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

[paximperium]

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.

Or by Jack the brick layer who heard a story from Bob the builder who got the story from his second cousin removed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

There are three verses (and three versions) in Acts, DOC. One was a narrative relation by the author of Acts that includes what Jesus supposedly said. Two were in the first person because they are related as speeches by Paul -- one to the Jews in Jerusalem and one as a speech to the Roman governor.

Don't you know your own books?

 

[DOC]

So? How does that corroborate YOUR claim?

As I said before, over 500 people witnessing a risen Christ helps explain the tremendous growth of Christianity. Personally I can't explain it any other way in a Roman occupied area with no TV, radio, modern transportation, newpapers etc. . And in an area where being a Christian can get you tortured and killed. It just doesn't make sense how it grew so fast under those conditions unless a very large number of people witnessed something. The over 500 witnesses Paul talks about helps explain all this sudden growth in such a large area.

 

[Lothian]

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.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

So they heard Pauls voice but could not see him.
So in one version we have men seeing a trick of the light but hearing nothing, in another we have Paul's doing a disapearing act and throwing his voice. Is there a version of the story where the men see or heat Jesus or is that all in Paul's mind.

 

[DOC]

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

Are you serious?

Strawman, they were speechless because of the unusual light they saw.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Strawman, they were speechless because of the unusual light they saw.

Please look up the definition of the word "strawman" and actually read the text instead of the version you make up in your mind trying to reconcile the different version so that you do not read what is actually there.

"The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless, for though they heard the voice they could see no one."

No mention of the light appearing to the men in those verses. They are amazed because of the voice but no person attached to the voice; not because of a light they see. That is how the verses read. Sorry, DOC.

 

[paximperium]

As I said before, over 500 people witnessing a risen Christ helps explain the tremendous growth of Christianity.

Says who again?
You can keep claiming it but it does not make it automatically true.

Personally I can't explain it any other way in a Roman occupied area with no TV, radio, modern transportation, newpapers etc. . And in an area where being a Christian can get you tortured and killed.

Argument from Ignorance. AGAIN. That seems to be your entirety of argument.

It just doesn't make sense how it grew so fast under those conditions unless a very large number of people witnessed something. The over 500 witnesses Paul talks about helps explain all this sudden growth in such a large area.

Fast? Several hundred years is fast?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As I said before, over 500 people witnessing a risen Christ helps explain the tremendous growth of Christianity. Personally I can't explain it any other way in a Roman occupied area with no TV, radio, modern transportation, newpapers etc. .

The faith grew, by best estimates, at a rate of 40% per decade -- the current rate of growth of the Mormon church, spread not by television but by evangelism.

And in an area where being a Christian can get you tortured and killed.

Christian myth amounting to a lie. Where is the evidence that being a Christian throughout the Roman Empire could get you tortured and killed? Jews in Palestine had a problem with Christians (and we have evidence in Acts of a couple of martyrdoms) but the Romans didn't. The first persecution was not until Nero and that was restricted to Rome itself and didn't concern the faith of the people involved -- they were scapegoats for Nero.

Do you even know when the first empire-wide persecutions took place?

It just doesn't make sense how it grew so fast under those conditions unless a very large number of people witnessed something. The over 500 witnesses Paul talks about helps explain all this sudden growth in such a large area.

Why not? Why has the Mormon church grown at the same rate in ages with and without television and with no large groups seeing the miracle of a risen Christ? It makes perfect sense.

 

[paximperium]

Why not? Why has the Mormon church grown at the same rate in ages with and without television and with no large groups seeing the miracle of a risen Christ? It makes perfect sense.

Because Mormonism is true of course.

 

[Lothian]

Personally I can't explain it any other way in a Roman occupied area with no TV, radio, modern transportation, newpapers etc. . And in an area where being a Christian can get you tortured and killed. It just doesn't make sense how it grew so fast under those conditions unless a very large number of people witnessed something.

Have you never heard of flirty fishing?

 

[catbasket]

I love DOC's idea that the empty tomb is evidence of the resurrection.

I have an empty cardbox next to my desk. So DOC, by your "empty tomb" logic you should be able to tell me what was delivered to my house today ...

 

[joobz]

I love DOC's idea that the empty tomb is evidence of the resurrection.

I have an empty cardbox next to my desk. So DOC, by your "empty tomb" logic you should be able to tell me what was delivered to my house today ...

When cornered, DOC will state,rightly, that the empty tomb isn't evidence of the resurrection. Only that it is evidence which doesn't contradict the resurrection.

The only evidence is Hearsay. DOC tries to dress it up in other guises, but it's simply impossible to get past that fact.

 

[catbasket]

My empty cardboard box (typo in previous post) is also evidence which doesn't contradict the resurrection.

The only evidence is Hearsay. DOC tries to dress it up in other guises, but it's simply impossible to get past that fact.

Yes, I've noticed this. His twisting and squirming is, for me, a fascinating insight into how the believer mindset works. And now back to your regularly scheduled programs ...

 

[Hokulele]

There are three verses (and three versions) in Acts, DOC. One was a narrative relation by the author of Acts that includes what Jesus supposedly said. Two were in the first person because they are related as speeches by Paul -- one to the Jews in Jerusalem and one as a speech to the Roman governor.

Don't you know your own books?

From what I have seen, DOC hasn't read the bible, just a few (two?) books about the bible. Well, not really about the bible, but about Christianity. He was surprised that more than two of the people he has been trying to debate with have in fact read the entire bible.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

From what I have seen, DOC hasn't read the bible, just a few (two?) books about the bible. Well, not really about the bible, but about Christianity. He was surprised that more than two of the people he has been trying to debate with have in fact read the entire bible.

Wow, really? In that case, DOC, carry on; I have many other things to do anyway.

 

[Hokulele]

Wow, really? In that case, DOC, carry on; I have many other things to do anyway.

Yep.

I probably haven't read every word of the bible, but that doesn't keep me from understanding it. Let's just say I've read enough to of had the top three threads in the religious and philosophy forum. I've also read enough to know that string theory has been severely criticized and I will bring in those criticisms of it when I get the time.

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

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I do have one thing to add to the issue about the 500 and the "rapid spread of Christianity".........

The earliest evidence we have concerning the spread of Christianity comes from Paul's letters. The picture that emerges is of small communities in major urban centers, some of which Paul clearly began himself -- like Thessalonika -- which would have been very unlikely if a large "envangelical crew" emerged from Jerusalem in 33 CE. Remember that Paul wrote his letters in the 50s and 60s. If 500 or 600 (there were supposedly 120 members of the community earlier according to Acts) evangelists hit the road in 33, what would have been left for Paul to do in 53? Either the 500 were totally ineffective or they did not exist (or they did not evangelize). The spread of the faith accelerated over time, but there is no evidence of major conversions prior to Paul's efforts. So, the argument that the faith could only have spread rapidly because of 500 evangelists emerging from Palestine in 33 CE is actually countered by the available evidence. It simply could not have happened that way.

 

[DOC]

From what I have seen, DOC hasn't read the bible, just a few (two?) books about the bible. Well, not really about the bible, but about Christianity. He was surprised that more than two of the people he has been trying to debate with have in fact read the entire bible.

Just another ad hom dealing with DOC. And I guess you believe no one can understand or talk about evolution unless they read Darwin's Origin of Species cover to cover. And how many tens of millions believe in relativity without having a clue about the math. Why don't you complain about them in my threads?

And your guess as to how many books I've read about the Bible is grossly wrong. I've even read more books on the Koran than that.

 

[Hokulele]

Just another ad hom dealing with DOC.

It is not an ad hominem, as it relates directly to your argument. You may want to look up that term.

And I guess you believe no one can understand or talk about evolution unless they read Darwin's Origin of Species cover to cover. And how many tens of millions believe in relativity without having a clue about the math.

If the discussion were about On the Origin of Species, then yes, I would expect all participants to have read the book. The title of this thread is "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth." If you are going to argue for or against this, it only makes sense to actually have read the entire New Testament, no?

Why don't you complain about them in my threads?

When it has been relevant, I have.

And your guess as to how many books I've read about the Bible is grossly wrong. I've even read more books on the Koran than that.

Have you ever read the Qu'ran? Are your books about the Qu'ran as grossly fallacious as Geisler's book on Christianity?

 

[Mashuna]

I've read hundreds of books on the Bible.

I use it to prop up my wobbly footstool.