Lothian
should be banned
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Lothian
should be banned
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
OK, let's get back to the original question. To everyone -- well not DOC actually, as he clearly does not hold this - why would we believe the NT writers did not write what they believed to be the truth? Is there any reason to privilege Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Herodotus or Caesar's writing over the NT authors writings f'r instance? If you believe they are unreliable, why???
cj x
cj x
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
DOC, it truly is a bit concerning that you could be so delusional.
Hokulele has only ever been most concerned with accuracy. She is a very fair and even handed forumite. She gives people the benefit of the doubt and will continually attack only the best arguments presented against her.
If you find that all her posts are in criticism of your points, than so much the worse for you as it is a clear indication of your innacuracy.
You've avoided my question and Hokulele's:
How does
"Thinking of others" = "prayer"?
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
I do not doubt the new testament writers believed they wrote the truth. However, I also believe that 911 truthers belieive they speak the truth as well. Belief isn't enough, and indeed is a highly unreliable aspect of knowing the truth.
Now, I do not believe some of the bible writers, because they disagree with elements of reality. We have no evidence that resurrection has ever happened, yet the bible gives multiple accounts of this.
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Agreed.
Yet we can object to this on multiple grounds
a) We have no evidence that the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I happened unless we accept historical sources. SO we do have evidence - the New Testament claims, and the existence of Christian believers.
b) The Resurrection was actually supposed to be an interruption to normal mundane reality - and the fact we have no proposed mechanism in no way invalidates it, the claim of the Christian being it was an exception to natural law after all. So that si precisely the point of the claim?
c) We have no known mechanism for the Tunguska 1908 explosion at this time, just a large number of competing theories, but it happened.
cj x
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Hard to believe, I know, but, yes, you have achieved that feat.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Hey Doc... we're not asking for a lot. How about you posting the kind of evidence that it would take for you to accept evolution as true.
Tit for Tat.
Tit for Tat.
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
The trick here is differentiating between a reliable historical record, and one that isn't.
The Bible, for various reasons, fails the reliability test.
And the presence of people who believe something lends no weight to it's veracity. cough*Zenu*cough
So what DOC needs to do (and appears incapable of doing) is provide evidence that what the New Testament writes wrote was true (irrespective of whether they believed it to be true).
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Why is the Bible less reliable than the other historical sources i mentioned? You have asserted this, but you have not yet provided any evidence.
cj x
When the Bible describes someone named Yeshua wandering the countryside, gathering a following, and preaching an apocalyptic doctrine, there is every reason to consider it a reliable source, especially as it is substantiated by other sources and evidence and is plausible.
When it is the sole source to claim a hiatus in the laws of nature (resurrection), there is every reason to believe that is a fabrication. I have no problem believing that the New Testament is a combination of historical fact and imaginative fancy.
Gilgamesh as a Sumerian king is entirely plausible and supported by other portions of the historical record. Do you believe Gilgamesh was 1/3 human?
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
I know that coronations are possible events. We have multiple examples of such events. I also know that She was Queen. Hence, it is not hard to believe that she had a coronation.
We have no evidence of a resurrection except for hear say accounts. Since the advent of modern medicine, we have not witnessed the ressurrection of a deceased body returning to life.
HOWEVER, We have evidence of people regaining consiousness after appearing to be dead (but not actually being dead).
Even if the hearsay accounts were reliable, it is impossible for me to believe that these people would be able to recognize the differences that modern medicine has made obvious.
Simply because the story is supposed to be incredible doesn't mean that it gets a free pass from reason. I also don't believe Bhudda floated on a lotus leaf nor do I believe that Joeseph smith received gold tablets from an angel or that achillies was dipped in the river styx....
But we have evidence that the exposion occured and we know that explosions are possible.
I'm not asking for a mechanistic proof that the ressurection occured, only that it could occur.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
OMG, an actual question for discussion in this thread? Thank you, thank you.
One answer is that we do not precisely privilege the authors you have mentioned. Especially Suetonius and Josephus, and I might add Livy. I don't know an historian worth her salt who accepts everything they wrote without some reservations.
There are several issues in answering the question:
(1) The stakes involved -- believing that Livia, for instance, was an evil ***** who would kill anyone in her way or that Messalina was a complete slut is a different proposition from believing that Jesus performed the miracles that he was said to perform. It doesn't matter all that much if Livia really was that evil in the grand scheme of things; it's just a great story. But Jesus as God -- well, that matters quite a bit more. When ontology enters the picture the verity standard must be much higher.
(2) The plausibility option -- It is highly plausible that Livia was that evil and Messalina that loose, even though most tend to think that there might have been a bit of creative license taken with some of those stories, as opposed to the proposition that Jesus was actually the eternal force of the universe literally made flesh. Again, when ontology enters the picture.............
(3) The nature of the writings -- the gospels were not written like histories (with the exception of Luke/Acts from an admitted non-eyewitness) but as devotional/confessional accounts. The other examples cited follow the conventions of histories often citing their sources (especially true for Thucydides and Tacitus, who are generally given much more credence than Suetonius or Livy).
(4) The existence of corroborating data -- With Tiberius (I use the example only because it was brought up earlier in the thread) for instance, we have not only four primary accounts (one of which was contemporary) but evidence of his villa and coins struck during his reign and a temple he dedicated. The presence of coinage does not prove what a lecherous old lout he was, but it is pretty darn good evidence that he existed. There are converging lines of evidence for his existence lending some credence to the stories about him.
