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

[fuelair]

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




Still not a bit!!!

 

[Cavemonster]

No, I've already responded to this two or three weeks ago. From memory the debate is with a portion of one gospel only, what about the other 3. If I get the time I'll look up my previous answer to this.

This article is about 1 week old. The full translation isn't available yet, but the differences are broader than one section. Just the few tidbits available.

1) Contains 2 gospels NOT included in the current accepted NT.

2) Lacks any mention of Christ ascending to heaven

3) Goes out of it's way to point out that the death of Jesus was the fault of the Jews.

There's more (and I'm sure the full translation will show even more).
But, since the bible is a historical document are you going to change your beliefs to those in this more authentic version?

If not, why?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This article is about 1 week old. The full translation isn't available yet, but the differences are broader than one section. Just the few tidbits available.

1) Contains 2 gospels NOT included in the current accepted NT.

2) Lacks any mention of Christ ascending to heaven

3) Goes out of it's way to point out that the death of Jesus was the fault of the Jews.

There's more (and I'm sure the full translation will show even more).
But, since the bible is a historical document are you going to change your beliefs to those in this more authentic version?

If not, why?

Sorry, a few corrections:

They weren't gospels, but a letter and another work -- specifically, the Epistle of Barnabas (which is extremely anti-semitic) and The Shepherd of Hermas. These are only two of the many works from that time that were thought by many to be canonical but were not included in the New Testament that we now have.

The ascension to heaven is left out of Mark's gospel only -- that is how we know that the bit in Mark that includes the ascension is a later addition.

The same is true of the story in John about the woman caught in adultery -- not in the Codex Sinaiticus.

There are a few other lines left out of the other canonical gospel here and there, as well.

Scholars have known about this and studied it since the 19th century. The only difference now is that it is available on-line.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sorry, a few corrections:

They weren't gospels, but a letter and another work -- specifically, the Epistle of Barnabas (which is extremely anti-semitic) and The Shepherd of Hermas. These are only two of the many works from that time that were thought by many to be canonical but were not included in the New Testament that we now have.

The ascension to heaven is left out of Mark's gospel only -- that is how we know that the bit in Mark that includes the ascension is a later addition.

The same is true of the story in John about the woman caught in adultery -- not in the Codex Sinaiticus.

There are a few other lines left out of the other canonical gospel here and there, as well.

Scholars have known about this and studied it since the 19th century. The only difference now is that it is available on-line.

Ah, you're more informed than I. All my information on the Codex Sinaiticus came from that recent article which suggested that the availability of the translation was a recent thing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If it weren't for Bart Ehrman, I wouldn't know what little I do. I just didn't want to give DOC a way in. I think the press oversold this to sell papers. The more things change .....................

 

[DOC]

Hahahahahahahaha...what a dodge.
You must have missed every post that has completely torn those completely fallacious arguments apart.

Not ONE SINGLE non-fallacious argument? None? Can't even find one?
I stand by my original statement. When I said ALL, I mean ALL until you can show otherwise.

Mr Hahahahahahahaha, I stand by those 5 non-fallacious arguments in post #1.

And I asked you to list only 3 fallacious arguments in my 100 posts in this thread and which post they came from. You have yet to do that to my knowledge.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Mr Hahahahahahahaha, I stand by those 5 non-fallacious arguments in post #1.

And I asked you to list only 3 fallacious arguments in my 100 posts in this thread and which post they came from. You have yet to do that to my knowledge.

You can stand by them all you want. It doesn't make the arguments any less fallacious. The errors have already been pointed out to you, so why do you stand by arguments that are flawed? It seems a right silly thing to do.

 

[calebprime]

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.

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."

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.

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

reasons #s 1-3 are basically the same and only tend to support the notion that some strands of the NT are original--but that doesn't mean they're true.

reason #9 is quite silly. It's as if he thinks that people were fundamentally less intelligent in those days, as if he's describing the lies of children--as opposed to the fictions of adults. Less informed, yes, but not innately less intelligent.

reason #10: We've listed Heaven's Gate as a counterexample; lately I've been reading about Jonestown. Committed, caring, fully functioning adults fed cyanide to their own children.

(I don't join groups. Group dynamics freak me out. Any place where three or more are gathered, I won't go.)

 

[joobz]

Mr Hahahahahahahaha, I stand by those 5 non-fallacious arguments in post #1.

And I asked you to list only 3 fallacious arguments in my 100 posts in this thread and which post they came from. You have yet to do that to my knowledge.

DOC, why do you not present the other 5 reasons given by Geisler?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here they are

 

[joobz]

Here they are

Oh, That's Hilarious! I now understand why DOC didn't present the information.

4.) Carefully Distinguish Jesus' words from their own.

Because, it is impossible for authors to make up dialog of characters in their stories.

5.) Include events about the Ressurection that they would not have invented.

This is my favorite. Um, it's impossible to make up this stuff, so there fore it's true.....

6.) Include at least thirst historically confirmed public figures in thier writings.

At my dinner party last night, I had
1.) Hitler,
2.) Abraham Lincoln
3.) GW Bush
4.) Alexander Graham Bell
5/6.) The Olsen Twins
7.) Vlad the Impaler
8.) Churchill
9.) Newton
10.) Einstein
11-14.) The Members of Rush (the band)
15-19.) The Jackson Five
20.) Hirohito
21.) Alexander Dumas
22.) Putin
23.) Washington
24.) Jefferson
25-27.) Cream (the band)
28.) Janis Joplin
29.) Obama
attend.
Ok, you got me. this is completely made up. I couldn't possibly come up with 1 more name. If it was true, I'm sure I could have. But considering it's fake, it is simply impossible to add that name to the list.

7.) include divergent details

because only truth rambles into tangents and inconsistencies in stories prove the story is true!!!!

8.) challenge their readers to check out verifiable facts, even facts about miracles

Two things.
1.) Where does the bible do this.
2.) Even if it did, it is meaningless. Scientology offers the same "challenge." It's only meaningful if it can withstand the challenge, which it unfortunately doesn't.


ETA:
I also find it amusing how #7 and #9 contradict eachother.
The bible contains both divergent details but unembellisshed accounts.

 

[paximperium]

Mr Hahahahahahahaha, I stand by those 5 non-fallacious arguments in post #1.

And I asked you to list only 3 fallacious arguments in my 100 posts in this thread and which post they came from. You have yet to do that to my knowledge.

Amusing. You stand by them? You stand by your logical fallacy filled list of BS?

Post 1

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

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

Non-Sequitur

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.

Non-sequitur

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."

Another triple non-sequitur. Making grand claims and statements that "does not follow" from the simple premise that "X says Y" therefore A.

Three simple, similar logical fallacies in your first posts. I could go on but I'll stop here.

One single non-fallacious, non-logical fallacy post. Just One DOC. Come on, you can do it.

 

[DOC]

Amusing. You stand by them? You stand by your logical fallacy filled list of BS?

Post 1

Non-Sequitur

Non-sequitur


Another triple non-sequitur. Making grand claims and statements that "does not follow" from the simple premise that "X says Y" therefore A.

Three simple, similar logical fallacies in your first posts. I could go on but I'll stop here.

One single non-fallacious, non-logical fallacy post. Just One DOC. Come on, you can do it.

To your non-sequiturs, I say non-sequitur. I not only stand by the five I brought in but all ten of them. Your fancy words are just that. The 5 posts I brought in speak for themselves. All the rationalization and Latin words in the world will not change them.

 

[DOC]

Here they are

Actually the list of ten reasons on this site on page 279 are just summaries that Geisler put in at the end of the chapter. The whole chapter of 21 pages was devoted to these 10 reasons and the whole chapter is spent expounding on them. I'll try to get to some of his reasoning as time permits.

 

[Hokulele]

The 5 posts I brought in speak for themselves. All the rationalization and Latin words in the world will not change them

Hey, you are absolutely correct! They speak for themselves in that they are arrant nonsense, and all the rationalization and Latin words in the world cannot change that fact.

 

[Hokulele]

Actually the list of ten reasons on this site on page 279 are just summaries that Geisler put in at the end of the chapter. The whole chapter of 21 pages was devoted to these 10 reasons and the whole chapter is spent expounding on them. I'll try to get to some of his reasoning as time permits.

Thanks to Ichneumonwasp's link, I have already read that chapter. By all means, try to justify his reasoning (hint, it is no better than the reasoning you have demonstrated in this thread).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hokulele already mentioned it. Post deleted.

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele already mentioned it. Post deleted.

I win!

Seriously though, I wonder if it is worth bringing in quotes from that book and trying to explain why and how they demonstrate faulty reasoning.

Eh, maybe after the football game.

 

[paximperium]

To your non-sequiturs, I say non-sequitur.

That is the stupidest comeback I've read in sometime. That's something a 10year old would say.

I not only stand by the five I brought in but all ten of them.

Good for you...enjoy your sinking ship.

Your fancy words are just that. The 5 posts I brought in speak for themselves. All the rationalization and Latin words in the world will not change them.

I completely agree.

One single non-fallacious, non-logical fallacy post. Just One DOC. Come on, you can do it.

 

[DOC]

Oh, That's Hilarious! I now understand why DOC didn't present the information.

No you don't, I felt not putting all 10 in would cause some people (who were serious about apologetics) to actually get this very good book. If you had gotten the book earlier you might not have made that error about a singularity being infinite mass that you made other thread. The clear scientific explanations in Geisler's book made me realize your definition didn't seem right. So there is a chance you might still think a singularity contains infinite mass if it wasn't for Geisler's book.

This is my favorite. Um, it's impossible to make up this stuff, so there fore it's true.....

It probably won't be your favorite, after I give Geisler's reasoning. I'll bring it in as time permits.

I also find it amusing how #7 and #9 contradict eachother.
The bible contains both divergent details but unembellisshed accounts.

I see no contradiction, he was talking about divergent details such as the one angel versus two that was in one of the gospels. He also points out that it is normal for eyewitnesses to have divergent accounts of the details. And the "main" events after the resurrection are the same in all the gospels.