• 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.
DOC said:
I'll answer this question in the same way I've answered Zooterkin and everyone else who trollishly asked it.

Posted by zooterkin
Are you going to produce any of the evidence in support of the OP?



Others will probably continue to trollishly ask this already answered question and I will continue to get the run around when I then ask what is the least amount of evidence that will satisfy them.

As a reminder, I gave answers.com and my definition for the word "evidence" in post #13.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, could you, you know, sort of sum it up, along the lines of:

1) Since we find that parts of what Evangelists wrote was true, it must all be true.

....etc?

Hans
 
DOC said:
I'll answer this question in the same way I've answered Zooterkin and everyone else who trollishly asked it.
Click to expand...
... by trollishly evading it.


Others will probably continue to trollishly ask this already answered question and I will continue to get the run around when I then ask what is the least amount of evidence that will satisfy them.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

ETA:
It is totally irrelevant how much evidence I or anyone else might require to believe that everything in the NT is true. You claimed you had some evidence. After however many posts (do you really keep count?), it would be nice if you shared it with us, you big tease!
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Nevertheless, could you, you know, sort of sum it {the evidence} up..
Click to expand...

Pages 275 - 297,

pages 256 - 260,

Pages 263 - 268,


of the the following (here they are) Google book preview of the book cited in post # 1 ought to sum up some of the evidence presented in this thread.

Note: a few of the pages above are not available so you just have to hit the > until you come to an available page.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4139408#post4139408
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
FFS, DOC, could you be any less helpful? You post a link to a post by someone else which has a link to Google? That's your idea of summing things up?
Click to expand...

If you read the pages listed in post 1264, everyone will get the requested summary of evidence.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Pages 275 - 297,

pages 256 - 260,

Pages 263 - 268,


of the the following (here they are) Google book preview of the book cited in post # 1 ought to sum up some of the evidence presented in this thread.

Note: a few of the pages above are not available so you just have to hit the > until you come to an available page.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4139408#post4139408
Click to expand...
No, no, you misunderstand. I'll read what books I want to read on theism, whenever I want to read them, quite without advice from you.

I may however, decide to join a debate with you if you will state your points clearly and reasonably systematically.

If you don't want to do that, fine! I'll do something else with my time.

Hans
 
DOC said:
If you read the pages listed in post 1264, everyone will get the requested summary of evidence.
Click to expand...


Why not give a brief summary of your argument and evidence in your own words? Are you not capable of that?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If you read the pages listed in post 1264, everyone will get the requested summary of evidence.
Click to expand...
Your best arguments are the poor logical arguments presented by Geisler?

Then we can conclude that you have no evidence supporting the OP.

Thank you.
 
joobz said:
Your best arguments are the poor logical arguments presented by Geisler?

Then we can conclude that you have no evidence supporting the OP.
Click to expand...

Other than Christ appearing to you in person what evidence would convince you that the New Testament writers were telling the truth? Be specific, no dodging.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Other than Christ appearing to you in person what evidence would convince you that the New Testament writers were telling the truth? Be specific, no dodging.
Click to expand...
OH, DOC. I've already answered this. And I was highly specific in my response. Perhaps I was too specific? I do know that you hate reading long posts.


I do not believe resurections are real. There is no evidence for them to be possible. If you want to prove that the bible is true, start by proving resurrections are possible.

joobz said:
I have no problem believing:
1.) Jesus was real.
2.) He had some pretty good ideas regarding how we should live.
3.) That he had a demonstrable and major impact on our world/civilization.

What I have a hard time believing is that he "rose from the dead."

What I know from science and medicine is that to be fully dead for 3 days (e.g., no brain activity, a stopped heart, necrotic tissue...) does not come back to life.

I do know of circumstances where a slowed heart rate, undetectablly slow breathing, comatose patient can appear to be dead. And I also know that people in this state may actually regain consciousness.


What I do not know is what evidence would exist that would suggest Jesus was in the "true dead" category vs. the "comatose" version. It is unlikely that such evidence could exist. Even if you had accounts of this comeback, I could not trust thier veracity. It is an extrodinary claim, and one that would require more concrete evidence. Written testimony wouldn't cut it. Would you trust a group of people who said elvis is still alive because they saw him?

So, evidence that would support the resurrection for me would be as follows:

1.) Jesus returning saying that it happened.
2.) A body of Jesus that is 2000 years old and still in viable tact. (Although this would contradict the corporeal assention of Jesus into heaven, it would at least support the unusual circumstances of a resurrection. E.g., it would prove that his body was immune to decay as a result of death)
3.) A demonstration of modern human being dead for three days (in the "dead/dead" way) and returning to life. It would help to also document that this person could ascend corporeally into heaven. Also explain where/what heaven is. It doesn't prove that Jesus resurrected, but it at least proves that it is possible and I would no longer deny it as a possibility.
4.)Or to tackle the problem in another way: Demonstrate that it is impossible for the stone blocking the tomb to have been moved by people other than Jesus.
5.) Or demonstrate that it is impossible for a tomb to be empty for any other reason than a ressurection. (E.g., demosntrate that body thefts/grave robbing never happen)


These are merely examples. But I think that they reflect the kind of evidence that is warrented to support the ressurection story.
Click to expand...

Now, How about answering the question I've posed you...

joobz said:
The Movie JFK by Oliver Stone contained many Historical Figures:
JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw.
I'd say nearly the whole movie contained people who did exist.

Now, Let me ask you:
Why Would Oliver Stone go through the trouble of including historically real people include historically accurate events and then also make up parts of the movie from whole cloth?
Click to expand...
Do you believe JFK is 100% historically accurate? If no, why not?

