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

[six7s]

I'm confuzzled:

Logically the internal value of each as evidence for any given claim is entirely separate

Logically? I sincerely wonder when the OT and/or the NT passed any test of logic?

I'd test the books internal consistency first/QUOTE]Yep, thanks for the reminder... Maybe I'm missing something that is obvious to others, but whenever I test them, I get the same results:

Pop Fantasy

• C+

Internal Consistency

• Z-

Given that your messiah is reputed to have said something like 'I ain't here to repeal the laws, I'm jus' here to fulfill 'em, reiterate 'em and condense 'em a bit', please explain why we - in this thread - should not consider the collection of books as a whole

 

[cj.23]

I'm confuzzled:
Logically? I sincerely wonder when the OT and/or the NT passed any test of logic?

That's sadly irrelevant. The logic I speak of is in the methodology used to study them. We could apply logic to the study of the nonsense poems of Edward Lear after all.

I
Given that your messiah is reputed to have said something like 'I ain't here to repeal the laws, I'm jus' here to fulfill 'em, reiterate 'em and condense 'em a bit', please explain why we - in this thread - should not consider the collection of books as a whole

Well to start with the Law referred to is not the whole collection of books - it's not even the whole of the Tanakh, which as I'm sure you know was divided in to the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. It certainly doe snot include the New Testament, which does not exist at the time Matthew, James and John are written. If you want me to write a detailed response, explaining these passages in context I will, but my point stands. You have accepted the Christian faith claim that the Bible is a consistent single work, which strikes me as deeply curious in someone outside my faith tradition!

cj x

 

[joobz]

You have accepted the Christian faith claim that the Bible is a consistent single work, which strikes me as deeply curious in someone outside my faith tradition!

cj x

It's what your used to dealing with. I think if his experience was christians as knowledgable and rational as yourself, then you'd be right in finding it strange.

however, the idea of a consistent bible, or better yet, an inerrant bible, is a view that seems to be gaining popularity.

Further, I'd be curious to know how a DOC would view your approach to christianity. Considering his use of the term "Cafeteria christian", I'd be surprized to think it favorable.

 

[six7s]

That's sadly irrelevant. The logic I speak of is in the methodology used to study them.

Irrelevant? Yeah... if you're a cherry picker

We could apply logic to the study of the nonsense poems of Edward Lear after all.

We could, but it would be ridiculously illogical to do so under a premise that The Jumblies have a divine and exclusive right to occupy Fantasy Island

This logical inquiry to which you allude; does it have an aim more worthwhile than navel gazing?

You have accepted the Christian faith claim that the Bible is a consistent single work

Not quite

Instead, being born and dragged into an ostensibly devout big-C Catholic community, I am all too familiar with the patently ludicrous Christian faith claim that the Bible is a consistent single work*

which strikes me as deeply curious in someone outside my faith tradition!

Outisde, yep. Once I trusted myself, I escaped. Being both liberating and painless, I can heartily recommend it

After all, you have absolutely nothing to lose

ETA
-------
* Above, I used the words I ain't here to repeal the lawsas a link to
'Matthew 5:18 :

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

 

[cj.23]

This logical inquiry to which you allude; does it have an aim more worthwhile than navel gazing?

Sure. If you are going to debate with DOC, you need to apply logical rigour to refute his arguments, as DOC will be called upon, and has been to do the same. As you may have gathered I have an academic background in Bib Crit and History - so clearly I do not regard the issues as navel gazing. You are very welcome to disagree!

Instead, being born and dragged into an ostensibly devout big-C Catholic community, I am all too familiar with the patently ludicrous Christian faith claim that the Bible is a consistent single work*

As I suspected you do not hold it to be so: so you can't really use it to critique DOC's position on a single pericope, or even as here three. The truth or falseness of the Genesis account has no logical bearing on the truth or falseness of the New Testament claim in question. I merely pointed it out because it struck me as inconsistent. I recently have been reading Carl Sagan, and was shocked at how much he actually got wrong, in the light of modern knowledge, for which he ccan hardly be balmed, and in the case of history in the light of historical knowledge even when alive (for which he can: I suspect sloppy research assitants actually.) Yet finding the occasional howler does not discredit any other part of his work or writings, and i remain a fan.

As you may have gathered, I think for critics we should take Bejamin Jowett's adage that we should read the Bible "like any other book" extremely sensible.

Outisde, yep. Once I trusted myself, I escaped. Being both liberating and painless, I can heartily recommend it

After all, you have absolutely nothing to lose

I was actually an atheist for most of my life, followed by a few years of sincere agnosticism. I think by definition I have something to lose - my religious faith.

ETA
-------
* Above, I used the words I ain't here to repeal the lawsas a link to
'Matthew 5:18 :

I gathered, hence my comment on the Law, Prophets and Writings. I'll cheerfully discuss this in historical context and in light of Biblical Crit and various exegetical suggestions if you like. I'm quite interested in MAtthew's gospel as it happens.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

It's what your used to dealing with. I think if his experience was christians as knowledgable and rational as yourself, then you'd be right in finding it strange.

Given that I suspect my reputation on the forum has shifted from rabid woo apologist to dyed-in-the-wool faithhead rabid woo apologist over the last few days since I started to look at the religion threads more, thats very kind of you! However it is probably undeserved praise - though I do try to apply a bit of critical thought.

Cheers
cj x

 

[DOC]

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

The difficulty of the "sayings" or demands of Jesus do not make the story true.

Never said they did, but if you're going to make stuff up in order to "attract followers" wouldn't it make sense to make it a little easier. Even Islam doesn't require their followers to love their enemies

Multiple works of fiction have near insurmountable and conflicting demands placed upon people.

Examples include:
L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics
Robert. Prisig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence
J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter (Snape often gave harry impossible tasks)

This premise is destroyed.

The only fiction writing I see above is Harry Potter. Hubbard or Prisig's works are not considered fiction by the authors.

And Rowling does not claim her characters are real like the New testament writers claimed about Christ so the analogy does not fit.

 

[joobz]

The only fiction writing I see above is Harry Potter. Hubbard or Prisig's works are not considered fiction by the authors.

1.) it is not possible to know what Hubbard believed or didn't believe. There's very good reason to think that he started sceintology as a get rich scheme.

2.) I can tell you haven't read Prisig and missed my point regarding fact/fiction. Prisig's story contains truth and fiction mixed together to teach a philosophy(sound familiar). The fiction isn't any less of a fiction just because you beleive in the philosophy.


So, if you want to prove that jesus was ressurected, you need to provide evidence of such a case. I gave examples of evidence that would be needed to prove your case. Are you able to produce such evidence?

 

[DOC]

Since DOC seems to believe that his arguments in page 1 are ironclad, let us summarize the problems with them here.

Now I am going to use the standard of logic that if an argument to be true it must be true in all circumstances otherwise it is false. This is the logical grounds by which mathematical proofs are made.

Hence, if I present an example which contradicts a premise, then we can state that that premise if false and does not prove the bible true.

Nowhere does Geisler say that any one of the 10 reasons is proof that the bible is true. But he is implying the when you add all 10 together they lead one to believe that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the NT writers were telling the truth.

 

[joobz]

Nowhere does Geisler say that any one of the 10 reasons is proof that the bible is true.

If you are not trying to prove something true, than what's the point of the evidence?
Of course you can't claim 100% that it is true or not, but the quality of the evidences (arguments) determines the quality of the conclusion. I demonstrated clearly that the 10 points listed are, at best, proof that the bible writers thought they were telling the truth. My counter examples demonstrate that you can't even say that much, since fiction contains all the elements that were listed.

But he is implying the when you add all 10 together they lead one to believe that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And he's foolishly wrong.

 

[six7s]

Sure. If you are going to debate with DOC, you need to apply logical rigour to refute his arguments, as DOC will be called upon, and has been to do the same.

If you are going to debate with DOC, you need the patience of Job

As you may have gathered I have an academic background in Bib Crit and History - so clearly I do not regard the issues as navel gazing. You are very welcome to disagree!

I'll agree or disagree based on what you actually say; no disrespect, but saying you're a scholar don't make you one

To convince me that such inquiry is more worthwhile than navel-gazing, please describe the aim, the method and the tangible benefits (for you, to date)

As I suspected you do not hold it to be so: so you can't really use it to critique DOC's position on a single pericope, or even as here three.

I have no idea what you mean here

The truth or falseness of the Genesis account has no logical bearing on the truth or falseness of the New Testament claim in question.

You think so? Why?

I don't think so, simply because the NT is (according to Christ (according to Matthew (according to the bible))) an adjunct to (cf a replacement for) the OT

If the OT is bollocks (and it is) then the NT is bollocks, too

I merely pointed it out because it struck me as inconsistent. I recently have been reading Carl Sagan, and was shocked at how much he actually got wrong, in the light of modern knowledge, for which he ccan hardly be balmed, and in the case of history in the light of historical knowledge even when alive (for which he can: I suspect sloppy research assitants actually.) Yet finding the occasional howler does not discredit any other part of his work or writings, and i remain a fan.

Here you are conveniently overlooking one fundamental difference between the Bible and the writings of Sagan et al:

• the former purports to be the unerring word of a divine, omni-bloody-everything deity
• the latter is the work of regular, mortal, fallible, humans... widely regarded as damned clever humans, but nevertheless - as True Scottish McScientists - they not only readily admit to being fallible but also actively encourage others to scrutinise their methods, repeat their tests and refine their findings

To compare the two styles of authorship using the same criteria is meaningless

As you may have gathered, I think for critics we should take Bejamin Jowett's adage that we should read the Bible "like any other book" extremely sensible.

The bible has some superb stories with wonderful, lyrical prose, so yes, by all means, critique it in the same manner as you would for the Mahabharata, the Koran, the Canterbury Tales and any other major work of fiction...

But do remember, the Bible is a work of fiction - albeit based on real characters and places... but suggesting that we subject it to the style of scrutiny applied to the works of Sagan is facile

I was actually an atheist for most of my life, followed by a few years of sincere agnosticism. I think by definition I have something to lose - my religious faith.

If we teach probability to gamblers, would they lose their luck?

I gathered, hence my comment on the Law, Prophets and Writings. I'll cheerfully discuss this in historical context and in light of Biblical Crit and various exegetical suggestions if you like. I'm quite interested in MAtthew's gospel as it happens.

I sincerely appreciate your polite and non-dogmatic approach to discussion and I don't doubt your sincerity

However, I do doubt the veracity of your methods; suspecting an overwhelming level of confirmation bias aided by advanced (subconscious) skills in cherry picking

 

[joobz]

If the OT is bollocks (and it is) then the NT is bollocks, too

Six7s, I disagree with this statement. In fact, it is guilty of the exact same logical flaw as DOC's arguments herein.

the truthness or falseness of one part of the text has no bearing on the truthness or falseness of other parts of the texts.

DOC's attempt to say
"Luke got his geography right, therefore we know christ resurrected because he said so." is false for the exact same reason as:
"Genesis is wrong because science shows the world wasn't created in 7 days, therefore Luke's geography is wrong".

Now, You could argue that because X, Y and Z is false in the bible, I put very little faith in the truthfulness of P, Q and R from the Bible without further evidence.

Similarly, I know that Text F is right about X, Y and Z, therefore I'm going to assume that it is also likely right about P, Q, R unless evidence or logic suggests otherwise.



The point to all of this is that DOC has wanted us to ignore logic and experience and simply accept his conclusion. Unfortunately, the fact that the bible isn't a single document and it's own history and development is understudy, it is impossible to use his arguments to substantiate the truthfulness of the ressurection, or any other part of the bible which contradicts the experimentally verifiable material understanding of the universe.

 

[six7s]

Hi joobz,

Thanks for the feedback

Six7s, I disagree with this statement. In fact, it is guilty of the exact same logical flaw as DOC's arguments herein.

the truthness or falseness of other parts of the texts.

Please note that my (ir)rationale hinges on the idea that the bible, teh whole bible and nothing but the bible is the divinely inspired word of the big pen pusher in teh sky

DOC's attempt to say
"Luke got his geography right, therefore we know christ resurrected because he said so." is false for the exact same reason as:
"Genesis is wrong because science shows the world wasn't created in 7 days, therefore Luke's geography is wrong".

I reckon that Luke was wrong simply (i.e no other factors required) because he was suckered into both believing in and perpetuating a myth

I am not saying that Luke was wrong simply because he mentions of Herod and Zachariah, he's wrong because, as the god is bollocks, he can't - logically - be right in sayng "Both of them were upright in the sight of God"

Now, You could argue that because X, Y and Z is false in the bible, I put very little faith in the truthfulness of P, Q and R from the Bible without further evidence.

Similarly, I know that Text F is right about X, Y and Z, therefore I'm going to assume that it is also likely right about P, Q, R unless evidence or logic suggests otherwise.

If this was the Yellow Pages with a few phone numbers out of whack, maybe. But the bible pretends to be a kind of 'owners manual' for Life, The Universe and Everything... and, and!!! gazillions of people not only believe it, but they cherry pick from it to excuse inflicting all sorts of vile, heinous crap on the rest of teh whirled

OK... I ain't here to be persuaded into returning to the fold, I'm here to hone my thinking skills... so, as per always, please feel free to rip my (il)logic to bits

 

[joobz]

Hi joobz,

Thanks for the feedback

Hey no problem. I think it is to all of our benefit to hold each other to high standards. I've made many a bad argument and we should be willing to correct eachother, even if (or, especially if) we agree with the intent of our positions.

OK... I ain't here to be persuaded into returning to the fold, I'm here to hone my thinking skills... so, as per always, please feel free to rip my (il)logic to bits

This is the attitude I love here. The willingness to grow and learn and improve our rationality and thinking.

