• 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.
joobz said:
It's clear that Geisler's attempt is at quantity over quality of arguments. If he makes enough small pointless claims, than that must be better than 1 concrete bit of evidence.
Click to expand...
Do you know, that reminds me of someone. If I only I could remember who it was...
 
DOC said:
This is not true. Paul was not a Christian, in fact he even brutally persecuted them. And he claimed to see the resurrected Christ. He also said 500 other people saw the resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were still alive. 1 Cor 15: 5-8

http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1cor15.html

Christ being seen by 500 people at once could explain the tremendous growth of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire even in the face of possible torture and death. Paul was really putting himself on the line by saying most of the 500 were still alive. Skeptics of the time would certainly be able to track down some of the over 250 witnesses still alive.
Click to expand...



DOC, he said that as a Christian. Do you undersand this fact? You are supporting my argument, so why do you lead with "This is not true". The whole point is that someone who was sure of the resurrection would not deny the faith unless you have evidence of someone who did. For someone to attest the resurrection of Jesus they would have to believe that it occurred. For Paul to persecute Christians he necessarily did not buy the idea that Jesus had been resurrected. It was not until he had the visionary experience on the road to Damascus -- of a risen Christ -- that he changed his mind.

As to the "500" -- what? Skeptics would track down unnamed witnesses 20 years after the fact in another region of the Roman Empire? Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some because there is no way anyone could make such an argument soberly or rationally.

This didn't all happen in a high school auditorium where you could look across the room but in a widely spaced area over a long period of time. If someone in Galatia or Corinth did not believe that Paul was telling the truth, do you honestly think s/he would track down the details? Most of the Jews probably thought he was nuts. What, a crucified criminal is the Lord of the Universe? Yeah, right. The logical response for the unbeliever would be -- go screw yourself, I've got work to do.

But let's say that someone did check up on Paul's account. And let's say this person found out that he was wrong. How is such an account going to survive? It has to be copied and re-copied through the ages. There was a concerted attempt to squelch forms of Christianity that did not fit the proto-orthodox creed -- we are lucky to have surviving documents (but we do have them -- and they demonstrate that Christianity was not one creed from very early) -- so what do you think would happen to a document that denied the faith entirely?

Why would anyone even bother? You are looking at this with 21st century eyes after proto-orthodox Christianity won its battle and Christianity has become intwined in the current power structure. In the 1st century there was a completely different perspective.

ETA:

As to the "500" being the reason why the faith spread so quickly, what? The evidence we have is that the faith did not spread quickly in Jerusalem. The city did not convert overnight and become a Christian enclave as one would expect if 500 people witnessed the miraculous right before their eyes (not to mention the dead that emerged from their tombs to walk about the city earlier). The faith spread in the rest of the Roman Empire, from best estimates in peri-Jewish settlements.

Oh, wait, did that happen in Jerusalem or in Galilee? I have trouble keeping up with the instructions -- go immediately back to Galilee, do not depart but stay in Jerusalem. How are we to know where this happened? Paul doesn't say.
 
Last edited:
The empty tomb is one of the best examples of the maxim: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe they cooked up that cockamamie story about Judas committing suicide to cover up what happened to the body, DOC. Stories, I should say. They couldn't even keep that straight between gospels.

When the gospels were being written, Jerusalem had been sacked and the Jewish authorities sent fleeing for their lives. There was no way for them to present evidence that Jesus had never been resurrected, and there was no chance they would have been accepted as fine, upstanding citizens able to present such evidence. Most Romans at the time didn't care at all, DOC. It was considered an internal squabble, which is why early Christians began to take great pains around AD 70 to start differentiating themselves from the Jews.

Right around the time the gospels started being written down.
 
Hokulele said:
It could also be due to temporal lobe epilepsy (as has been pointed out to you before).
Click to expand...

But epilepsy wouldn't explain the men who were with Paul on the road to Damascus who saw a light and were frightened.

From Acts 22:9

And they that were with me {Paul} saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
 
DOC said:
But epilepsy wouldn't explain the men who were with Paul on the road to Damascus who saw a light and were frightened.

From Acts 22:9

And they that were with me {Paul} saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Click to expand...
Who are these men? The same men claimed by the delusional person having seizures?
 
DOC said:
But epilepsy wouldn't explain the men who were with Paul on the road to Damascus who saw a light and were frightened.

From Acts 22:9

And they that were with me {Paul} saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Click to expand...



Would these be the same men, who in Acts 9 "stood there speechless, for though they heard the voice they could see no one"?

Or would this be the men who, in Acts 26, "all fell to the ground"?

Did they see but not hear, hear but not see, stand speechless, or fall to the ground? Maybe Luke was a bit confused? Maybe they were inserted into the story as witnesses to Paul?
 
paximperium said:
So we have a story of a true believer claim this vision of seeing Jesus(Paul never met this Jesus person when he was alive and didn't even know how this person supposedly looked like) and an alleged 500 witnesses that can never be verified?
Does your other gospels even corroborate his claim?

Where are any of the other writings of these witnesses?
Click to expand...

How many people do you know who witnessed 911 on TV ever wrote a magazine article or a book about it. And just because there is no known writings 2000 years later, that doesn't mean none or the 500 wrote anything... Did Julius Caesar never exist because we don't have one single signature of his. 2000 years and the desert sun can do a number on papyrus. How many pieces of paper in your room with your handwritten writings on them do you think will be around in 2000 years.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Would these be the same men, who in Acts 9 "stood there speechless, for though they heard the voice they could see no one"?

Or would this be the men who, in Acts 26, "all fell to the ground"?
Click to expand...

You have the incorrect wording in your verse. You said heard "the" voice instead of heard "a" voice. Yes they heard "a" voice -- Paul's voice. So there is no contradiction.
 
DOC said:
How many people do you know who witnessed 911 on TV ever wrote a magazine article or a book about it.
Click to expand...
I know...oh, five who have actually written things on 9/11...not to mention the countless tens of thousands of other written sources out there.

And just because there is no known writings 2000 years later, that doesn't mean none or the 500 wrote anything...
Click to expand...
So? How does that corroborate YOUR claim?

Did Julius Caesar never exist because we don't have one single signature of his.
Click to expand...
Don't care. We're not talking about Gaius Julius Ceasor.

2000 years and the desert sun can do a number on papyrus. How many pieces of paper in your room with your handwritten writings on them do you think will be around in 2000 years.
Click to expand...
Don't care. Do you have evidence to back up your claim or will you continue to do the pee pee dance?
 
DOC said:
They did see a light that frightened them.
Click to expand...
Must be the aliens from planet Zebob. They are scary lights after all.
I hereby claim that they saw the Zebobians hence you're worshipping aliens :rolleyes:
 
Also you will notice that one of the verses in Acts was written in the first person and one in the third person so one could have been written by Luke and one by Paul.
 
paximperium said:
I know...oh, five who have actually written things on 9/11...not to mention the countless tens of thousands of other written sources out there.
Click to expand...

Yes, probably in a computer forum, which didn't exist back then. Out of all the people I know I know of no one who has written one article about 911.
 
DOC said:
Yes, probably in a computer forum, which didn't exist back then.
Click to expand...
2 wrote papers on it, 1 wrote in a magazine and 2 wrote books.

Out of all the people I know I know of no one who has written one article about 911.
Click to expand...
So?

Do you have anything else? This is getting boring.
 
DOC said:
You have the incorrect wording in your verse. You said heard "the" voice instead of heard "a" voice. Yes they heard "a" voice -- Paul's voice. So there is no contradiction.
Click to expand...



Let me get this straight. Travelling companions of Paul stood there speechless because they heard Paul's voice?

Are you serious?

I've heard some really stupid apologetics before, but this really takes the cake. Please tell me that was a joke that I just didn't get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom