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

[Sefarst]

Paul was called of God for a specific purpose. That's why God allowed Paul to do miracles just like He did some of the other apostles (Acts 19:11).

I'm not talking about the reason Paul gets to do miracles, I'm asking why he gets a personal appearance and I don't. Why is it okay for God to give Paul and Thomas overwhelming evidence of his existence and the veracity of his claims but not the rest of us.

Paul gives us some evidence of his miracles done when he writes of the time he did the miracles when with the Corinthians
(2 Cor. 12:12 NLT):

"When I was with you, I certainly gave you every proof that I am truly an apostle, sent to you by God himself. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you."

It wouldn't make sense for Paul to write in a letter to the Corinthians about the time he did miracles amongst them because they would certainly know if this was true or not...

I can write a letter to the people of New York city saying that I proved I am the new prophet of God because I did signs and miracles among them. Good luck disproving my claim. Then, a hundred years from now, someone will be on a message board like this one arguing that I MUST have been a prophet of God because there is proof of my miracles in a letter I wrote to the citizens of New York City. Surely I couldn't have lied about that when I wrote it because I knew no one would be able to verify it...

Further, we're on a website run by a professional magician, a man who can do any miracle you/Paul/Thomas/Jesus can except better.

And in response to your other point, it is much more important for you to experience Christ in your heart than for you to physically see Him.

(Luke 17: 20,21) words of Christ

"The kingdom of God does not come with observation;
nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Is this anything more than another emotional appeal? What does all this talk of "you must experience Chris in your heart" even mean? As Hitchens would say, it's just white noise.

 

[DOC]

Anyhoo... enough of what you believe... give us - as promised in the OP - some evidence "for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"

A lot of people talk of evidence, well I actually took the time to look up a definition. Read post 13 and you will see this thread is overflowing with evidence, at least according to the 1st definition of evidence given by answers.com. If you disagree with their and my definition of evidence well then you disagree.

 

[Hokulele]

A lot of people talk of evidence, well I actually took the time to look up a definition. Read post 13 and you will see this thread is overflowing with evidence, at least according to the 1st definition of evidence given by answers.com. If you disagree with their and my definition of evidence well then you disagree.

You have given plenty of evidence. Sadly, it doesn't support your conclusion.

Once again for the people in the cheap seats, everything in the OP (and subsequent posts) is evidence that the people writing the New Testament believed they were telling the truth.

Not that they were.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A lot of people talk of evidence, well I actually took the time to look up a definition. Read post 13 and you will see this thread is overflowing with evidence, at least according to the 1st definition of evidence given by answers.com. If you disagree with their and my definition of evidence well then you disagree.

I think most people disagree with that definition of evidence when it comes to useful evidence as it relates to truth. Something useful in forming an opinion? We aren't talking about anything and everything useful in forming an opinion but evidence useful in deciding knowledge. Knowledge is definded as justified true belief. So, as your "evidence" relates to knowledge, how does it supply a justification for belief and can it show that this belief is true? That is the criteria that interests most people who care about knowledge.

You have argued "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" not evidence that is useful for forming a belief. So, please tell me if your title is wrong, if the definition is wrong, or if you are misapplying the wrong definition of evidence in this thread.

 

[paximperium]

Read the definition of evidence in post 13, you must have missed it.

No, why don't you? You continue to have zero evidence to support your OP.

Everyone is still waiting.

Why haven't you presented the evidence that multiple posters gave your criteria for that YOU demanded?

Why are you chickening out of your own challenge?

 

[six7s]

...the 1st definition of evidence given by answers.com. If you disagree with their and my definition of evidence well then you disagree.

I don't disagree with their definition ("A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

However, I think you are deluding yourself if you really do think that what you have posted/pasted onto this thread will assist anyone with well-developed critical thinking skills to form a conclusion or judgment on the so-far unsubstantiated claim that 'the New Testament writers told the truth.'

Seriously DOC, hearsay and conjecture don't count for diddly squat, no matter who wrote it

Furthermore, y'ain't gonna win any converts by continuing to spout nonsensical, illogical, irrelevant and tangential woo

So... as it seems patently clear that you know you haven't got any evidence, I suggest that you simply stop lying for jesus and admit - at least to yourself - that this thread was started under the false pretense that you knew what you were on about

 

[joobz]

This is amusing.
The trends now:

1.) DOC says he has evidence the bible is true.
2.) People state what he presented isn't evidence but hearsay, poor logic and wishful thinking.
3.) After much ado, He asks what Kind of evidence would prove the resurrection
4.) People (including myself) explain the kind of evidence needed.
5.) DOC reverts to defining evidence to claim that he has already provided it.