I think the only point we differ is that I am not against giving credit to the things that christianity got right. I just can't imagine the concept of the christian god being real since it goes against my sense of reason, justice and morality.

 

[six7s]

I think the only point we differ is that I am not against giving credit to the things that christianity got right.

I think that here, too, we are close to full agreement

I ain't for one cotton-pickin' minute suggesting that Jesus either had or is at least attributed with having had some cool ideas, esp "Love One Another"... I mean... I mean... Officer Obie... that's just cool!

However, it's unlikely that (and, more pertinently, irrelevant if) he and his groupies were the first besandalled 30-something long-hairs to promote such wisdom

I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde

 

[DOC]

DOC's attempt to say
"Luke got his geography right, therefore we know christ resurrected because he said so."....

Nowhere do I say this, but if Luke shows great attention to detail and accuracy in the 84 facts mentioned by Geisler on pages 256 to 260 then it certainly increases the probability that his reports of the resurrection are true, especially when he talks about the resurrection in the same matter of fact (this is history) style that he talked about the 84 facts. That is unless one has a supernatural bias.

ETA: Then when you add to this the attention to detail that John exhibits in his gospel (see pages 263 - 268 of Geislers book) than you have that much more weight to add to the scale of evidence.

 

[Hokulele]

... but if Luke shows great attention to detail and accuracy in the 84 facts mentioned by Geisler on pages 256 to 260 then it certainly increases the probability that his reports of the resurrection are true...

Nope.

 

[Lothian]

Nowhere do I say this, but if Luke shows great attention to detail and accuracy in the 84 facts mentioned by Geisler on pages 256 to 260 then it certainly increases the probability that his reports of the resurrection are true.

Pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169
39937510582097494459230781640628620899862
80348253421170679821480865132823066470938
44609550582231725359408128481117450284102
70193852110555964462294895493038196442881
09756659334461284756482337867831652712019
09145648566923460348610454326648213393607
26024914127372458700660631558817488152092
09628292540917153643678925903600113305305
48820466521384146951941511609433057270365
75959195309218611738193261179310511854807
44623799627495673518857527248912279381830
11949129833673362440656643086021394946395
22473719070217986094370277053921717629317
67523846748184676694051320005681271452635
60827785771342757789609173637178721468440
90122495343014654958537105079227968925892
35420199561121290219608640344181598136297
74771309960518707211349999998372978049951
05973173281609631859502445945534690830264
25223082533446850352619311881710100031378
38752886587533208381420617177669147303598
25349042875546873115956286388235378759375
19577818577805321712268066130019278766111
95909216420198938095257201065485863278865
93615338182796823030195203530185296899577
36225994138912497217752834791315155748572
42454150695950829533116861727855889075098
38175463746493931925506040092770167113900
98488240128583616035637076601047101819429
55596198946767837449448255379774726847104
04753464620804668425906949129331367702898
91521047521620569660240580381501935112533
82430035587640247496473263914199272604269
92279678235478163600934172164121992458631
50302861829745557067498385054945885869269
95690927210797509302955321165344987202755
96023648066549911988183479775356636980742
65425278625518184175746728909777727938000
81647060016145249192173217214772350141441
97356854816136115735255213347574184946843
85233239073941433345477624168625189835694
85562099219222184272550254256887671790494
60165346680498862723279178608578438382796
79766814541009538837863609506800642251252
05117392984896084128488626945604241965285
02221066118630674427862203919494504712371
37869609563643719172874677646575739624138
908658326459958133904780275901

Doc is an idiot.

Has the detail and accuracy of my first statement increased the probability that my second one is true?

 

[joobz]

Nowhere do I say this, but if Luke shows great attention to detail and accuracy in the 84 facts mentioned by Geisler on pages 256 to 260 then it certainly increases the probability that his reports of the resurrection are true, especially when he talks about the resurrection in the same matter of fact (this is history) style that he talked about the 84 facts. That is unless one has a supernatural bias.

Oh, so you didn't say 6 but rather half dozen.
I see.

ETA: Then when you add to this the attention to detail that John exhibits in his gospel (see pages 263 - 268 of Geislers book) than you have that much more weight to add to the scale of evidence.

Allow me to quote the excellent logician, Hokulele.

Nope.

 

[six7s]

... detail and accuracy in the 84 facts mentioned by Geisler on pages 256 to 260
<snip/>
... see pages 263 - 268 of Geislers book

DOC, when you FAIL, it's not a good idea to re-use the same FAILURE INDUCING texts when you try again, otherwise you will NEVER LEARN

IOW:

• Geisler is wrong

• As long as you persist in repeating other peoples' errors, you too will be wrong

This simple aspect of reality ain't hard to grasp, no matter how deluded you are