(5) Motivation of the authors -- to use Tiberius again, while one of his "biographers" had a clear agenda to make the emperor look good, none of the latter authors did (and none of them did). Tales told by the opposition, when they mention good deeds, carry some weight. The gospels, on the other hand, were written for entirely different reasons. They were intended to proclaim the good news, not to document what happened in an historical sense. When you read the stories in depth many of them look like metaphors -- for instance, in Mark, Jesus heals a man blind from birth in stages immediately before Peter first "sees" that Jesus is the messiah (while the disciples had previously been blithely running about completely ignorant of this fact). Many of the stories read like literary devices to demonstrate a point, not like historical facts. The same cannot be said of the way Tacitus or Thucydides or Livy treat most of their material (I leave out Herodotus because he clearly seems to have done the same thing as the gospel authors for some tales -- like the fight over Leonidas' body at Thermopylae).
cj.23
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,827
Agreed.
That's fine and well stated - we have to be careful. This happened - http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm -- and people witness "paranormal" events every day. The belief in such does not actually discredit the reporting. A large number of newspapers reported the Virgin of Fatima - http://www.oltiv.org/2007/02/newspaper-report-of-fatima-miracle-on.html - but I do not as it happens ascribe any supernatural causality to it. The problem with the argument is that The Times report DD Homes miracles - yet we can assume the reportage was accurate to the limits of the reporter. Therefore the presence of miraculous elements does not discredit the authors attempt to tell the truth - because such things are still common place today. Whether they are actually "miraculous" is of course a far harder, and different question, but clearly
1. Miracles do not exist
2. The Bible contain miracles
3. Therefore the Bible is untrue
is a circular and fallacious argument. Hence my respect for your phrasing which does a long way to avoiding this trap.
yes. I think the other 2/3's of him were human as well though.
cj x
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Sure, extraordinary claims and all.
I agree with a small nitpick. I would restate point 3 as "Therefore the Bible is completely untrue." As such, DOC's argument is equally fallacious in that it attempting the opposite:
1. History is true.
2. The Bible contains history.
3. Therefore the Bible is completely true.
The discussion becomes interesting when trying to sort out the true and untrue bits.
yes. I think the other 2/3's of him were human as well though.
Heh. I almost put the word "only" in that question.
The Will of God
Well, a week or two ago someone in here asked me to explain what is meant by the will of God. My interpretation of that term is a condition where Godly perfection exists. A world where everyone follows the 10 commandments and loves their neighbor would be a perfect world and a world in the will of God. Obviously that condition does not exist at this time but to achieve a world like that would be the goal of the Christian community.
Christ said "Ye do the will of the Father {God, the father} and ye shall have eternal life". That implies if you want eternal life you should do things like follow the 10 commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, do good to those who vile and persecute you etc.
Also, Christianity teaches that as you get deeper into Christianity you are able to hear more clearly the voice of God communicating with you. I'm not talking about an audible voice (although that did happen sometimes in the bible) but a spiritual communication that you know is of God. If God is telling you (in the spirit) to do something -- for example to give 50 dollars to a charity when you personally only want to give 20 -- then to do the will of God here you would have to give the 50. Bill Gates might give 5% of his wealth to charity. But if he were a Christian who was in communication with the God of this universe, God might ask him (in the spirit) to give 70% of his wealth to charity. Obviously there would be a lot of people who would be better off if he gave 70% of his wealth to charity; and then the world would be closer to the will of God and thus better off.
The goal is to have a world that is 100% in the will of God because that would be a world that would be in the long term best interest of everyone. As I said before obviously that state does not exist now (because of the sin of man); but that is the goal -- of Christians, anyway. And an environment that is 100% in God's perfect will be a state of existence that I believe heaven will be like.
Well, a week or two ago someone in here asked me to explain what is meant by the will of God. My interpretation of that term is a condition where Godly perfection exists. A world where everyone follows the 10 commandments and loves their neighbor would be a perfect world and a world in the will of God. Obviously that condition does not exist at this time but to achieve a world like that would be the goal of the Christian community.
Christ said "Ye do the will of the Father {God, the father} and ye shall have eternal life". That implies if you want eternal life you should do things like follow the 10 commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, do good to those who vile and persecute you etc.
Also, Christianity teaches that as you get deeper into Christianity you are able to hear more clearly the voice of God communicating with you. I'm not talking about an audible voice (although that did happen sometimes in the bible) but a spiritual communication that you know is of God. If God is telling you (in the spirit) to do something -- for example to give 50 dollars to a charity when you personally only want to give 20 -- then to do the will of God here you would have to give the 50. Bill Gates might give 5% of his wealth to charity. But if he were a Christian who was in communication with the God of this universe, God might ask him (in the spirit) to give 70% of his wealth to charity. Obviously there would be a lot of people who would be better off if he gave 70% of his wealth to charity; and then the world would be closer to the will of God and thus better off.
The goal is to have a world that is 100% in the will of God because that would be a world that would be in the long term best interest of everyone. As I said before obviously that state does not exist now (because of the sin of man); but that is the goal -- of Christians, anyway. And an environment that is 100% in God's perfect will be a state of existence that I believe heaven will be like.
Last edited:
- Status