC

Philosopher
D
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,959
In the "Do Most Atheists know that Science..." thread I mentioned Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" a few times because of its clear explanations of scientific theories. But, yes, they did talk about more than science.

In chapter 11 of their book they give the top 10 reasons we know the New Testament writers told the truth. I'll mention some of those reasons and maybe expound on them as time permits.

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death
 
Last edited:
It's good to see that their logical reasoning is of the same standard as their scientific theories.
 
Mashuna said:
It's good to see that their logical reasoning is of the same standard as their scientific theories.
Click to expand...

Posts like these mean nothing without a clear explanation. And if you want to talk "specifically" about their science explanations please do so in the other thread.
 
DOC said:
In chapter 11 of their book they give the top 10 reasons we know the New Testament writers told the truth. I'll mention some of those reasons and maybe expound on them as time permits.

*snip*

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.
Click to expand...

So Jesus was a lying, drunken, demon-vessel?
 
You have surely been told before that putting words in capitals adds nothing to your arguments. The reverse if anything.
 
sphenisc said:
I dpn't think Emily Bronte ever claimed he was the Messiah, more a very naughty boy really.
Click to expand...

Fine point. However, I can't remember the ancient Gods doing much better, with all that whoring and incest.

One wonders why DOC doesn't support the family of Zeus, given their Jerry Springer status.
 
Hokulele said:
These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.
Click to expand...

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The things posted in my first post are helpful in my forming a judgment that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true.
 
This is not, strictly speaking, evidence; It's just a series of observations concerning the New Testament's coherency.

And given the process of translation, and the time that has passed since it was written, I doubt that present standards can be applied.
 
DOC said:
Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The things posted in my first post are helpful in my forming a judgment that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true.
Click to expand...

Do you have an understanding of the varying quality evidence can possess?
 
I'm reminded of the scene in "Tin Men" where Danny deVito's character secretly drops a five-dollar bill on the floor while he's trying to make a sale to a prospective aluminum siding buyer, then claims no knowledge of it when the customer notices it. Since only an honest man would do such a thing, this is intended to provide evidence to the customer that the salesman is honest. All the examples cited in the OP could potentially be used in exactly the same way by an intelligent con man seeking to provide evidence, internal to his testimony, that his testimony is reliable. The big difference is that most of the measures cited in the OP are five dollars cheaper.

Dave
 
Lothian said:
Doc,

Do the other 5 reasons provide any evidence or are they opinion as well ?
Click to expand...

Other than the last half of Reason # 9 the 5 reasons I gave in post #1 include all facts and no opinions.

ETA: and the other 5 reasons include all facts as well.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that some members of Heaven's Gate believed what they said they believed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult)

Six of the male members of the group, including Applewhite, voluntarily underwent castration as an extreme means of maintaining the ascetic lifestyle.
Click to expand...

And 38 committed suicide.

However, regardless of their strength of belief, they did not know the truth. Which is a pity. Because they were honest people and, if they had known the truth, I'm sure they would have shared it.
 
Last edited:
If these are the "TOP" reasons, Christian Apolegetics are sadly still pathetic.
All of these so called reasons are just reasons why the writers "believed" what they wrote was true, NOT a single thing about what being written about is true.

If you use these absurd criteria, the Koran and whole host of other religious texts must be true as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom