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

[joobz]

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

I'm guessing one of them was
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Answering-I...r_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226005789&sr=1-10

 

[Hokulele]

I'm guessing one of them was
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross

Hah! Did you read those reviews? Apparently circular reasoning is still Geisler's favorite tactic.

On many occasions, the authors employ the old missionary con-trick of making an anti-Islamic claim (or pro-Christian one), and then simply referencing it back to another missionary. Thus all throughout the book we have missionary quoting missionary rather than missionaries quoting independent and recent scholarship. Many of his references therefore included current and long deceased Evangelicals such as Shorrosh, Dashti, Pfander, Tisdall, Gilchrist etc etc).On several occasions one author (Geisler) even quotes himself!! For example, on page 239, regarding Geisler's outrageous claim that the New Testament text is "98.33% pure", his reference is simply "Geisler and Nix , 365". How this is supposed to convince the neutral reader (yet alone the Muslim) that such an audacious claim is true is beyond me.

 

[joobz]

Hah! Did you read those reviews? Apparently circular reasoning is still Geisler's favorite tactic.

That's awesome!

While I, too, reference my own works in scientific publications, those tend to have the weight of peer review backing them.

 

[DOC]

...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.

Well it doesn't have to be 500, but if 200 of 500 witnessses became evangelists to the world it would make more sense than the alternative. The alternative being the heavily entrenched system of Roman and Greek gods (so entrenched that huge expensive labor intensive temples were put up in their honor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_temple#List_of_Roman_temples

was brought down by Peter, Paul, and the 11 other apostles who came from a distant provence with no communication other than their own voices and a few handwritten letters.

 

[DOC]

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.

You like someone else in here added the word "the voice" instead "a voice" in Acts 9:7 .

If you take the passage literally the voice could have been Paul's who was talking to Christ or maybe even someone nearby not in the group. And Acts 9:7 was probably written by someone else (probably Luke) since it is in 3rd person.

But the verse Acts 22:9 says...

22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

...and written in 1st person and is Paul speaking himself. If we are to believe what Paul said it was the light that made them afraid.

Although these two verses (which seem to be written by 2 different people) are not the clearest in the world (when you compare them) there is no contradiction when you take them literally.

 

[DOC]

Quote of DOC:

"...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...

From Wiki's article "List of Christian martyrs"

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 34 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew flayed alive and crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed with a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well it doesn't have to be 500, but if 200 of 500 witnessses became evangelists to the world it would make more sense than the alternative. The alternative being the heavily entrenched system of Roman and Greek gods (so entrenched that huge expensive labor intensive temples were put up in their honor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_temple#List_of_Roman_temples

was brought down by Peter, Paul, and the 11 other apostles who came from a distant provence with no communication other than their own voices and a few handwritten letters.

No, DOC, even 200 working for 20 years would make the scene that Paul finds highly unlikely; maybe twelve or thirteen would be more like it. There simply was not a massive conversion prior to Paul's evangelism. Clearly there were people working, but again, this was 15-20 years after Jesus died (at least that is when we have Paul's letters, the first that survives being written probably in 50 CE). Someone was doing something to spread the faith during that time period. The available evidence would suggest, however, that it was not a very large number, not 500, not 200, spreading out immediately in evangelistic efforts. It probably spread from community to community slowly in those early years with small groups hitting the big urban centers like Rome, Corinth, Antioch, etc. If there were massive conversions as suggested in Acts, then the faith would have spread so quickly that the Empire would have been completely converted in 20 years. We know that didn't happen.


Um, Peter and Paul brought down the heavily entrenched system of Greek and Roman gods? What? Do you even know what the polytheistic systems looked like? You do know that mystery religions spread rapidly during this age of dislocations and diasporas and that Christianity fit into this mold very nicely; that Isis worship nearly beat out Christianity in its initial spread? You do know that Christinity's adherants by the mid 4th century amounted to approximately 5-7% of the population (see Rodney Stark) and that it did not become a major religion in the Empire until Constantine's conversion? You do know that these mythical systems persisted for thousands of years before their decline and that what did them in was the exclusivity of Christianity and later Islam (polytheism means that you can always add a new god, but monotheism insists that polytheism must die)?

Peter and Paul brought nothing down. It was a series of historical contingencies that resulted in Christianity's spread in Europe. Doesn't it seem strange to you that it spread primarily in the regions that were Hellenized and then taken over by the Romans, but that it spread in only a limited way in the rest of the world? Did Luke get it wrong? I thought he implied that the message could not be stopped because it was spread by the Holy Spirit. While it has adherants in all of these places, why has it not taken over China, the mid-East, sub-Saharan Africa, Polynesia?

You like someone else in here added the word "the voice" instead "a voice" in Acts 9:7 .

If you take the passage literally the voice could have been Paul's who was talking to Christ or maybe even someone nearby not in the group. And Acts 9:7 was probably written by someone else (probably Luke) since it is in 3rd person.

But the verse Acts 22:9 says...

22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

...and written in 1st person and is Paul speaking himself. If we are to believe what Paul said it was the light that made them afraid.

Although these two verses (which seem to be written by 2 different people) are not the clearest in the world (when you compare them) there is no contradiction when you take them literally.

I didn't add or subtract anything. I quoted a translation, as did you. Whether there is a definite or indefinite article matters not. The sense of the passage has the companions standing dumbfounded because they hear the (or a) voice but could not see the (or a) body that went with the (or a) voice. If we are speaking of Paul's voice the passage makes no sense, since they next pick Paul off the ground where he has fallen (Oh, yeah, and in a later passage they fall to the ground too instead of standing unable to speak). There is no mention in this passage -- none -- that they see the light.

The latter passage is not Paul speaking to himself. In Acts 22 he addresses the Jews of Jerusalem and in Acts 24 he addresses the Roman governor.

Quibbling over a word in a translation is a fool's errand. If you want to know what is in the text, then read it in Greek; but even there you've got serious problems because many of the actual words have been changed over time -- usually from simple copying errors or misspellings, but sometimes for theological reasons. This particular passage would almost assuredly not have been changed for theological reasons, but we cannot be precisely sure of the actual Greek words for it because we only have these words through the gift of copies of copies of copies.

Did I mention they were in Greek and not the King's English? And did I mention that it doesn't matter anyway, since the sense of the passage does not depend on whether the article is indefinite or definite, but the surrounding information?

From Wiki's article "List of Christian martyrs"

* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 34 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed with a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death with a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew flayed alive and crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed with a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hanged.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.

First, thank you for making my point -- there were precious few early martyrs, even if you take these as accurate. Do you have any idea where this info comes from? Do you suggest that all the info in that list is correct in an historical and not purely literary sense, without exception. Before proceeding further I would like an answer to that because much depends on it.

You can answer one other question that you left unanswered earlier -- do you believe that early Christians created stories about Jesus, or do you think that every single story, every single word written about him was absolutely correct? If an apostle supposedly wrote it, does that make it true? Did Jesus really cause someone's hand to whither? Was Thomas really Jesus's identical twin brother? Do you realize what a quagmire you have entered?

ETA:

The point I made was that the Romans did not, as is commonly perceived, institute Empire-wide persecutions of Christians until the 4th century. It was Jews who initially persecuted some Christians, and there is some evidence of rejection from pagan citizens -- witness Paul's mention of the early Thessalonian church. It simply was not particularly dangerous to be a Christian. It was dangerous to disturb the peace as some of the evanglizers, if they existed as is portrayed in Acts, did. That was the only problem -- disturbing the peace, at least from the Roman perspective -- not being Christian.

 

[kmortis]

Well, I guess an empty tomb, might not motivate you to martyred, but having Jesus appear to you after he was wrapped up with cloth and spices might.

Is it just me, or does this make you think of a bizarre form of a Jesus tamale?


We now return you to your regularly scheduled "debate".

 

[DOC]

Do these 14,000 manuscripts say that Christ lived, or do that say that Christians believe that Christ lived?

Are they documentary evidence of Christ, or of Christians?

They say that Jesus lived, and yes there is historical documentary evidence of Christ or of Christians. Read

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

If you want more non-Christian sources you can check out:

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Jewish Talmud

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

 

[calebprime]

They say that Jesus lived, and yes there is historical documentary evidence of Christ or of Christians. Read

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

If you want more non-Christian sources you can check out:

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Jewish Talmud

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

Gaak! The eternal recurrence!

Of course, on further inspection, there's nothing there. We've been through this.

DOC, all you have to do is post the relevant passages from these supposed sources, instead of suggesting that we "check (them) out".

Take away the obvious insertion, take away the sketchy account (in Josephus?) of some Christian troublemakers, and you've got nothing.

I challenge you to find quotes in these passages that amount to support for "why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."

 

[paximperium]

Gaak! The eternal recurrence!

Of course, on further inspection, there's nothing there. We've been through this.

DOC, all you have to do is post the relevant passages from these supposed sources, instead of suggesting that we "check (them) out".

Take away the obvious insertion, take away the sketchy account (in Josephus?) of some Christian troublemakers, and you've got nothing.

I challenge you to find quotes in these passages that amount to support for "why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."

If you randomly click on any of the pages on this thread, there is probably an answer to this continued false claim that DOC continues to dishonestly put forth.

He continues to be a great example of deluded theist. I think he should keep posting. It keeps us amused.

 

[paximperium]

They say that Jesus lived, and yes there is historical documentary evidence of Christ or of Christians. Read

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

If you want more non-Christian sources you can check out:

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Jewish Talmud

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

There are lies, repeated lies and DOC lies.

Oh great. These again?
Little tid-bits from wikipedia

Tacitus:
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117): Talks about Christians and their belief AFTER Jesus is already a legend:

Pliny the Younger:Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61/63 - ca. 113): Ditto. Talks about Christians and their beliefs.

Josephus: Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100),[1] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[2] was a first century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

This is believed to a Christian edit. It is a lie. Anyway, he is just talking about Christian belief anyway.

Talmud: thanks for using an out of context quote.

