• 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.
kmortis said:
Matt and John were the only two attributed authors that were supposed to have "been there".
Click to expand...

Matthew was demonstrably based on Mark (and not an independent eyewitness account). Scholars agree that John probably wasn't written until at least nearly the end of the First Century.

There is evidence that the 4 gospels (the synoptics and John) existed as anonymous texts before the names of the 4 evangelists were associated with them. It wasn't until around the middle of the 2nd Century that the gospels were thought of as written by the apostles. The first explicit naming of them didn't happen until about 180 (in the writings of Irenaeus).

For that matter, if they're claiming these documents are historically reliable as eyewitness accounts (which they're clearly not), who was the eyewitness to the Agony in the Garden?

This is that poignant bit of fiction where we see a very human side of the god-man asking if there's any way out of what he knows his destiny is. And, after grappling with it--alone, deserted by even his closest friends who can't stay awake with him in his time of need, even the one he knows will deny even being a countryman of Jesus--finally comes to accept the will of the Father-god. I think it's wonderful fiction--one of the most compelling stories in the New Testatment. It's got the air of fiction (things repeated three times), but most importantly: no one was there to witness and record the prayers of Jesus.

So. . if they're arguing that this is eyewitness testimony, I'm not buying it.
 
kmortis said:
Or at least a lot better than the dessicated remains of a 0th century Jew.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I hate to do this, but I can't help myself. . .

There was no 0th Century. The first century (A.D. or C.E.) is called the First Century. The one before it was the First Century B.C. or B.C.E.

If 1-100 were called the 0th Century, then we would now only be in the 20th Century.

Again. . . sorry--it's a character flaw. I can't help myself.

:blush:
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
I take this as evidence that the FSM is real and loves us all. He wants everyone to stop and partake of the Holy Sacrament of Cannoli. Find your nearest Italian deli and purchase the Cannoli (preferably the chocolate chip variety) and eat of it, for it is his body (nono...too Jewish)...mascarpone cheese wrapped in a tasty cookie like substance. Then drink of the cappuccino, for it is a frothy coffee beverage. And you will find that it is good. Or at least a lot better than the dessicated remains of a 0th century Jew.
Click to expand...

Oh great, a pathetic Orthodox FSM worshiper. You Orthodox folk got it all wrong. Heretics and blasphemers.

We Reformed Church of the Scientific FSM, know the truth. The proper sacrament is and always has been a noodle representing his brain, a meatball representing...his ball and good Bologna sauce representing the holy blood.

Your cannoli is non cannonical.False sweetness to his holy salty goodness. You will all boil forever and become limp. Al Dente.
 
paximperium said:
Oh great, a pathetic Orthodox FSM worshiper. You Orthodox folk got it all wrong. Heretics and blasphemers.

We Reformed Church of the Scientific FSM, know the truth. The proper sacrament is and always has been a noodle representing his brain, a meatball representing...his ball and good Bologna sauce representing the holy blood.

Your cannoli is non cannonical.False sweetness to his holy salty goodness. You will all boil forever and become limp. Al Dente.
Click to expand...
Al Dente's inferno?
 
lol @ posting on JREF trying to defend religion in any way shape or form. That's like going to a Neo-nazi site and going by golly, those Jews were swell fellas.
 
bigred said:
lol @ posting on JREF trying to defend religion in any way shape or form. That's like going to a Neo-nazi site and going by golly, those Jews were swell fellas.
Click to expand...

There is defending and having a good argument AND doing the DOC retarded and dishonest regurgation.

Vomit stinks and no one wants some deluded and very dishonest theist vomiting apologetics onto their forum.
 
paximperium said:
Vomit stinks and no one wants some deluded and very dishonest theist vomiting apologetics onto their forum.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be so bad if it was just diced carrot... but an unrelenting diet of straw means that DOC is simply dry-retching bile :(
 
bigred said:
lol @ posting on JREF trying to defend religion in any way shape or form. That's like going to a Neo-nazi site and going by golly, those Jews were swell fellas.
Click to expand...

Read a bunch of his threads, Red (they are legend over in R&P) and then tell us with a straight face that this is how you like Christianity to be represented.
With lies, half-truths, baseless assertions, ad homs, circular pseudo-reasoning, and total point-missage of epic scale.

I bet it's not....
 
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.

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

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


Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
More realistically this was to portray themselves as being inferior to Jesus. Hardly anyone would have believed in Christ's story if they portrayed themselves as being Christ's superiors.
Click to expand...

Is it really necessary to put any effort into portraying them as inferior when you have Christ raising the dead, healing the sick, giving amazing sermons etc.

And also you're implying that making Peter, who the writers knew was the leader of the early Church, a coward (who denied Christ to a lone woman 3 times) made sense. I would have to disagree. It doesn't make sense to make your leader into a Christ denying coward.

Also Christ seriously rebuked Peter, and once said to Peter, Get behind me Satan. That also doesn't make sense to me if your making the story up especially when you know Peter was the leader of the Church.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Is it really necessary to put any effort into portraying them as inferior when you have Christ raising the dead, healing the sick, giving amazing sermons etc..
Click to expand...
If it's going to be an interesting story, you do.

Like I said, It's a horribly dumb argument.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm sorry. I hate to do this, but I can't help myself. . .

There was no 0th Century. The first century (A.D. or C.E.) is called the First Century. The one before it was the First Century B.C. or B.C.E.

If 1-100 were called the 0th Century, then we would now only be in the 20th Century.

Again. . . sorry--it's a character flaw. I can't help myself.

:blush:
Click to expand...
It's OK. I was expecting this very rebuke. I cannot help it if you've bought into the IPU's conspiracy to ignore the years of i-100i that took place between the switch from BC to AD. The FSM has opened my eyes with his noodly appendage and shown me the marinara that most of the biblical accounts took place in a separate area of space-time.

It's the only logical explanation.


Actually, I just like the sound of "the 0th century".
 
Wowbagger said:
How come there are no writings about Jesus from the time he was supposed to have lived? Not even from Pontious Pilate?

Why was everything about him written long after his death?
Click to expand...

Well for one, very few people could read. I doubt there was any daily newspapers. Paper wasn't even invented yet. Does it really make sense to carry around heavy rolls of expensive papyrus to write down things most people can't read anyway. The High Priests of the day hated Jesus so why would they want to waste valuable papyrus on him. Also I don't think the Romans would take kindly to writing about and promoting Jesus.
 
DOC said:
Well for one, very few people could read. I doubt there was any daily newspapers. Paper wasn't even invented yet. Does it really make sense to carry around heavy rolls of expensive papyrus to write down things most people can't read anyway. The High Priests of the day hated Jesus so why would they want to waste valuable papyrus on him. Also I don't think the Romans would take kindly to writing about and promoting Jesus.
Click to expand...

So no one wrote about a so called incarnate god who had performed all of these wonderful miracles until AFTER he had a legend that developed around him?

Yeah, Doc, you can see why people don't think very highly of you.
 
DOC said:
Well for one, very few people could read. I doubt there was any daily newspapers. Paper wasn't even invented yet. Does it really make sense to carry around heavy rolls of expensive papyrus to write down things most people can't read anyway. The High Priests of the day hated Jesus so why would they want to waste valuable papyrus on him. Also I don't think the Romans would take kindly to writing about and promoting Jesus.
Click to expand...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.
 
DOC said:
Well for one, very few people could read. I doubt there was any daily newspapers. Paper wasn't even invented yet. Does it really make sense to carry around heavy rolls of expensive papyrus to write down things most people can't read anyway. The High Priests of the day hated Jesus so why would they want to waste valuable papyrus on him. Also I don't think the Romans would take kindly to writing about and promoting Jesus.
Click to expand...

Of course, paper wasn't common in Europe until the 12th century, so this argument isn't your strongest.


Not that you've every really had a strong argument, but this is definitely near the bottom.

This all works better with a late first century authorship date rather than an early date. If the proto-Christians (it's hard to call them Christians until after the Council of Nicea, when the dogma was standardized) were that worried about being caught with writings, and indeed most were illiterate, then the need for written texts wasn't there, was it? Until more influential folks started believing, the written word wasn't useful. It was oral until then.
 
DOC said:
And also you're implying that making Peter, who the writers knew was the leader of the early Church, a coward (who denied Christ to a lone woman 3 times) made sense. I would have to disagree. It doesn't make sense to make your leader into a Christ denying coward.
Click to expand...

Why are you having such a hard time with the literary concept of a flawed hero? It is a common device used by writers. It makes stories more believable, more interesting, and more relatable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom