• 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:
Are the authors you're talking about telling embarrassing things about themselves or their characters.
Click to expand...
James Frey did.
And have any of the Fictional characters in the works you mentioned been reported by historians as real historical persons.
Click to expand...
James Frey exist. In fact he is on TV.
And are there any instances of multiple people being being martyred for any of the characters in the books you mentioned.
Click to expand...
James Frey sacrificed his fictional self so many times to quit drugs.
And have any of the characters in the novels caused the downfall of major religions like Christianity helped to do to the belief in Greek and Roman gods.
Click to expand...
James Frey almost brought down the greatest religion of the 21st century, the Church of Oprah.
 
Harpyja said:
"Embarrassing details," as according to whom? The people of the time, or the people of today? After all, we are talking about a society that existed more than 2,000 years ago with a radically different culture. It's hard to argue against this when all we know are that "specific passages" portray the disciples as "dim-witted, uncaring... cowards." The passages need to be cited.
Click to expand...

Page 276 of this site about Geisler's book lists some of the passages. For example (Mark 8:33) when Jesus calls Peter (who all the Gospel writers knew was the head of the early church) Satan. I'd say Christ calling the future head of the church Satan was embarrassing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...+10+reasons&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&hl=en
 
Last edited:
DOC, I greatly suggest you read more. I gave you clear examples of REAL people being put into books.

DOC said:
Are the authors you're talking about telling embarrassing things about themselves or their characters.
Click to expand...
Stephen king did. He descibed well his addition to alcohol and drugs in his story.

DOC said:
And have any of the Fictional characters in the works you mentioned been reported by historians as real historical persons.
Click to expand...
Stephen king's alive and well known. Probably about as famous as Jesus.

DOC said:
And are there any instances of multiple people being being martyred for any of the characters in the books you mentioned.
Click to expand...
well as far as we know, no.
But, like I said before, special pleading doesn't make a very good argument.
Do you remember Geisler's amusing bad circular reasoning?
Do you want Hokulele to re post that funny argument? It's a type of argument that highschooler would receive an F for. I can't imagine why you think it sounds better when Geisler says it.

DOC said:
And have any of the characters in the novels caused the downfall of major religions like Christianity helped to do to the belief in Greek and Roman gods.
Click to expand...
This is a new requirement.
You are claiming that the story must result in the downfall of other religions for it to be true?

is this REALLY the argument you want to make?
 
paximperium said:
How about being able to see all the nations from on top of a mountain?
How about being able to live without eating for 40days?
Click to expand...
There is actually not much of a problem with living for 40 days without food. The usual limit cited by doctors is 4 to 6 weeks so 40 days is at the upper limit but not impossible.
The real problem is whether this included no water. The limits there are then a matter of days.
 
Reality Check said:
There is actually not much of a problem with living for 40 days without food. The usual limit cited by doctors is 4 to 6 weeks so 40 days is at the upper limit but not impossible.
The real problem is whether this included no water. The limits there are then a matter of days.
Click to expand...
40 days is possible if someone sits still and fasts. There is very little chance that someone could survive if they are running around all over the middle-east, no to mention at the end of 30days, the person would be an emaciated condition with no fat and degenerating muscles. Such people would not be able to walk.
 
paximperium said:
Just curious, what patristic evidence do you have?
Click to expand...

Irenaeus said:
"Luke also, the companion of Paul recorded in a book the gospel preached by him."
Click to expand...

and

Irenaeus said:
But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, we came to Troas etc. and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us,immediately, he says, we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia. And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: for, sitting down, he says, we spoke unto the women who had assembled; http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act016.htm#verse13and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days. And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: Demas has forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: Luke, the beloved physician, greets you. But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him the beloved, and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a gospel, learned nothing different from him, as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
Click to expand...

to start with...

paximperium said:
Just because the early Church attributes things to specific personas, that popular belief does not automatically make this belief true.
Click to expand...

Agreed completely. :)

cj x
 
paximperium said:
40 days is possible if someone sits still and fasts. There is very little chance that someone could survive if they are running around all over the middle-east, no to mention at the end of 30days, the person would be an emaciated condition with no fat and degenerating muscles. Such people would not be able to walk.
Click to expand...
Bearing in mind that bleevers regard as sacred a book that disagrees with itself about what days are and when (rather relvant) stuff happened, it seems absurd to accept 40 days as, erm, gospel
 
six7s said:
Bearing in mind that bleevers regard as sacred a book that disagrees with itself about what days are and when (rather relvant) stuff happened, it seems absurd to accept 40 days as, erm, gospel
Click to expand...

Careful there! :) You are citing an example of a book (Genesis) redacted maybe in the middle of the first millennium with three books (Matthew Luke and John) written in the second half of the 1st century. Logically the internal value of each as evidence for any given claim is entirely separate -- you here accept the believers (and yes I am a believer) claim that the Bible can be regarded as one text. I think this could be a dangerous assumption -- I'd test the books internal consistency first? Dunno, just a though!

cj x
 
cj.23 said:
Careful there! :) You are citing an example of a book (Genesis) redacted maybe in the middle of the first millennium with three books (Matthew Luke and John) written in the second half of the 1st century. Logically the internal value of each as evidence for any given claim is entirely separate -- you here accept the believers (and yes I am a believer) claim that the Bible can be regarded as one text. I think this could be a dangerous assumption -- I'd test the books internal consistency first? Dunno, just a though!

cj x
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed...to a degree.

Each piece of text is a book in and by itself although the...generous borrowing of some of the ideas from other gospels/books allow many of the claims in these books to be judged based on the "evidence" presented(or just claimed) in multiple books...of course this will definately also allow for multiple contradictions between the books to be used against said claims as well.
 
joobz said:
Let's begin:

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.
Click to expand...


Multiple works of fiction include this type of first person humility/embaressment.
Click to expand...


Indeed, and it is also a common theme in evangelist narratives, along the lines of "I was a sinner but thanks to Jesus I am saved." The idea that without God we're imperfect beings in need of saving is basic Christian doctrine. I'm a little (but not very) surprised that DOC appears not to know this.
 
Mojo said:
Indeed, and it is also a common theme in evangelist narratives, along the lines of "I was a sinner but thanks to Jesus I am saved." The idea that without God we're imperfect beings in need of saving is basic Christian doctrine. I'm a little (but not very) surprised that DOC appears not to know this.
Click to expand...
Oh, he knows it. He even gave his little version of it in this thread.
remember his "The bible was written by 4 guys" and his "rockbottom in a fleabag motel" story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom