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

[paximperium]

I'm bored of this drivel...I'll just play along with "SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY". Does anyone else want to play?

Since you used the word horrible twice above would you describe your error (defining singularity) as horrible? If not, why not?

And should we think less of your views because you made such a large error. You seem to have no problem thinking we should think less of Geisler.

You will notice that this is an odd Ad Hominem and Non-Sequitur combo. It is interesting that he is attempting to discredit Joobz by using a completely unrelated and even topic of discussion to make Joobz's mistake(if there even was one) equivalent to Geisler's rather pathetic logic...this is fascinating.

My opinion is that people who make such large errors in understanding something like a singularity should not be throwing stones (and horribles) around so forcibly.

This is of course an interesting fallacy. He is stating that someone who makes a mistake in a completely unrelated topic CAN NEVER point out mistakes in any other discussions ever again. Can anyone name this fallacy?

 

[Lothian]

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.

Doc, when you get round to expounding, could you please cover how frustrating it must be to see the arguments listed in the O.P that you can not rely on as you are not a bible literalist.

 

[fuelair]

As usual a crock - and I have no intention of bothering to explain why to a troll.

 

[DOC]

Makes sense. The thread discusses the New Testament. You have given no evidence of its veracity so it gets filed under fiction.

So then you imply that it makes sense for the New Testament writers (if they had made up the stories) to portray the disciples of Christ as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm bored of this drivel...I'll just play along with "SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY". Does anyone else want to play?

You will notice that this is an odd Ad Hominem and Non-Sequitur combo. It is interesting that he is attempting to discredit Joobz by using a completely unrelated and even topic of discussion to make Joobz's mistake(if there even was one) equivalent to Geisler's rather pathetic logic...this is fascinating.

I'd argue that's specifically a tu quoque fallacy, even if he's trying to match Joobz to Geisler instead of himself.

This is of course an interesting fallacy. He is stating that someone who makes a mistake in a completely unrelated topic CAN NEVER point out mistakes in any other discussions ever again. Can anyone name this fallacy?

Seems like an obvious well poisoning, no?

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*This is of course an interesting fallacy. He is stating that someone who makes a mistake in a completely unrelated topic CAN NEVER point out mistakes in any other discussions ever again. Can anyone name this fallacy?

The "Tu Quoque" fallacy: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#you_too

Hans

ETA: Oh QC beat me to it, heheh

 

[Lothian]

So then you imply that it makes sense for the New Testament writers (if they had made up the stories) to portray the disciples of Christ as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

Doc, this has been covered earlier in the thread, yes it makes perfect sense. As someone who does not take the bible as literally true, why do you care how they are described, or how it was reported that they were described.

 

[jbspry]

Some writers reveal themselves as dim without knowing it...

 

[DOC]

Some of us are still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the gospel writers were apostles. Are we waiting in vain?

John, and Matthew were apostles. I never said the physician (and first rate historian) Luke, and Mark, an associate of the apostle Peter, were apostles.

And from what I've read, it is my opinion that the preponderance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that John and Matthew wrote the gospels attributed to them for 2 thousand years.

 

[Alric]

The apostles did see the resurrected Christ.

Well no. That ending was added much later. The earliest found copies of Mark's Gospel end at the point where the women find the empty tomb and flee in terror.

A better, more climactic ending IMHO.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kX...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

 

[paximperium]

The "Tu Quoque" fallacy: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#you_too

Hans

ETA: Oh QC beat me to it, heheh

Thanks. I forgot about that fallacy.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Some of us are still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that the gospel writers were apostles.

Also:

1. If the Bible portrays Jesus as a drunkard and the Bible is the true word of God, then how does the "fact" that Jesus was a drunkard affect your stance on Him?

2. A prophecy in the Bible, from Jesus Himself, states that the Rapture would happen within Jesus' generation. This means that the Rapture is now around two thousand years overdue. How do you address this?

Which post in that other thread points out Geisler's scientific statements were found to be inaccurate. You forget it was because of his book, that I had enough of an understanding of the Big Bang to know your definition of a singularity was wrong. That's why I asked you where you got your definition of singularity.

And please don't keep bringing up that tired old...

Geisler, subject of this thread: "tired old..."
Singularity, from another thread: Not "tired old"

 

[D'rok]

John, and Matthew were apostles. I never said the physician (and first rate historian) Luke, and Mark, an associate of the apostle Peter, were apostles.

And from what I've read, it is my opinion that the preponderance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that John and Matthew wrote the gospels attributed to them for 2 thousand years.

Your opinion deviates from the scholarly consensus. I am not interested in a restatement of your opinion. I am interested in a substantiation of your opinion.

 

[joobz]

Since you used the word horrible twice above would you describe your error (defining singularity) as horrible? If not, why not?

I've given reasons why his errors are horrible.

My error did not change the argument I was making. Indeed, it was never clear that you knew I made an error or what it was.

And should we think less of your views because you made such a large error.

It wasn't a large error, because it wasn't central to my argument. Unlike Geisler book's multiple errors.

 

[joobz]

So then you imply that it makes sense for the New Testament writers (if they had made up the stories) to portray the disciples of Christ as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

There's no implication, it is out right completely logical and stated. YES! It makes complete sense. It makes a good story because it gives the appearance of honesty.

I gave an example of this in post #59 in Stephen King's the dark tower series.

 

[joobz]

This is of course an interesting fallacy. He is stating that someone who makes a mistake in a completely unrelated topic CAN NEVER point out mistakes in any other discussions ever again. Can anyone name this fallacy?

I agree with the QC that it is a poisoning the well Fallacy.

However, to set the record straight (this isn't offered up for discussion, but merely to be honest).


My error was that I said a singularity was an object of infinite mass and zero volume. This isn't true, as a singularity is actually an object of infinite density. The mass of a singularity is finite. I had admitted this error.

However, this point was completely tangential to the original argument.

I had asked DOC if he believed that the universe did not exist when it was at t=0, a pre big bang singularity.
This was when he asked me to define singularity and I gave the above answer.

Interestingly, I have never heard an answer to my question nor has he explained why the detail error I made mattered regarding that question.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So then you imply that it makes sense for the New Testament writers (if they had made up the stories) to portray the disciples of Christ as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

Or as typically flawed human beings?

Only poor writers think that a character must be perfect to be considered a protagonist. Good writers know that a well crafted character needs to have flaws to be of any interest. That's where the character development comes from. A character can't learn anything if he or she already knows everything. People can identify with imperfect characters.

 

[joobz]

Or as typically flawed human beings?

Only poor writers think that a character must be perfect to be considered a protagonist. Good writers know that a well crafted character needs to have flaws to be of any interest. That's where the character development comes from. A character can't learn anything if he or she already knows everything. People can identify with imperfect characters.

Heck, that's not even a new thing.

One of the oldest known literary stories (If not THE oldest), had a main character that was tragiclly flawed.
"The Epic of Gilgamesh"
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/24/gilgamesh/

Even more amusing is that this story centered on a king who was both a god and man.

So it could be said that the Bible's authors were simply aware of good story telling and copied from the best.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Still no response to my query regarding the martyrs of non-Christian faiths?

DOC has long evaded this issue and this suggests to me that he is fully aware of the problems associated with claiming that martyrdom somehow establishes the truth of the martyr's beliefs. Yet I expect that he will continue to periodically claim that Christianity is validated by the fact that people have been willing to die for it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Heck, that's not even a new thing.

One of the oldest known literary stories (If not THE oldest), had a main character that was tragiclly flawed.
"The Epic of Gilgamesh"
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/24/gilgamesh/

Even more amusing is that this story centered on a king who was both a god and man.

So it could be said that the Bible's authors were simply aware of good story telling and copied from the best.

Yeah, Gilgamesh was a real dick.

Literary terms like "tragic flaw" and "tragic hero" even come to us from Greek mythology. Gee, weren't the gospels written in Greek? How curious that writers should use literary concepts as old as literature itself.