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

[Ladewig]

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.

The reason these people are so happy with the Bibles is that they ignore verses that they don't like. The Bible says not to wear clothing of mixed fibers, but almost every Christian ignores that part of the Bible. The Bible says don't charge interest when lending money but every Christian ignores that part of the Bible. If we are allowed to choose the parts that we like and ignore the rest, then sign me up for the going to Heaven part and count me out on the love your enemies part. Weeee, this kind of Christianity is fun. My homosexual friends can be true Bible-following Christians now. Good for them.

 

[six7s]

Well as I've stated before, the great majority of believers blah blah blah

Yeah... and has been pointed before, argument ad populum don't count for Jacques Schitt

And some might say that's the greatest evidence of all for the truth of the Bible.

Interesting... so... you acknowledge that the bible is worth squat. Great! Now what? Will you stop pretending otherwise? No... of course not...

Please tell me DOC, in all the time you have been active on this critical thinking forum, how many of your opinions have you thought about, critically?

It's the skeptics that dissect every verse.

So what? If its the 'inspired word of your god', then any verse ought to be able to withstand scrutiny... The bizarre thing is that, despite its glaring inconsistencies and obvious errors, you manage to pretend (at least to yourself) that it has more value than any other work of fiction

 

[joobz]

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 good for them. Peace is often a difficult thing to come by, and what can bring you comfort is worth while. Whether it be
religion, meditation, exercise a good book. I will never take that peace away from someone.

And some might say that's the greatest evidence of all for the truth of the Bible.

And some would be wrong.
Afterall, people find peace and positive life changing experiences from many other things. That doesn't prove anything. But you know this.

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.

Some do. But, the good ones will actually attempt to find the logic of the bible in it's own right and not attempt to detract the detracters. Saint Thomas Aquinis, for instance.

For example Geisler dissects the arguments (against God) of philosophers David Hume, and Spinoza, in his book mentioned in post #1.

And, I'm guessing he does so in a poor, illogical fashion. Like everything you have presented of his.

 

[D'rok]

...
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.

Evidence for the bolded bit?

 

[Hokulele]

The grandest of irony regarding this thread is the fact that DOC, in one of his other interminable threads, admitted that he hasn't read the entire bible.

DOC, would it shock you to realize that at least one of the atheists you are debating with, and most likely several of them, have read your precious bible cover to cover? Some of them more than once? And yet, after having read, analyzed, and thoroughly digested the content within, have rejected this as being The Truth^TM.

Sure, there are parts of the bible that are nice, and the world would be a better place if everyone acted in accordance. But, there are many portions of the bible that are factually wrong, morally wrong, or coherently wrong, so much so that anyone with any reasonable sense of reason looks to other sources to confirm which bits to believe and which to discard.

 

[Darat]

The grandest of irony regarding this thread is the fact that DOC, in one of his other interminable threads, admitted that he hasn't read the entire bible.

DOC, would it shock you to realize that at least one of the atheists you are debating with, and most likely several of them, have read your precious bible cover to cover? Some of them more than once? And yet, after having read, analyzed, and thoroughly digested the content within, have rejected this as being The Truth^TM.

Sure, there are parts of the bible that are nice, and the world would be a better place if everyone acted in accordance. But, there are many portions of the bible that are factually wrong, morally wrong, or coherently wrong, so much so that anyone with any reasonable sense of reason looks to other sources to confirm which bits to believe and which to discard.

I thought DOC hadn't read it given some of his lack of knowledge of what is actually in Genesis in another thread. It could be that DOC is a Roman Catholic as the laity aren't really pushed to read the whole Bible since it is the Church's role to interpret the Bible. I come from a protestant background that encouraged the laity to read the Bible, if memory serves me right I had read the entire (protestant) Bible before teenage-hood and I think I have read it in its entirety at least three times. (I do remember skipping through the ....begot... bits!)

 

[cyborg]

The greatest evidence the Bible has for it is that you can ignore all of it and feel good about it being on your book shelf.

Sounds kinda like an idol to me.

 

[Bikewer]

I mentioned Bart Ehrman's books early on in this thread. He's a well-respected biblical scholar.
His scenario seems to make good sense, and also accounts for most of the problems associated with the NT books.
The earliest known Gospel, Mark, is also the simplest and least embellished. It apparently appeared in written form somewhere in the area of 40-50 years after the death of JC.
(that's an awfully long time for an oral tradition to be passed around without alteration)
The rest of the Canonical Gospels can be seen as extensions of Mark, each more embellished as they appeared.
None of these documents were written by the individuals named as the author, and none of them were written by first-person witnesses to the events. The best texts we have are all copies of copies....
In addition to the Canonical Gospels, there are over 100 other Gospels known to scholars. Some relatively complete (such as the recently published Gospel of Judas Escariot) some only fragments, and some known only by mention.
The discovery of the Nag Hammurabi Library gave us insight into the Gnostic movement and the previously known-only-by-mention Gnostic gospels.

In addition to this array of Gospels, we had an array of early-Christian "Jesus Cults" of wildly differing notions about the nature and purpose of Jesus, God (or Gods) and everything else. Some of these cults thought that Jesus was, in fact, the Jewish Messiah, and that "Christianity" should adhere to Jewish law.
Some thought differently....
Some thought JC was entirely divine, a mere spirit. Some that he was entirely human, and actually "possessed" by the spirit of God. And so on....

Over a period of several hundred years, these various cults sorted themselves out, mostly due to political infighting and wrangling. The less popular ideas died out, and very gradually
a standardized version of what Christianity would become began to emerge. "Heresies" such as Gnosticism were stamped out, and the Gospels that most closely reflected the ideas that these "proto-orthodox" Christians wanted were favored.

In this view, we need not concern ourselves with the "truth" of the various Gospels. They are all products of a highly-unreliable oral tradition that was also heavily influenced by politics. "Christianity" evolved over several hundred years, only coming to some semblance of orthodoxy by the time of the Council Of Nicea. Many different versions of Christianity had existed, and one won out to become more-or-less orthodox.

 

[I Ratant]

Good summation.
This DOC guy really oughta sit down and open his bible, and read it cover to cover as many of us have, more than once.

 

[paximperium]

Good summation.
This DOC guy really oughta sit down and open his bible, and read it cover to cover as many of us have, more than once.

Why should he? He has a set of beliefs that cannot be changed by anything, much less stupid things like evidence or facts.

 

[joobz]

Many different versions of Christianity had existed, and one won out to become more-or-less orthodox.

A common response to which is that "the one that won did so because it was the true christian faith"

Obviously, this logic fails as it is merely affirming the consequent. History is written by the victors. Popularity doesn't define truth, except for the truth of what is popular.

 

[six7s]

History is written by the victors. Popularity doesn't define truth, except for the truth of what is popular.

History is written by historians. The victors decide what gets burnt and what gets shelved...

Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
We know major tomes are junkie

 

[DOC]

This DOC guy really oughta sit down and open his bible, and read it cover to cover as many of us have, more than once.

Name two others in this thread who have read it cover to cover more than once.

 

[I Ratant]

Name two others in this thread who has read it cover to cover more than once.

.
I'm sure they could identify themselves, if they so wished.
It's a "yawn" matter, in reality.
Were you to take up the task, and begin at Genesis, and compare all those "inerrant" truths with what is reality, by the time you got to the plagarists in the NT, you -should- have detected the hand of man, not anyone else, in every chapter and verse.
Here's two who have read it, and pretty rejected it, outside this mini-microcosm..
Voltaire, and Asimov.

 

[DOC]

Evidence for the bolded bit?

Let's just say after reading a lot of the evidence I'm of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence shows John and Mathew wrote the Gospels attributed to them for 2000 years.

I've already pointed out it was not a good idea to place your name on pro Jesus writings in Roman occupied lands. The 11 of the 12 apostles who were martyred would have probably told you that.

 

[DOC]

Well to say you {Ladewig} 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.....

What exactly is false in my quote.

And how many characters in Law and Order will end up being actual historical figures in History books.

 

[kmortis]

Name two others in this thread who have read it cover to cover more than once.

I have. Three times. I generally read huge swaths of it still every year (I usually skip the more tedious parts like Numbers) just to remind myself why I'm an atheist.

 

[six7s]

Let's just say after reading a lot of the evidence I'm of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence shows John and Mathew wrote the Gospels attributed to them for 2000 years.

Let's just ask: what evidence?

Name two others in this thread who have read it cover to cover more than once.

I've read it right through once - although not in one sitting, I ain't a masochist! How many times have you read it from cover to cover, DOC?

Oh... and another question that you seem to have (conveniently?) overlooked:

Please tell me DOC, in all the time you have been active on this critical thinking forum, how many of your opinions have you thought about, critically?

 

[joobz]

What exactly is false in my quote.

It is false to say that "A lot" of people don't believe the bible is at all true. I'd guess that the majority beleive it contains elements of true history or derived from true stories. T

And how many characters in Law and Order will end up being actual historical figures in History books.

This question is nonsensical. Read "the Eight" by Cathrine NEvelle and tell me that it's a real story simply because it contains real historical people.

 

[Fitter]

Name two others in this thread who have read it cover to cover more than once.

I have. Three times. I generally read huge swaths of it still every year (I usually skip the more tedious parts like Numbers) just to remind myself why I'm an atheist.

I've read it more than twice.