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

[DOC]

Then why are the accounts by Luke in Acts different from Paul's own words?

I've already went over this in this or another thread -- there is no conflict if you read it literally. If you want to take a lot of time and bring this whole issue up again it's your choice. But if you do and I show that this has already been talked about and explained it will make you look bad. You should try to come up with something new like I did with Cowdery and Harris.

ETA: And don't forget, many of the epistles are commonly considered to be forgeries.

Which epistles, and what are your sources. I've noticed many skeptics in here love generalized statements with no sources.

 

[Hokulele]

I've already went over this in this or another thread -- there is no conflict if you read it literally. If you want to take a lot of time and bring this whole issue up again it's your choice. But if you do and I show that this has already been talked about and explained it will make you look bad. You should try to come up with something new like I did with Cowdery and Harris.

Reading it literally is what highlights the contradictions. Go ahead, read Acts, then read Galatians. Two different people.

Which epistles, and what are your sources. I've noticed many skeptics in here love generalized statements with no sources.

Heck, this is standard stuff. Read the Wiki article for the overview, then read the cited articles for the details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

 

[six7s]

1. Well Paul, who was going to Damascus to "persecute" Christians
2. did claim to personally witness the presence of Jesus on the way.

Ummmm.....

Whilst I appreciate the attempt at a serious answer, I am sincere in saying that it seems patently obvious that you have failed to actually think about the two (non) points you made

If I'm wrong, you'll be able to explain your thinking, right?

And any man who has the genius to write letters to other people that will end up being a very large and very important part of the greatest selling book in the history of the world deserves to be considered a good witness.

Once again, all I can glean from this is circular (il)logic

When compared to Cowdery and Harris of Mormonism; Paul makes an outstanding witness.

I don't know about Cowdery and Harris... but why is S/Paul any more 'outstanding' than Winnie The Pooh?

 

[Lothian]

It's not impossible, but seems very unlikely considering Mormonism in certain ways goes against the teachings of Jesus himself. For example Jesus' teachings and implications on hell and those of Mormonism are very different. The Law of Non-contradiction prevents both from being right.

No, you don't understand. Jesus was talking to ignorant goat hearders and fisherman who would not have been able to appreciate the full message. Like with slavery God had to wait until mankind was ready to accept his true word.

 

[DOC]

Reading it literally is what highlights the contradictions. Go ahead, read Acts, then read Galatians. Two different people.

There is no contradiction in the King James. I've already went over this. Show me in the King James translation where there is a contradiction. And are you telling me you don't remember when I went over all this before?

 

[DOC]

Ummmm.....

Whilst I appreciate the attempt at a serious answer, I am sincere in saying that it seems patently obvious that you have failed to actually think about the two (non) points you made

If I'm wrong, you'll be able to explain your thinking, right?

It is your job to explain any problems you have with what I say. So you're welcome to explain, I"m not a mind reader.

I don't know about Cowdery and Harris... but why is S/Paul any more 'outstanding' than Winnie The Pooh?

Your question is absurd, but you've got the right to your opinion about the 6th most influential person to ever live according to the book "The 100: the 100 most influential people in history" and its not Winnie the Pooh.

 

[Hokulele]

There is no contradiction in the King James. I've already went over this. Show me in the King James translation where there is a contradiction.

Read Acts chapter 9 and Galatians 1 and 2. These are too long to quote here completely, so you will just have to brush the dust and cobwebs off your bible and actually read the damn thing. To highlight just two of the differences, Acts claims that Saul/Paul spent days preaching in Damascus immediately after his conversion, then went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles, who pretty much gave him the cold shoulder. Galatians, Paul's own words, states that he went to Arabia immediately after his conversion, speaking to no one, then Damascus, and three years later he went to Jerusalem where he got into arguments with Peter and James.

Paul is far more confrontational and important to the development of the early church in his own letters than how he is portrayed in Acts, where Peter and James appear to have authority without challenge.

 

[DOC]

Read Acts chapter 9 and Galatians 1 and 2. These are too long to quote here completely, so you will just have to brush the dust and cobwebs off your bible and actually read the damn thing. To highlight just two of the differences, Acts claims that Saul/Paul spent days preaching in Damascus immediately after his conversion, then went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles, who pretty much gave him the cold shoulder. Galatians, Paul's own words, states that he went to Arabia immediately after his conversion, speaking to no one, then Damascus, and three years later he went to Jerusalem...

Much ado about nothing. Luke just probably wasn't interested in Paul's side trip to Arabia (if Paul had even told him about it at all). And even Paul (in his letter) never said what he did in Arabia --he doesn't even say he preached in Arabia. Why should Luke even mention it to his readers -- it adds nothing.

Luke just picks up the story in Jerusalem after Damascus. So what. He never said Paul went immediately to Jerusalem. I'm sure Paul stopped in a lot of little towns on his way to Jerusalem. Luke never mentions them either -- so what.

I'll talk about the "2 week" meeting Paul had with Peter in Jerusalem later. But that was amazing to me (the first time I read it). Paul and Peter and James and other Christians actually met together for 2 weeks. One can imagine all the information Paul received from eyewitness apostles at that meeting.

 

[joobz]

As I said, Christ's and Mormonism concept of hell is different. Also Christianity's concept of God (the father) and the Mormon's concept is extremely different. Personally, after the reading I"ve done on Mormonism, I agree with that Dutch investigator who studied them for years, and said Joseph Smith was a psychopath, who used religion {either consciously or unconsciously } for his own fanatical desires and delusions of grandeur. Read what I said earlier about Cowdery and Harris. These are the type of people that attached themselves to Smith.

How does this critique NOT apply equally to Jesus?

Jesus claimed you needed him to enter heaven.
He demanded from his followers complete obiedience and devotion, with the exclusion of all else (family, money...)
He held a dinner where he symbolically told others to pretend to eat and drink him.
and he kept secrets.

It seems to me that if you're going to call Smith a psychopath, than you should be calling Jesus one as well.

 

[joobz]

Much ado about nothing.

Because you don't want to believe that these contradictions matter.
Yet, you use every little inconsistent point to try and discredit Mormonism. Do you not see the contradiction?

 

[Hokulele]

Much ado about nothing. Luke just probably wasn't interested in Paul's side trip to Arabia (if Paul had even told him about it at all). And even Paul (in his letter) never said what he did in Arabia --he doesn't even say he preached in Arabia. Why should Luke even mention it to his readers -- it adds nothing.

Luke just picks up the story in Jerusalem after Damascus. So what. He never said Paul went immediately to Jerusalem. I'm sure Paul stopped in a lot of little towns on his way to Jerusalem. Luke never mentions them either -- so what.

Read it again. Paul claims he left immediately for Arabia without speaking to anyone. Luke claims he preached in Damascus for weeks immediately after the conversion. They can't both be right.

I'll talk about the "2 week" meeting Paul had with Peter in Jerusalem later. But that was amazing to me (the first time I read it). Paul and Peter and James and other Christians actually met together for 2 weeks. One can imagine all the information Paul received from eyewitness apostles at that meeting.

Yeah, the meeting where Paul basically told Peter and the rest of the apostles that they were full of feces. Good times.

 

[DOC]

How does this critique NOT apply equally to Jesus?

Jesus claimed you needed him to enter heaven.
He demanded from his followers complete obiedience and devotion, with the exclusion of all else (family, money...)
He held a dinner where he symbolically told others to pretend to eat and drink him.
and he kept secrets.

It seems to me that if you're going to call Smith a psychopath, than you should be calling Jesus one as well.

Psychopaths don't create the greatest system of morality/ethics the world has ever known -- at least that is what Thomas Jefferson called the teachings of Christ.

And I'm glad you agree that Jesus was using the bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood at the last supper.

 

[Hokulele]

Psychopaths don't create the greatest system of morality/ethics the world has ever known...

A system of morality and ethics based on the concept of thought-crime pretty much is psychopathic.

-- at least that is what Thomas Jefferson called the teachings of Christ.

And I'm glad you agree that Jesus was using the bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood at the last supper.

I am pretty sure joobz would say that he would agree the bible states as much.

But of course there is no real evidence that the Last Supper happened as described.

 

[joobz]

Psychopaths don't create the greatest system of morality/ethics the world has ever known -- at least that is what Thomas Jefferson called the teachings of Christ.

Not all psychopaths, just the ones interested in thought crimes.

And I'm glad you agree that Jesus was using the bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood at the last supper.

Yup. Symbolic cannibalism. Scary and demented.

 

[joobz]

Read it again. Paul claims he left immediately for Arabia without speaking to anyone. Luke claims he preached in Damascus for weeks immediately after the conversion. They can't both be right.

DOC has already stated that the differences in the ressurection story are "minor". To a person willing to believe that, it's not at all hard to gloss over a difference in timeline as well.

Can you imagine a DA using similar evidence to make a conviction.

Your honor we have 4 witnesses to the murder.
witness1: Yes the killer was a black man, and he was outside the building with a gun.
Witness2: Yes, there were two white killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Witness3: The killer was a white guy and he had a knife.
Witness4: There were 2 black killers, and they were inside the building with guns.
Judge: YOur accounts do not agree, which one of you is telling the truth?
Witnesses: We all are. They are all true.
Defendant: Your Honor, we wish to file a motion to dismiss all charges on the grounds that the witnesses are retarded.

 

[DOC]

Read it again. Paul claims he left immediately for Arabia without speaking to anyone. Luke claims he preached in Damascus for weeks immediately after the conversion. They can't both be right.

Paul did not claim he did not "speak" to anyone as you state. If you read the King James and the New Living below it states he did not "confer or consult" with anyone. This means as even he himself states he got (at this point) his preaching directly from God (not men or the apostles) see Galatians 1:12. In other words Paul did not go to the apostles and consult or confer at this time -- Jesus Christ himself was revealing to him what to say... You can preach for weeks and still not consult or confer with anyone.

KJV

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

NLT

Gal 1:16 Then he revealed his Son to me so that I could proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles. When all this happened to me, I did not rush out to consult with anyone else.

 

[DOC]

And I'm glad you agree that Jesus was using the bread and wine as symbols of his body and blood at the last supper.

Yup. Symbolic cannibalism. Scary and demented.

Is it scary and demented when someone gives a blood transfusion to save another person's life or gives a kidney to save a life. That's the whole essence of the Gospel story. Christ gave his body and blood so mankind would no longer be separated from God because of sin and have the possibility of eternal life. A price always has to be paid for non-repentant sin. God (being perfect) is serious about sin; He is not flippant about it.

 

[joobz]

Is it scary and demented when someone gives a blood transfusion to save another person's life or gives a kidney to save a life.

No, because it makes medical..sound sense.
It would be demented to drink human blood and eat a human kidney.

That's the whole essence of the Gospel story. Christ gave his body and blood so mankind would no longer be separated from God because of sin and have the possibility of eternal life. A price always has to be paid for non-repentant sin. God (being perfect) is serious about sin; He is not flippant about it.

So, let's get this straight.
God is serious about sin. He didn't want us to be seperated from us anymore, so he killed himself(his son) for us? yet, While he was here. While he was preaching the importantness of sin and salvation. About right from wrong. About what it means to be a good in the eyes of god, he failed to mention that slavery is wrong. Instead, he decided to teach how slave and slave owners should behave instead of teaching against slavery?


How does the law of non-contradiction work this one out?

 

[Lothian]

Christ gave his body and blood..........

Face facts, it is God we are talking about here. Compared to separating light from darkness & making the firmament, dossing around on earth for 20 odd years and pretending to die is no big deal.

 

[Hokulele]

Paul did not claim he did not "speak" to anyone as you state. If you read the King James and the New Living below it states he did not "confer or consult" with anyone. This means as even he himself states he got (at this point) his preaching directly from God (not men or the apostles) see Galatians 1:12. In other words Paul did not go to the apostles and consult or confer at this time -- Jesus Christ himself was revealing to him what to say... You can preach for weeks and still not consult or confer with anyone.

KJV

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

NLT

Gal 1:16 Then he revealed his Son to me so that I could proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles. When all this happened to me, I did not rush out to consult with anyone else.

While we are focusing on this particular verse, according to Luke, he didn't exactly go around preaching to Gentiles, but hung around Damascus preaching to Jews (who would certainly not have been considered heathens) and then hung around Jerusalem being ignored by the apostles.

Once again, the two descriptions are more unalike than similar. Joobz' witness analogy fits perfectly.