DOC, you sound like Bill Clinton.
"Well, that would depend on what the definition of is is....."

 

[Elizabeth I]

Would it be possible for me to post 200+ times in an evidence thread that has around 90 other posters without giving any evidence -- now that would be a miracle.

I don't see why not - you've posted well over 2,400 times on this forum without providing much of anything at all except some sterling examples of circular logic.

And in response to your other point, it is much more important for you to experience Christ in your heart than for you to physically see Him.

...because you certainly never will physically see him.

 

[six7s]

...because you certainly never will physically see him.

There are none so blind as those who will not delude themselves to the point of self-induced hallucinations

 

[arthwollipot]

I was startled there for a moment, but I see it's all been sorted out.

Still waiting on DOC's response to my response to him asking what kind of evidence I would require.

 

[DOC]

You have given plenty of evidence.

Thank, you.

Sadly, it doesn't support your conclusion.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, And a lot of the evidence or reasons or whatever you want to call it that I've presented in my 200+ posts have been from the book posted in post #1. One of the authors, N. Geisler has written over 60 books. I think he knows a little about evidence to write and get published 60 books.

Once again for the people in the cheap seats, everything in the OP (and subsequent posts) is evidence that the people writing the New Testament believed they were telling the truth.

So, you admit I've presented evidence that the people who wrote the New Testament believed they were telling the truth. Hokulele, be honest, who is listed as the author of the Gospel of John in your Bible. And who is listed as the author of the Gospel of Matthew in your bible.

I'll give you a clue if you have a King James Bible, or almost any other Bible for that matter, both listed authors are apostles and both ate, and lived with Jesus, for probably 3 years. So I've presented evidence according to Hokulele that the author of the Gospel of John (who was an eyewitness) and the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who was an eyewitness) believed they were telling the truth.

 

[joobz]

Everyone has the right to an opinion, And a lot of the evidence or reasons or whatever you want to call it that I've presented in my 200+ posts have been from the book posted in post #1. One of the authors, N. Geisler has written over 60 books. I think he knows a little about evidence to write and get published 60 books.

No. He doesn't.

So, you admit I've presented evidence that the people who wrote the New Testament believed they were telling the truth. quote]
Hokulele stated in Post #3 that it was evidence that they believed they were telling the truth. She was being generous because that is the MOST that can be said about the evidence that was presented.

I stated that it was evidence of good story telling.

I'll give you a clue if you have a King James Bible, or almost any other Bible for that matter, both listed authors are apostles and both ate, and lived with Jesus, for probably 3 years. So I've presented evidence according to Hokulele that the author of the Gospel of John (who was an eyewitness) and the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who was an eyewitness) believed they were telling the truth.

The children's books, "A series of Unfortunate events" has Lemony Snicket as an author. The books do not paint him in a friendly light, yet he wrote the books in fear of his life.

Do these facts prove that "A series of Unfortunate events" is a historically accurate account of the baudelaire children?

 

[Lothian]

I'll give you a clue if you have a King James Bible, or almost any other Bible for that matter, both listed authors are apostles and both ate, and lived with Jesus, for probably 3 years. So I've presented evidence according to Hokulele that the author of the Gospel of John (who was an eyewitness) and the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who was an eyewitness) believed they were telling the truth.

There are authors and credited authors. Katie Price is listed as the author of a couple of novels yet like the disciples she is illiterate. Although to be fair at least she was alive at the time her book was ghost written and may have even met the real author.

 

[paximperium]

Everyone has the right to an opinion, And a lot of the evidence or reasons or whatever you want to call it that I've presented in my 200+ posts have been from the book posted in post #1.

No. You have the right to an opinion. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A FACT OR EVIDENCE.

You produced nothing except useless quibbles that do not even come close to supporting your OP.

One of the authors, N. Geisler has written over 60 books. I think he knows a little about evidence to write and get published 60 books.

Ahhh, argument by mass volume and popularity, not evidence or fact. I guess L. Ron Hubbard who is more infamous seller of crappy books must know what he is writing about therefore Scientology is true!!!
Geisler is a sad joke. You need to stop reading him since he has apparently stunted your arguments to little dishonest chicken dances.

So, you admit I've presented evidence that the people who wrote the New Testament believed they were telling the truth. Hokulele, be honest, who is listed as the author of the Gospel of John in your Bible. And who is listed as the author of the Gospel of Matthew in your bible.

I love a good story. Who cares who is listed on the Bible. Your continued attempt at passing off labels as fact continues to be garbage.

I'll give you a clue if you have a King James Bible, or almost any other Bible for that matter, both listed authors are apostles and both ate, and lived with Jesus, for probably 3 years. So I've presented evidence according to Hokulele that the author of the Gospel of John (who DOC CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE was an eyewitness) and the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who DOC CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE was an eyewitness) believed they were telling the truth.

So what? I could label all of my post as written by Albert Einstein but that does not make it true. I could claim to be Einstein resurrected but that does not make it true.

So, The Gospel According the Mary Magdalene was written by Mary Magdalene!!!
So, The Gospel According to Judas Iscariot was written by Judas himself!!!
What great logic DOC.

Putting labels onto old stories and claiming it was written by someone decades after the fact shows how weak your arguments are. Very sad.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll give you a clue if you have a King James Bible, or almost any other Bible for that matter, both listed authors are apostles and both ate, and lived with Jesus, for probably 3 years. So I've presented evidence according to Hokulele that the author of the Gospel of John (who was an eyewitness) and the author of the Gospel of Matthew (who was an eyewitness) believed they were telling the truth.

This is a different claim from that of the OP, which states that they told the truth. No-one's disputing that the authors of the Gospels (whoever they may have been) believed they told the truth. What is in dispute is whether what they told was the truth.

 

[Sefarst]

This is a different claim from that of the OP, which states that they told the truth. No-one's disputing that the authors of the Gospels (whoever they may have been) believed they told the truth. What is in dispute is whether what they told was the truth.

I'm actually willing to dispute whether or not the writers of the Gospels believed they were telling the truth. Because, as you say, we don't know who they were, it's very difficult to attribute any kind of motivations to them. For example, in Matthew we get the story of the dead rising from their graves at the moment of the crucifixion and talking to people in the streets (the only Gospel to record that event). I'm inclined to believe that details such as that were deliberate embellishments on either the part of the writers or whomever the writers might have used as their sources (if they used any at all).

It comes down to what the writers' goals were in writing the Gospels. Did they believe in Jesus' overall message and decide that the ends justified the means, thus allowing them to deliberately construct stories in the effort to bring more people in? Were they just trying to spread anti-Roman propaganda? Or did they genuinely believe that these events actually took place? What about a mixture of all three?

In the end, I see plenty of room to question not only the truth of the writers' claims, but also whether or not they even believed in them.

 

[Hokulele]

I'm actually willing to dispute whether or not the writers of the Gospels believed they were telling the truth. Because, as you say, we don't know who they were, it's very difficult to attribute any kind of motivations to them. For example, in Matthew we get the story of the dead rising from their graves at the moment of the crucifixion and talking to people in the streets (the only Gospel to record that event). I'm inclined to believe that details such as that were deliberate embellishments on either the part of the writers or whomever the writers might have used as their sources (if they used any at all).

It comes down to what the writers' goals were in writing the Gospels. Did they believe in Jesus' overall message and decide that the ends justified the means, thus allowing them to deliberately construct stories in the effort to bring more people in? Were they just trying to spread anti-Roman propaganda? Or did they genuinely believe that these events actually took place? What about a mixture of all three?

In the end, I see plenty of room to question not only the truth of the writers' claims, but also whether or not they even believed in them.

Good point. I would still call the points brought up in the OP as evidence for the writers believing they wrote the truth, but your points evidence to the contrary. I think your "a mixture of all three" is probably the most accurate assumption.

Regardless, none of it is evidence of the truth of the claims. As such, the title of the thread is still wrong.

 

[joobz]

Good point. I would still call the points brought up in the OP as evidence for the writers believing they wrote the truth, but your points evidence to the contrary. I think your "a mixture of all three" is probably the most accurate assumption.

Regardless, none of it is evidence of the truth of the claims. As such, the title of the thread is still wrong.

As I was saying. Your post #3 was a clear indication to you being intellectually generous and providing the greatest benefit of doubt affordable to DOC.

It's rather clear to me that anyone whose actually read fiction would not be convinced by any of the so-called* evidences presented by Geisler.


*I can't help but think of Paulhoff when saying that word.

 

[vitamin]

The letter where it would be easy for the Corinthians to verify if he was lying. You don't put your entire life's work and your credibility on the line for something that would be so easy to verify if he was lying. Reread the post and the verse in my post.

I was always under the impression that the point of collecting evidence was so that we don't need to take anyone's word for it.

 

[Sefarst]

I was always under the impression that the point of collecting evidence was so that we don't need to take anyone's word for it.

Testimony from witnesses requires that you take the person's word for it. However, that is not to say that anyone's testimony automatically amounts to evidence. We need to know definitively who the person actually is and we need to know something about them. Even then, we can't be sure that the testimony is even good evidence. The best way to strengthen evidence is to submit it to scrutiny and one of the best ways to strengthen testimonials is to submit them to questioning.