And remember, DOC, Be specific, NO DODGING!
 
DOC said:
Pages 275 - 297,

pages 256 - 260,

Pages 263 - 268,


of the the following (here they are) Google book preview of the book cited in post # 1 ought to sum up some of the evidence presented in this thread.

Note: a few of the pages above are not available so you just have to hit the > until you come to an available page.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4139408#post4139408
Click to expand...

I'll accept that you gave "evidence" in the first post on the basis of the definition you provided in post #13: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment". However, if you remember, your evidence was quickly impeached by a volley of alternative explanations for the arguments you give in post #1. Essentially, what everyone is now asking you for is evidence for your evidence. Arguments like, "the NT writers wouldn't have included embarrassing details about themselves" don't hold water when we regularly read memoirs from real people who DO include embarrassing details about themselves and often MAKE UP embarrassing details about themselves (see: A Million Little Pieces). Further, given that we don't even know who the NT writers were, it's hard to tell whether or not they were even writing about themselves.

This and other counter arguments are all things you've yet to answer.
 
DOC said:
Pages 275 - 297,

pages 256 - 260,

Pages 263 - 268,


of the the following (here they are) Google book preview of the book cited in post # 1 ought to sum up some of the evidence presented in this thread.

Note: a few of the pages above are not available so you just have to hit the > until you come to an available page.
Click to expand...


I'll play. The claim of historical accuracy on pages 256-260 is an example of cherry-picking at its worst. Sure, Luke managed to get some things correct. He also got a bunch of geographical and historical details wrong (as did the authors of the other gospels). Please refer to note 26 on page 137 of this book for just one example.

The Gospel of Luke annotated edition said:
the territory of the Gerasenes: The textual variants in the MSS [manuscripts] of all three Gospels attest to the difficulties this place name posed. This is the bet attested reading; other MSS have either "of the Gadarenes" or "of the Gergesenes". None of these names matches a city this close to the Sea of Galilee. The geographical fact, luckily, is not necessary for appreciating the story.
Click to expand...

Source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eu...X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA137,M1

In addition, note that this footnote makes it clear that different manuscripts of Luke show different names for the city. This happens in many older manuscripts and yet, you seem to be claiming that your bible is the correct version. How do you know this when it is clear that you are completely unaware of the sources of your version of the bible?

By failing to address the instances where Luke was not an accurate historian, Geisler is once again being dishonest (or illogical, or both) in his argumentation.
 
Hokulele said:
I'll play. The claim of historical accuracy on pages 256-260 is an example of cherry-picking at its worst. Sure, Luke managed to get some things correct. He also got a bunch of geographical and historical details wrong (as did the authors of the other gospels). Please refer to note 26 on page 137 of this book for just one example.



Source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eu...X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA137,M1
Click to expand...

Talk about cherry picking at its worst -- and this non-story related city might have existed 2000 years ago but not now. This is why archaeologists like Sir William Mitchell Ramsay mentioned earlier used Luke and the bible as a valuable research resource. -- and I noticed other than the one footnote there are no sources for your bunch of geographical and historical details he supposedly got wrong. I think the 84 detailed facts written by Luke mentioned on pages -256 - 260 of Geisler's book that can be accessed through the site below speak volumes of his detailed accuracy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...eisler+Luke+Colin+Hemer+84+facts&lr=&as_brr=0
 
Last edited:
The Sherlock Holmes books contain extremely detailed and accurate descriptions of London, as well as many other parts of England, and also include descriptions and references to several well known historical figures.

Did Sherlock Holmes really exist?
 
joobz said:
The Movie JFK by Oliver Stone contained many Historical Figures:
JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw.
I'd say nearly the whole movie contained people who did exist.

Now, Let me ask you:
Why Would Oliver Stone go through the trouble of including historically real people include historically accurate events and then also make up parts of the movie from whole cloth?
Click to expand...

Oliver Stone had the incentive of making a lot of money by making his film dramatic in any way he could. The only incentive Luke had was informing his friend in a letter of the facts relating to the Jesus phenomenon that was sweeping the nations. He had no reason to be dramatic. In fact he had every reason to get the facts absolutely right because by being a traveling companion of Paul he was certainly risking his life in the brutal Roman occupied areas. Remember Paul wrote some of his letters from prison and according to tradition was beheaded. The physician Luke obviously wouldn't risk his life traveling with Paul if he thought the many facts he was gathering about Christ were false.
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
The Sherlock Holmes books contain extremely detailed and accurate descriptions of London, as well as many other parts of England, and also include descriptions and references to several well known historical figures.

Did Sherlock Holmes really exist?
Click to expand...

There were not many other writers who also wrote about Sherlock Holmes as a real person. There were no historians like Josephus and Tacitus who considered Sherlock Holmes real. And many people haven't been martyred for Sherlock Holmes.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Oliver Stone had the incentive of making a lot of money by making his film dramatic in any way he could. The only incentive Luke had was informing his friend in a letter of the facts relating to the Jesus phenomenon that was sweeping the nations. He had no reason to be dramatic. In fact he had every reason to get the facts absolutely right because by being a traveling companion of Paul he was certainly risking his life in the brutal Roman occupied areas. Remember Paul wrote some of his letters from prison and according to tradition was beheaded. The physician Luke obviously wouldn't risk his life traveling with Paul if he thought the many facts he was gathering about Christ were false.
Click to expand...
Doc, You are only suggesting motives. Having a motive for telling the truth does not mean that the truth is told. You need to prove the resurrection & other miracles.

Simply suggesting that supporters of a new religion looking to gather followers and converts, to impress people with the wonders of their faith would have no motive to exaggerate doesn’t cut the mustard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom