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

[Hokulele]

This is pretty much why I have limited the referrals to Ehrman and Pagels in this thread. Although some of Pagels' early work in Gnosticism is questionable, her later scholarship is excellent, and both of them are firmly Christianity-friendly.

It is similar to how I generally recommend Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections for Christians wanting to learn more about evolutionary theory as he goes almost too far to be accomodating (NOMA and all that).

I will be in town tomorrow and will definitely check for Carroll's book.

 

[GreNME]

Be ready for a very dense read. I went through it while following his annotations, and at one point I was doing one chapter every day because of all the stuff I was following from the annotations.

 

[Hokulele]

Can't be much denser than Geisler.

*Rim shot*

 

[DOC]

As it stands, you have no source for your "rather than any type of historical accuracy" statement used with the wording "most scholars".

Once again, you are wrong. GreNME even offered an additional source that supports my point.

No, I'm right. It doesn't matter if GreNME offered 5, 10 or 15 sources that support your point. You implied that "most" scholars believe that Pilate actions in the bible were not historically accurate. You have still not presented any source to back up that claim.

Pilate was a nasty man and any attempts by the gospel writers to whitewash his role in anyone's execution is historical inaccuracy at best. Lying or fictionalizing would be more appropriate.

You have a right to your opinion but you have no evidence that most scholars feel this way.

And you are right, I should have said "most reputable scholars of early Christianity"...

OK, well then give us a source that says "most" reputable scholars of early Christianity feel that the Bible does not accurately portray the actions of Pilate. There has been a lot of statements by skeptics in here but not a lot of sources.

Once again, I would be more than happy to refer you to a particular source. Will you read and discuss it honestly?

If you want to start a thread on this "one" particular source go ahead, but you shouldn't say or imply it represents most scholars opinions unless you have sources for that fact.

 

[DOC]

Can't be much denser than Geisler.

Actually Geisler's works are very clear and easy to read.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually Geisler's works are very clear and easy to read.

Wow. I've never seen a point missed by so far.

 

[zooterkin]

Wow. I've never seen a point missed by so far.

Stick around, you'll get used to it...

 

[politas]

Yes the article talks of Eusebius as a source. He received a letter regarding the incident. But nowhere in the article does it talk of Eusebius as an inventor of martyr-stories and as an originator of the tradition of "holy lying". That sounds like something you just made up in your quote below:

Wikipedia's page on Eusebius contains the following:

* Edward Gibbon (18th century historian) dismissed his testimony on the number of martyrs and impugned his honesty by referring to a passage in the abbreviated version of the Martyrs of Palestine attached to the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 2, in which Eusebius introduces his description of the martyrs of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with: "Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. […] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." In the longer text of the Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 12, Eusebius states: "I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as […] the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning.".
* When his own honesty was challenged by his contemporaries, Gibbon appealed to the chapter heading -- not the text -- in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica (xii, 31), which says how fictions (pseudos) — which Gibbon rendered 'falsehoods' — may be a "medicine", which may be "lawful and fitting" to use.
* Jacob Burckhardt (19th century cultural historian) dismissed Eusebus as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".
* Other critics of Eusebius' work cite the panegyrical tone of the Vita, plus the omission of internal Christian conflicts in the Canones, as reasons to interpret his writing with caution.

But then goes on to state that "other views have tended to prevail", though less examples of the "other views" are presented.

 

[Hokulele]

No, I'm right. It doesn't matter if GreNME offered 5, 10 or 15 sources that support your point. You implied that "most" scholars believe that Pilate actions in the bible were not historically accurate. You have still not presented any source to back up that claim.

You now have three of them. The fact that you are unwilling to track down those sources speaks volumes towards your honesty in debate. Go out and buy and read those authors and books previously recommended.

After all, you were the one insisting that everyone in this thread had to run out and purchase Geisler's babbling. It was Ichneumonwasp who provided the on-line source.

You have a right to your opinion but you have no evidence that most scholars feel this way.

Irony, thy name is DOC.

OK, well then give us a source that says "most" reputable scholars of early Christianity feel that the Bible does not accurately portray the actions of Pilate. There has been a lot of statements by skeptics in here but not a lot of sources.

If you want to start a thread on this "one" particular source go ahead, but you shouldn't say or imply it represents most scholars opinions unless you have sources for that fact.

Funny, you still haven't answered the root question. If I present a source, will you read it and discuss it honestly? This is a yes or no question, and your weaseling is starting to reach messianic proportions.

 

[joobz]

No, I'm right. It doesn't matter if GreNME offered 5, 10 or 15 sources that support your point. You implied that "most" scholars believe that Pilate actions in the bible were not historically accurate. You have still not presented any source to back up that claim.

Do you understand the idea of evidence? Of publication? of scholarship?

Typically, if scholars write on a subject and there is no disenting opinion, it is safe to assume that that is the "common opinion". If, however, it's a contestable point, you can find contrary arguments which contradict that view. Those are normally hotly contested and tend to be very lively.

In order to do so, you will need to have actually read both pro and con arguments and then offer up your assessment of the answer. Hokulele and GreNME have provided you 3 authored sources for you to start with your analysis. If you wish to be taken seriously, you are best to start reading those ASAP.

Note, that I, Hok, ichneumanwasp (and others, I'm sure) have actually read many parts of the Geisler book you referenced. It's the reason why I'm quite comfortable in calling him a laughably poor apologist. It's part of the process of honesty in debate. How can you honestly dissmiss an argument, if you haven't evaluated that arguments position?

You have a right to your opinion but you have no evidence that most scholars feel this way.

It seems she does, as you haven't offered any contrary opinion to refute her stance.

OK, well then give us a source that says "most" reputable scholars of early Christianity feel that the Bible does not accurately portray the actions of Pilate. There has been a lot of statements by skeptics in here but not a lot of sources.

Um, like I said above, true scholarly papers don't say such silliness. They make an argument and base that argument off of evidence and fact. Most scholars know that using "most scholars say" as an argument is nothing but appeal to popularity and is a logical fallacy. You should be very wary of a original research source scholar who makes such statements.

If you want to start a thread on this "one" particular source go ahead, but you shouldn't say or imply it represents most scholars opinions unless you have sources for that fact.

Again, you haven't offered up any reason to suggest that the point of view is controversial.

 

[joobz]

Actually Geisler's works are very clear and easy to read.

So is "Go dog Go".

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

The 270 bishops of the council of Nicaea obviously must have examined the evidence of all the scripture of the day and then collectively gave their opinion as to the authenticity of those works.

The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with choosing the books of the bible.

This is just an urban legend, repeated endlessly be people who don't check the facts.



Kapyong

 

[DOC]

Gday,



The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with choosing the books of the bible.

This is just an urban legend, repeated endlessly be people who don't check the facts

The council formulated the famous Nicean Creed (in which they declared the Church's actual beliefs) from the various scriptures of the day. They just didn't make it up out of thin air. This must have involved deciding which books deserved the most weight. While they might not have officially named the books of the bible at the Council -- and I never said they did -- it is certainly likely various books were given priority because they were deemed the most authentic. This process certainly must have involved choosing some books over others. For example choosing the 4 gospels over the Gnostic Gospels because they were deemed more authentic.

 

[zooterkin]

The council formulated the famous Nicean Creed (in which they declared the Church's actual beliefs) from from the various scriptures of the day. They just didn't make it up out of thin air. This must have involved deciding which books deserved the most weight. While they might not have officially named the books of the bible at the Council. It is certainly likely various books were given priority because they were deemed the most authentic. This process certainly involved choosing some books over others. For example choosing the 4 gospels over the Gnostic Gospels because they were deemed more authentic.

So, you're withdrawing your earlier assertion that the council examined the scriptures and gave its opinion as to the authenticity of the works?

And do you have anything at all to back up those bolded assertions, or are you speculating wildly as usual?

Have you got any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth? I don't see how an event over 300 years later can provide it.