Lucien: Another mention of Christian belief.

Thanks for using useless evidence, misquotes, forgeries etc. for your "evidence". I have little doubt you have been told about the validity of your "evidence" multiple times in the past.

He has been told multiple times about his so-called sources and he continues to purposefully ignore those criticisms.

His blatant dishonesty is open for all to see. He is a great examples of Christian Apologists.

To Quote:


A continued purposeful falsehood(ie. lie) since you have been corrected multiple times that these "sources" is composed of forgeries and many just mention your Jesus legend and what Christian believe and says nothing about Jesus. They are not evidence for Jesus at all. Repeating it repeatedly as some supposed evidence is a blatant lie.

Is that all you have? Lies? Are you arguments that weak and pathetic? Very sad indeed.

You are correct. Thanks for finally agreeing that your strongest passage from Josephus' that actually mentions Jesus is a forgery as it is obviously so. All the other sources non-Christian sources are nothing more than historical records that mention Christians and their beliefs AFTER the Jesus legend was established.

Do you think people can't read this thread? You are a liar:

No those sources do not. It mentions Christians and their beliefs decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

I've noticed the gradual change in your claim. The self evidence is that it proves that Christianity existed nothing more, nothing less. It is nothing more than continued dishonesty to claim that they are important in discussion concerning your claims in the opening.

If you will concede this point, that these Non-Christian sources are irrelevant to your claim that Jesus existed or add anything to your claim of divinity, I withdraw my claim that you are a liar and will apologize.

Will you do the honest thing? I wonder?

All of this is found in this thread. He has no excuse for his continued lying. But then, that's all he has left to keep his delusion and house of cards from falling down.

 

[calebprime]

The problem with Christian apologetics is the apologetics part.

Christianity has much that is interesting to study, if you're not talking to someone who lies about it.

Thanks, Pax, for filling in the missing details.

 

[catbasket]

He continues to be a great example of deluded theist. I think he should keep posting. It keeps us amused.

Yes, yes, not so much amused as fascinated. Lying For Jesus as an art form.

 

[Lothian]

Lying For Jesus as an art form.

Indeed the farce is strong with this one.

 

[DOC]

They say that Jesus lived, and yes there is historical documentary evidence of Christ or of Christians. Read

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

Jewish historian Josephus

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

If you want more non-Christian sources you can check out:

Roman Seutonius

Thallus

Pliny the Younger

Trajan

Hadrian

Jewish Talmud

Toledoth Jesu

Lucian

Phlegon

Mara Bar-Seraption

Gaak! The eternal recurrence!

Of course, on further inspection, there's nothing there. We've been through this.

DOC, all you have to do is post the relevant passages from these supposed sources, instead of suggesting that we "check (them) out".

Take away the obvious insertion, take away the sketchy account (in Josephus?) of some Christian troublemakers, and you've got nothing.

I challenge you to find quotes in these passages that amount to support for "why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."

Well, actually I listed 2 new non-Christian sources (making a total of 12). So we haven't been through all of this before. I don't have time to go into detail of all the sources but lets look at a written passage from a work by the 2nd century Greek satirical writer Lucian:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property." (The Passing Peregrinus)."

Lucian, even though a critic, gives us a lot of info about early Christianity outside the New Testament.

I'm just putting these 12 non-Christian sources out there. What you do with them is your business.

 

[DOC]

If you randomly click on any of the pages on this thread, there is probably an answer to this continued false claim that DOC continues to dishonestly put forth.

What's the false claim and why is it false.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, actually I listed 2 new non-Christian sources (making a total of 12). So we haven't been through all of this before. I don't have time to go into detail of all the sources but lets look at a written passage from a work by the 2nd century Greek satirical writer Lucian:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property." (The Passing Peregrinus)."

Lucian, even though a critic, gives us a lot of info about early Christianity outside the New Testament.

I'm just putting these 12 non-Christian sources out there. What you do with them is your business.

DOC, the issue was independent evidence for the resurrection, not the existence of Christians and their beliefs. The further issue was the existence of Jesus, not evidence that there were Christians and what they believed. We all know that there Christians and what some of them believed.

What is the evidence (1) for the resurrection, and (2) for the existence of Jesus. I, for one, accept the evidence for the existence of Jesus and have argued for it a few times on this board. You've barely mentioned it. Instead you continue to harp on references to Christians and their beliefs as that supports anything other than the fac that there were Christians.

 

[six7s]

I don't have time to go into detail of all the sources but lets look at a written passage from a work by the 2nd century Greek satirical writer Lucian:

No, DOC, let's not

In case you have forgotten, you started this thread

If your time (rather than your evidence) really is limited, then quit faffing about with tangential irrelevances and post something that supports the claims of:

• the existence of Jesus
• his resurrection

If you give a man a lie, he can copy and paste it into a thread

If you teach a man to lie, he can start numerous threads that serve only to perpetuate his own delusions
​

 

[paximperium]

What's the false claim and why is it false.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4187871&postcount=772
Isn't it hilarious that DOC missed(or purposefully ignored) my super gigantic post that shows him lying?