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

[paximperium]

Well I think 2 people have asked me to give the embarrassing details about Jesus that are in the Bible. Well Geisler gives several but he then footnotes those by pointing out that he and his co-author Frank Howe explain those embarrassing passages in the book "When Critics Ask".

I would rather read that book first before I put out all the passages. I'll give you 2 though.

One was one I already mentioned- the embarrassing passage where Jesus seems to say the tribulation will happen in a generation. I already explained there are at least two explanations of that and gave them. The point is why would someone who made up the bible story put that in if he knew it didn't happen in a generation. That doesn't make sense unless you are being completely honest in your writing.

Also Geisler/Turek points out the embarrassing passage where Jesus "seems" to deny His deity when asking the rich young ruler: "Why do you call me good?... No one is good- except God alone' (Luke 18;19) This also doesn't make sense for someone to make up about Christ... Conclusion: the story wasn't made up.

YAWN....deja vu, I could've bet I read this ridiculous and rather stupid claim repeated multiple time throughout this thread...no nevermind, I'm going to sleep knowing that the only way that DOC feels good about himself is to repeatedly lie.

 

[DOC]

I've listed them already in this thread.
Lewis Carrol and CK Chesterton would be two I'd consider good.
That doesn't mean i agree with them, but I respect them and their intelligence.

Are you sure Lewis Carroll is an apologist? I didn't get that impression from reading his Wiki bio. Can you name one apologist book of his.

 

[DOC]

The Green Berets? It was a terrible piece of propaganda created during the height of the Vietnam War.

That's the point, if the Bible was just made up propaganda, it wouldn't of had the embarrassing details about Christ and the disciples in it.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
I get the feeling those movies didn't portray Lenin and Stalin as having any flaws because you didn't mention any.

And? The point is that those movies don't qualify, because they suck. The point is that you are unable to provide ONE example of a GOOD story with a Mary Sue type protagonist, because those stories are BAD, thus you have failed to falsify the thesis that "the main hero of a good story must be flawed".

How about the popular TV series Superman. I don't seem to remember him having any flaws.

 

[Mashuna]

I've listed them already in this thread.
Lewis Carrol and CK Chesterton would be two I'd consider good.
That doesn't mean i agree with them, but I respect them and their intelligence.

Geisler....not so much.

Did you mean Lewis Carrol, or CS Lewis?

 

[Hokulele]

How about the popular TV series Superman. I don't seem to remember him having any flaws.

I seem to recall something. Something starting with a "K". Kyrgyzstan? Kryptography? Kryptonium?

Hmm, maybe it will come back to me eventually.

 

[DOC]

You baffle me DOC. Sometimes you posts are so trollish that I am certain that you can't possible believe the nonsense you put in your posts. Some other posters have a theory that you are an atheist who is trying to make Christians look bad. You do seem to be making fundamentalist look foolish. It is very clear that you do not follow the precepts prescribed in the Bible - why do you waste your time posting here?

Once again, we have someone throwing out generalities with no examples. Whenever the attack the messenger mode heats up, I know some of the posts are hitting home. List some of my trollish posts in this tread.

And I'll get to your taste of death comment within 2 days.

 

[DOC]

I seem to recall something. Something starting with a "K". Kyrgyzstan? Kryptography? Kryptonium?

Being allergic to something is not a personal flaw. You must have been kidding.

 

[Hokulele]

Being allergic to something is not a personal flaw. You must have been kidding.

"No Mrs. Diddlysquat, that isn't a software bug, it's a feature!"



You have very strange definitions of flaws and weaknesses.

 

[joobz]

Are you sure Lewis Carroll is an apologist? I didn't get that impression from reading his Wiki bio. Can you name one apologist book of his.

Opps. My mistake.

Did you mean Lewis Carrol, or CS Lewis?

Yes. THat's who I was thinking of.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So its good story telling to make the disciples to look like dim-witted uncaring cowards. I would disagree. There was no need to do this when Christ was raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine etc.

If they were solely depicted as dim-witted, uncaring cowards, this objection would have some weight. However, if they were depicted as having some failings, but on balance being moral and virtuous, then it would be a good literary device to make them more plausible. To assess how well this was done, one might therefore see what impression the piece of writing made on those who have read it thoroughly.