 

[zooterkin]

I notice you slipped an edit in while I was replying:

While they might not have officially named the books of the bible at the Council -- and I never said they did -- it is certainly likely various books were given priority because they were deemed the most authentic.

So, what exactly did you mean when you said:

You must not like jury trials... But instead of 12 people deciding, the Council of Nicaea had 270 bishops deciding what scripture would be accepted by Church as authentic. This made sense to do because of the many written works about Jesus around at the time.

...
DOC: Actually the approx. 270 bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided on what the Catholic Church recognized as authentic scripture. If you didn't want to be a member of the Catholic Church at the time you could believe the other Gospels as true if you wanted.
Same holds true for today.

 

[DOC]

So, you're withdrawing your earlier assertion that the council examined the scriptures and gave its opinion as to the authenticity of the works?

No, the opinion was given by the council in the form of the Nicean Creed. They had to obviously formulate the opinion that this creed they wrote was authentic.

And do you have anything at all to back up those bolded assertions, or are you speculating wildly as usual?

They're not bold assertions, they're just logical inferences.

Have you got any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

Yes,

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA275,M1

and there is also more evidence within my 400 posts.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Zooterkin highlights sections of a post to which he wishes to direct doc's attention, by bolding them:

And do you have anything at all to back up those bolded assertions, or are you speculating wildly as usual?

doc demonstrates his reading comprehension:

They're not bold assertions, they're just logical inferences.

ROFL.

And, doc, before you launch into your usual "you're just picking on me because you're a mean atheist," stop and think: if you've understood other things you've read no better than this, are your opinions as well-informed as you assert that they are?

 

[joobz]

Amusingly
This statement:

They're not bold assertions, they're just logical inferences.

explains why you say this.

and there is also more evidence within my 400 posts.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Yes the article talks of Eusebius as a source. He received a letter regarding the incident. But nowhere in the article does it talk of Eusebius as an inventor of martyr-stories and as an originator of the tradition of "holy lying". That sounds like something you just made up in your quote below:

Here is a good article by Barbara G. Walker:

"Fathers" of the Christian church insisted on their parental titles, and learned to regard the faithful as their naive children, who would accept any tale, however wildly improbable, that they were told. Early Christian writers, like Eusebius, liberally engaged in "holy lying" and many of his lies are still put forth as true. Even St. Augustine deemed it "expedient" to make people believe certain things that are false, and to conceal other things that the "vulgar crowd" should not know. Through the centuries, religious "fathers" have deliberately forged, fabricated and dissembled the beliefs demanded of their "children," for, as St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote to St. Jerome, the people are childlike, and "the less they understand, the more they admire."16

And I found an entire page on The Historical Integrity of Eusebius of Caesarea.

 

[babbits]

"Actually the approx. 270 bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided on what the Catholic Church recognized as authentic scripture. If you didn't want to be a member of the Catholic Church at the time you could believe the other Gospels as true if you wanted. Same holds true for today. "

Under orders from Constantine:

"Reconcile the contradictions in all these texts floating around, so I can get on with unifying the empire with a "state church".

(more or less )

And Constantine was not a guy to mess with. He wanted results, and he wanted them fast. He ".... had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions. "

He was so terrifying that when he died, no one would approach the body until they could smell putrefaction. They were afraid that if he was in a coma and woke up, his fury would result in a terrible death for whoever woke him.

There is a story, may be just an anecdote , may be untrue: the remaining bishops at Nicea, knowing Constantine was getting dangerously annoyed with their delay, still could not agree on articles of faith. So they prayed to god for a miracle, and then by prearranged plan, threw all the questionable documents down a flight of stairs. Their assumption: god would not allow there to be an error. So all the documents that made their way to the foot of the staircase were 'true'. The ones that fell off the edges of the steps were false.

The reason I doubt this story? They would have still been arguing about the ones that made it to the bottom, because there were BOUND to be contradictions in them, too!

I guess that was the first case of 'papal infallibility'.