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

[slingblade]

Actually, I don't have the time to give an appropriate response to each and every one of the many posts (some very lengthy) directed at me.

Maybe you ought not start threads in which most of the responses are going to be a bit longer than "Amen, brother!" Since no one here is begging you to start more threads, the onus is on you to fix your own problem.

If someone would give me a million dollars, I would quit my full time job and other activities and respond to each and every post.

If I had a million to give away, it'd be to pay you to leave and never come back. Anyway, the answer for your problem is simple: stop inviting the problem to your door.

But even if there are cases where I don't have an explanation that doesn't mean an explanation doesn't exist.

If you don't have it, then don't start threads. Either you know what you're talking about, or you don't. I go with the latter, and have since you graced the boards.

I don't have perfect knowledge of all things related to the bible.

You sure seem to have all the answers, though. I'm so disappointed. Really.

If you're serious about finding answers about the bible then I would recommend reading some of apologist Norman Geisler's 62 books, especially starting with the one I mentioned in post #1.

No. Hell no.

The only thing I'm even remotely serious about when I see one of your threads is stopping you spreading more crap, if possible.

I could not possibly care less about your bible, your jeebus, or your gawd, and won't read a damn thing you suggest. Frankly, when you suggest reading material, I know it's something full of garbage that will only pollute my mind and waste my money.

Don't start any more threads, doc, and all your troubles here will vanish as if an answer to prayer.

 

[joobz]

Actually, I don't have the time to give an appropriate response to each and every one of the many posts (some very lengthy) directed at me. If someone would give me a million dollars, I would quit my full time job and other activities and respond to each and every post. But even if there are cases where I don't have an explanation that doesn't mean an explanation doesn't exist. I don't have perfect knowledge of all things related to the bible. If you're serious about finding answers about the bible then I would recommend reading some of apologist Norman Geisler's 62 books, especially starting with the one I mentioned in post #1.

I suggest reading some of Stephen King's 70+ books. Not because thier great literature, but just so you can start to see what some people are able to invent out of whole cloth.

 

[Mashuna]

If you're serious about finding answers about the bible then I would recommend reading some of apologist Norman Geisler's 62 books, especially starting with the one I mentioned in post #1.

Would you say that the quality of the arguments you presented in the opening post are representative of the rest of Geisler's work?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Name some previous similar myths that had many people being martyred for those myths.

*Hey wolfgirl, watch DOC ignore this question.*

DOC, what about those who were martyred for faiths other than Christianity? Why is martyrdom for Christianity evidence of its veracity while martyrdom for, say, Hinduism is not?

 

[six7s]

Name some previous similar myths that had many people being martyred for those myths.

How the hell, even in your distorted world, is that relevant?

Hint: it's not

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
Bertrand Russell

Also there is evidence one or two of the myths actually copied Christianity instead of the other way around.

And even if there is some similarity that doesn't mean it's false.

If you can provide evidence that it's true, please do.

If not, please resist the urge to start any more threads with inane waffle suggesting that your woo is the one true woo

 

[GeeMack]

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

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

You're mistaking the vernacular usage of the term "evidence" for what is usually meant by "evidence" in the world of science or when typically used by skeptics in these forums. But no surprise there. You've already provided much evidence (using the scientific definition) that you don't understand science, or skepticism for that matter, and that your language skills are sub-par.

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

We are already painfully aware that you believe the authors of your bible were telling the truth. Amazing (well, not really) that you'd waste another thread to further reinforce this well supported fact.

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

No, you're completely wrong here. The resurrection either happened or it didn't. There is no amount of evidence in any form which would change the likelihood of it having occurred. Evidence, in the scientific sense, that the resurrection happened would lend support to it being accepted as a real event. But unfortunately for your delusion, no such scientific evidence exists. All you have is evidence in the vernacular sense, pieces and parts of some ancient myths that you use to support your opinion. And from a scientific perspective, your opinion on the matter is unsupported, and therefore isn't worth the paper your bible is printed on.

 

[Ladewig]

The apostles did see the resurrected Christ.

Well, then let's use the book of Mark to show that the Gospel writers did not tell the truth.

13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."

13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

DOC, do you believe that the Kingdom of God has already been established on earth and that we have been living in the post-tribulation world for 2000 years?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Why is this thread more than three posts long?

Because it was made by DOC.

Sixty-plus posts down, 2000+ to go...

DOC, do you believe that the Kingdom of God has already been established on earth and that we have been living in the post-tribulation world for 2000 years?

The passage you just quoted, along with the "camel through needle, rich man into Heaven" one, have to be among the passages in the Bible given the most creativity by apologists trying to shoehorn them into our lifestyles and reality.

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.

Janni is God, and all-powerful. She is also terrified of toothpicks, and urinates in her bed. So says I, True Prophet of Janni, endowed upon Her for my loyalty with clear vision of every feat and heart of every being to breathe air. I can't do basic sums and tends to trip over myself going down stairs.

Your point being?

 

[DOC]

Which part did you find unclear?

That's the point, there was no explanation for your post #2. Your post adds nothing to the thread. It was simply meant to be derogatory with no explanation as to your reasoning. And, If you choose to explain your reasoning, please do it in the appropriate thread.

 

[joobz]

That's the point, there was no explanation for your post #2. Your post adds nothing to the thread. It was simply meant to be derogatory with no explanation as to your reasoning. And, If you choose to explain your reasoning, please do it in the appropriate thread.

Yes, it was derogatory. However, it was also extremely accurate.

Geisler's scientific statements were found to be inaccurate (providing missleading quotes).

His book contained a horribly, factually wrong etymology.

And now it also includes rather weak, horribly poor logic regarding evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A list of famous Hindu martyrs:
Khudiram Bose
Bineshwar
Brahma
Cankili II
Haqiqat Rai
Jagat Narain
Selliah Parameswaran
Kurukkal
T. Maheswaran
Tanaji Malusare
Sambhaji
Swami Shraddhanand
Swami
Lakshmanananda
Shanti Kali


A list of famous sikh martyrs:
Banda Singh Bahadur
Bhai Dayala
Bhai Himmat Singh
Bhai Mohkam Singh
Bhai Sahib Singh
Bhai Sati Das
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale
Bhai Mati Das
Guru Arjan Dev
Bibi Dalair Kaur
Jaswant Singh Khalra
Mata Gujri
Sahibzada Ajit Singh
Bhai Taru Singh
Baba Deep Singh
Sahibzada Fateh Singh
Sahibzada Jujhar Singh
Shabeg Singh
Sahibzada Zorawar Singh
Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh
Bhai Mahi Singh Sunam


I'm very confused. If all it takes to verify the one true faith is its followers willingness to die for their beliefs then I can only assume that most every major religion must be the one true faith.

 

[joobz]

I'm very confused. If all it takes to verify the one true faith is its followers willingness to die for their beliefs then I can only assume that most every major religion must be the one true faith.

That would make Unitarianism the super ultra mega triple duper true faith!

 

[Robin]

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.

By the age of 4 my boys had worked out that they would not be believed if they made themselves out to be too virtuous.

All this tells me is that the NT writers were at least as smart as 4 year olds.

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."

NO, nor did the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult, so that must be true too.

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.

So Geisler and Turek have concluded that things that are made up are expressed with grandiose and extravagant images. And it has never occurred to them that the New Testament writers might have come to the same conclusion, and thus avoided grandiose and extravagant images in order to be believed?

They just haven't thought this through, have they?

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

The same could be said of any number of Muslim converts - so they must be telling the truth too!

 

[sackett]

Foster Z, don't leave out Rad the Strong, "who would not give up the old gods."

As for Doc: I wonder what he's up to here? What could possibly be his motive?

I get the impression that he's trying out sermons or perhaps pamphlets, testing them to discover (or have shown to him) their weak points. Certainly his OPs seem to be carefully if not skilfully composed; they're little essays, they're texts. Is he out to impress a girl? a boy? his preacher? Does he plan to go into the gospel-shoutin' business? I would guess that it's primarily the latter, not that that rules out pretty little choir-boys too.

There's a lot of money to be made hollering for Jesus if you get your message right. I suspect that we're all working for Doc, helping him refine his line of goods. I've heard radio sermons taking essentially the same tack, more crudely but also more honestly: Them science fellers says how ever'thing come from something NO BIGGER THAN A PEA but they doesn't know what the prophets says in the Bible. Oh they are a keeping it quiet, but in the last days hit'll come back on 'em. (Then the preacher would like to talk to you about gladiolous bulbs. Oh god, 50 years and more of this stuff; I'm weary, I'm tired.)

One thing I do not expect from Doc is an honest explanation of what & the hell he's trying to do.

C'mon, what's up, DOC?

 

[Ladewig]

I suspect that we're all working for Doc, helping him refine his line of goods.

Right there is the flaw in your hypothesis. DOC never refines his arguments. No matter how flawed, how fallacious, or how wrong they are, he keeps pugging away through dozens of pages with the same stuff he asserted in the opening posts of each of his threads.

 

[jj]

DOC, that's absurd. If they all "wrote the truth" how come they disagree so much with each other?

 

[sackett]

Right there is the flaw in your hypothesis. DOC never refines his arguments....

Well, why should he? We're not his market, we're his guinea pigs.

 

[D'rok]

It seems like the early Church had no trouble knowing who wrote the gospels.

And actually it makes perfect sense not to sign your name to a document that can get you killed in Roman occupied territory. And in fact 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred for their faith.

Would it make sense for a Jewish writer to sign his name to a book about the greatness of the Jewish people in 1940 Germany.

You don't seem to be addressing the question.

The gospel writers were not the apostles. Your "Reason #1" is non-sensical.

 

[Wowbagger]

Name some previous similar myths that had many people being martyred for those myths.

So we measure the truth of a myth, by how many people were martyred for the myth, are we?

I suppose there really are 72 virgins waiting in heaven for men who can take out some infidels along with themselves, then.

 

[godless dave]

A list of famous Hindu martyrs:
Khudiram Bose

Was Bose truly martyred? I thought he was killed by a mob of music fans for selling overpriced, low quality stereo speakers.