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

[arthwollipot]

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

Yeah, it's called tu quoque. Or, the I know you are but what am I? fallacy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.




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




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.

OK, I guess I should have left my response -- DOC you can scroll up and down from that page to see the reasoning behind each of those points, at least until you reach the limit for loading pages (and although every other page is omitted).

 

[joobz]

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 a distraction argument. My argument in that thread stands unanswered by you. The error I made had no effect on that argument.

Unlike geisler, who simply uses non-sequitors as a form of logic.

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

I can look it up. Truly though, I don't need to . It seems the whole book is of the same quality as saying university = unity + Diversity.

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.

So he's using divergent as equal to contradictory.

In other words:

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

Sorry DOC, Geisler seems to be a rather terrible author and apologist. If I were an apologist, I certainly wouldn't want to be equated with him.

 

[Hokulele]

Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:

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

Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.

What does martyrdom prove? Does it prove Islam is true too?

Not at all. There are some similarities, but there's one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.

Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?

 

[joobz]

Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?

That's even funnier than I thought it would be.


DOC, I may actually have to buy this book. When I teach logic, It'll provide me with endless examples of poorly constructed arguments.

 

[Foster Zygote]

11-14.) The Members of Rush (the band)

Are you including John Rutsey?

 

[Hokulele]

That's even funnier than I thought it would be.

I thought people here would enjoy that one. I will refrain from posting more until I see DOC's response to this. *Giggle*

DOC, I may actually have to buy this book. When I teach logic, It'll provide me with endless examples of poorly constructed arguments.

Don't forget the humor value!

 

[tyr_13]

From Wiki's article on the "Best Selling Books"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books..

You can't count it as sold if it is given away for one, and two, your own link shows that Mao's Little Red Book could have 'sold' 6.5 billion, 500 million more than the bible 'sold'.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have read the rest of the thread that I missed. I can't believe that doc makes Yeti look reasonable....

 

[Mashuna]

Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:

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

Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.

What does martyrdom prove? Does it prove Islam is true too?

Not at all. There are some similarities, but there's one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.

Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?

I can't see any circular reasoning. It's all very clear. Look, I'll explain it to you.

Christianity is true. We know this because people die for it. People die for it because their beliefs are sincere. But sincerity on its own is not enough. People die for sincere things that are false. But this is not false because Christianity is true.

Oh, wait. . .

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Let me guess, the "main" events are the ones where the accounts agree, and where they diverge the events are less important?

 

[joobz]

Are you including John Rutsey?

I was wondering if anyone else would pick up on that.

 

[joobz]

There is no shortage of dumb in Geisler's book.

6. The New Testament writers include more than thirty historically confirmed people in thier writings

This is a critical point that bear repeating. The New Testament documents cannot have been invented because they contain too many historically confirmed characters (see table 10.1, in chapter 10). The New testament writers would have blown thier credibility with their contemporary audiences by implicating real people in a fictional story, especially people of great notoriety and power. there is no way the New Testament writers could have gotten away with writing outright lies about Pilate, Caiaphas, Festus, Felix, and the entire Herodian bloodline. Somebody would have exposed them for falsely implicating there people in events that never occured. The New Testament writers knew this ad would not have included so many prominent real people in a fictional story that was intended to deceive. Again, the best explanation is that the New Testament writers accurately recorded what they saw.

1.) Contemporary is being defined here as being written 30 to 100 years after the fact.
2.) Writing fiction doesn't equal being deceitful. I'm sure the writers probably believed what they wrote as true, that doesn't make it true. Consider the 9-11 truth movement as a perfect example.
3.) Rulers wouldn't care if they were lied about. They would only care if they were written in a bad light. If they are made to look bad, they are likely to exact retribution. Wether it is true or false.
4.) Mathew didn't sign his name, so obviously he was a bit worried about how things would be taken.
5.) Fiction commonly has famous people in it. Do people really beleive southpark when they have Saddam Having sex with Satan?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

There is no shortage of dumb in Geisler's book.


3.) Rulers wouldn't care if they were lied about. They would only care if they were written in a bad light. If they are made to look bad, they are likely to exact retribution. Wether it is true or false.

Actually, in some ways if I was an ancient despotic ruler, some things considered "bad" I would actually LIKE people to say. Nothing better for keeping control back then than fear (except possibly religion) so people thinking I'm liable to crush any dissent at the drop of a hat would not be bad, if you were of that frame of mind.

 

[DOC]

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.

Let me guess, the "main" events are the ones where the accounts agree, and where they diverge the events are less important?

Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1966 says on this matter under the subject "Resurrection of Christ" page 407.

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,

the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles,

the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples),

and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles.

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

 

[paximperium]

Let me correct your rather weak attempt:

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the huge number of different translations and versions of each Gospels give unverified contradictory hearsay written by unknown personas who never witnessed the eventsindependently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

 

[Lothian]

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

Doc, This says the impressive thing is that the accounts are totally consistent with each other in contrast to the other accounts which they are inconsistent with. See if you can spot the flaw in the reasoning.


Anyway this is irrelevant, I have 5 different accounts of goldilocks and the three bears; in each one it is the fathers porridge that is eaten first the baby's chair that breaks and the mothers bed is too soft. Consistency in stories does not mean proof.

 

[DOC]

Let me correct your rather weak attempt:

I assume you don't know that changing quotes is against the rules of the Randi.

 

[paximperium]

I assume you don't know that changing quotes is against the rules of the Randi.

Report me.

 

[paximperium]

I'm enjoying watching you squirm while dodging the challenge and trying to weasel out of it.

However, I'm not going to play your little weasel game.
"I SWEAR BY ZEUS, THE US CONSTITUTION, DAWKINS AND DARWIN THAT I WILL APOLOGIZE AND AMEND MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOUT DOC IF HE PRODUCES ONE SINGLE NON-FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD CONCERNING THE "EVIDENCE FOR WHY WE KNOW THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITER'S TOLD THE TRUTH.".

Your turn bucko.

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

 

[Lothian]

I assume you don't know that changing quotes is against the rules othf the Randi.

I don't think it is. Changing a quote to make it look a person said something they did not is against the rules.

In this case it was quite clear that paximperium is not passing the quote off as your verbatim words. It was made explicitly clear that your words had been improved.