Therefore, I'll ask someone who has done so:

DOC, as one who has studied the Gospels in great detail, is it your impression that, on balance, the Apostles are depicted as "dim-witted uncaring cowards"? Or is it your impression that they are depicted as human beings with good and bad qualities in varying balance?

If the former, then why do you follow them? If the latter, then hasn't the literary device been rather effective?

Dave

 

[Ladewig]

Once again, we have someone throwing out generalities with no examples. Whenever the attack the messenger mode heats up, I know some of the posts are hitting home. List some of my trollish posts in this tread.

At least once per page, people have pointed out that there are great numbers of popular stories that have flawed heros. Yet you continue to claim that the Gospels must be true because no one would write a story with a flawed hero. Simple logic shows that as soon as a single example of a story with a flawed hero is evidenced, then your argument falls to pieces. You posts are trollish because no one who has been exposed to logic as often as you have over the past year and a half could really believe that citing George Reeves as Superman somehow helps your argument.

 

[FireGarden]

One was one I already mentioned- the embarrassing passage where Jesus seems to say the tribulation will happen in a generation. I already explained there are at least two explanations of that and gave them. The point is why would someone who made up the bible story put that in if he knew it didn't happen in a generation. That doesn't make sense unless you are being completely honest in your writing.

They could be honestly relating a story. EG: a publisher who honestly prints "1984" with the title "1984" rather than adapting it by giving it the title "2084".

How long were the stories about Jesus told before they were written down in the form we know today?

By the time the story was written in the form that has been handed down, I'm sure there were many people who believed it was fact rather than fiction. There is plenty of historical evidence for people who were devout Christians. Such people would not change the stories they believed were true. That doesn't mean the stories are true. That doesn't even mean that the original author believed the stories to be true.

Also Geisler/Turek points out the embarrassing passage where Jesus "seems" to deny His deity when asking the rich young ruler: "Why do you call me good?... No one is good- except God alone' (Luke 18;19) This also doesn't make sense for someone to make up about Christ... Conclusion: the story wasn't made up.

Why is that embarrassing? There are still Christians today who don't believe in the divinity of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Luke might have been one such. He might have been writing down his actual beliefs. That doesn't make his beliefs true.

 

[FireGarden]

Posted by DOC
I get the feeling those movies didn't portray Lenin and Stalin as having any flaws because you didn't mention any.

How about the popular TV series Superman. I don't seem to remember him having any flaws.

I don't remember the original TV series.

Actually, if you read the Dark Knight stories by Frank Miller, you will probably not be too impressed by Superman's character -- although he does show himself to be a good guy at heart (rather than a government stooge) at the end of the story.

In Superman 1, Clark Kent is told by his father not to showoff. I think he still shows off every now and again in the movie. Do you regard that as a character flaw?

In Superman 2, having regained his powers, he goes back to settle the score with the guy who beat him up. Do you regard that as a character flaw?

Then, of course, there is all the lying he has to do to keep his secret identity. This is common to almost all Superman stories. In Superman 1, they make the joke of him looking for a place to change -- while (I think) the helicopter is on the rooftop about to fall. Modern phone booths aren't suitable! Such concerns slow him down on his way to the emergency. Is that heroic?

The Smallville series has had Clark Kent getting angry. eg: after his father died and he went after the man who mugged his mother.

At the end of this, you have to ask yourself: "Which of these portrayals of Superman are the best? Which will be remembered in 100 years time -- when many of the 100's of stories told about Superman are forgotten?"

I think Dark Knight will be remembered as a great Batman story. And Superman 1 is probably the best of the movies.

 

[marksman]

Even in the first Superman series from the 1950s, Clark Kent/Superman is flawed. In the first episode, he gets his job as a reporter by wagering with Perry White over a man's life. He also uses his powers to scoop other reporters (including Lois Lane) from getting news stories. George Reeves' Superman is often shown to be arrogant, cocky, condescending and patronizing.

 

[DOC]

Someone also mentioned the the verse where Christ seemed to say the tribulation would be seen by this generation. Although there is at least two explanations for this (eg. generation can be translated "race" to mean the Jewish race would be alive when this happened and that He was talking about the generation that was alive during the time He was talking about) it doesn't make sense for a NT writer to make this up when it could possibly make Jesus look bad.

Whatever are you talking about, DOC?

Mark 13:30

The exact line that Jesus said was “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." How ever did you interpret "there be some standing here" to mean "people 2000+ years from now"? As for the idea that some Jews will be alive when the Son of Man comes in His kingdom, that makes for the most useless prophecy I have ever heard.

You're not talking about Mark 13:30. Your talking about Luke 9:27. And I wasn't taking about 2000+ years from now, I was talking about how some have said Jesus was talking about the "generation" of people that were alive during the tribulation.

And the idea that the word generation was referring to the Jewish race is just one interpretation (I didn't say it was mine). But when your under occupation of a foreign power like the Romans or the Nazis it is not unreasonable to worry about the survival of your people and whether they will be around during some future event.

OK, I'll agree with you. The Gospel writers didn't make it up. The alternative is that Jesus said it and He was wrong. Thus we get back to the opening post: the failed prophecy in Matthew proves that the Gospel are not inspired truth.

Well to say you agree the Gospel writers didn't make it up is a "big step" for a lot of people on Randi because some seem to think that the story was just made up.

Then you say the alternative is Jesus is wrong about His prophecy. Well that is open to debate as I have pointed out.

And if you agree the writers didn't make up the words of Jesus than it would be reasonable to conclude that the writers (2 of which, Matthew and John, were eyewitnesses) didn't make up their account of the resurrection.

 

[Ladewig]

You're not talking about Mark 13:30. Your talking about Luke 9:27.

Yes, I got confused and was referring to Math 16:28 (from post 43) which is the same as Luke 9:27.

And I wasn't taking about 2000+ years from now, I was talking about how some have said Jesus was talking about the "generation" of people that were alive during the tribulation.

I meant to say 2000 years from when Jesus said that instead of 2000 years from today.

And the idea that the word generation was referring to the Jewish race is just one interpretation (I didn't say it was mine). But when your under occupation of a foreign power like the Romans or the Nazis it is not unreasonable to worry about the survival of your people and whether they will be around during some future event.

I accept neither your cited interpretation nor your reasoning. If the Bible needs that much interpretation to understand it, then the idea that the Bible is accessible and understandable to everyone is bunkum.

Well to say you agree the Gospel writers didn't make it up is a "big step" for a lot of people on Randi because some seem to think that the story was just made up.

Then you say the alternative is Jesus is wrong about His prophecy. Well that is open to debate as I have pointed out.

If one were to play fast and loose with the definitions of words, then of course, all prophecies have come true. You're playing the Nostradamus game where anything can mean anything.

And if you agree the writers didn't make up the words of Jesus than it would be reasonable to conclude that the writers (2 of which, Matthew and John, were eyewitnesses) didn't make up their account of the resurrection.

Well, actually it wouldn't. Just because one part of a story is accurate does not mean the whole story is accurate. If I say, "Rev. Martin Luther King once said 'I have a dream' and after he was assassinated he was resurrected," then I cannot use the accuracy of the quote to claim the accuracy of his resurrection. Somehow everyone in this thread gets this idea except you. Why is that?

 

[joobz]

Well to say you agree the Gospel writers didn't make it up is a "big step" for a lot of people on Randi because some seem to think that the story was just made up.

This is false. I do not doubt that some of the stories accounted for are based upon real events.

Much like many episodes of Law and order.....

And if you agree the writers didn't make up the words of Jesus than it would be reasonable to conclude that the writers (2 of which, Matthew and John, were eyewitnesses) didn't make up their account of the resurrection.

Because Hilter didn't lie when he said he liked eggs, we can conlude that He didn't lie when he said jews are evil.

 

[DOC]

I accept neither your cited interpretation nor your reasoning. If the Bible needs that much interpretation to understand it, then the idea that the Bible is accessible and understandable to everyone is bunkum.

Well as I've stated before, the great majority of believers don't have the time or the desire to put each verse under a microscope. They get peace and joy from the bible (and in many cases positive life changing experiences) without doing that. And some might say that's the greatest evidence of all for the truth of the Bible.

It's the skeptics that dissect every verse. That's why their are guys like Geisler, Dr. Hugh Ross, and GK Chesterton, who dissect the dissectors. For example Geisler dissects the arguments (against God) of philosophers David Hume, and Spinoza, in his book mentioned in post #1.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Well as I've stated before, the great majority of homeopathy users don't have the time or the desire to put their drugs under a microscope. They get peace and joy from their medicine (and in many cases positive life changing improvements of their conditions) without doing that. And some might say that's the greatest evidence of all for the truth of homeopathy.

Beg to differ.