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

[pizzadeliveryninja]

I've been following this thread for quite a while. Personally I think that it should be printed out and posted up in churches an example of just how little evidence there is to support the claims of the New Testament and, moreover, the mendacity of believers when confronted with contradictory evidence and/or opinion. I wouldn't be shocked to find that quite a few sincere christians would find DOC's tactics at the very least embarrassing, if not much worse.

It's remarkable that someone can post over 600 replies in one thread without materially contributing one fact or seeming to take on board anything that anyone else has said. For me the beauty of this forum is the opportunity it presents to learn things. I don't post often, but that's mainly because I am too busy devouring the intellectual fodder to present my half-digested regurgitations of someone else's better ideas!

I've managed to discover lots of things through the course of the thread alone - for instance, I had always assumed that there were more parallels between early christianity and mystery religions that it seems may be the case. I thank those involved for that small piece of enlightenment.

But mainly the chief pleasure of this thread has been watching DOC twist, turn, dodge, deceive, digress, obfuscate, bluster and all manner of other things without managing to advance even once from the points in the OP which have been thoroughly discredited.

If no further evidence for the veracity of the N.T. writers has been adduced within over 70 pages, I think that it is fair to say that none will be forthcoming.

 

[Simon39759]

I've managed to discover lots of things through the course of the thread alone - for instance, I had always assumed that there were more parallels between early christianity and mystery religions that it seems may be the case. I thank those involved for that small piece of enlightenment.

Once again, I am not a Biblical scholar, in contrast with other within this thread that'd be worthy of this title.
However, if I recall correctly, it depends of the gospels. While the New Testament is pretty tame, several among the apocryphe gospels -the gnostic in particular- are much closer to mystery religions. I think.

 

[DOC]

It's remarkable that someone can post over 600 replies in one thread without materially contributing one fact...

You really are joking aren't you. Well, you did post on April 1st. And it seems odd that someone who has been a member over 3 months would only leave a total of 5 posts in the over 3 months. Something seems fishy when someone can be silent for so long and then out of the blue come out with a long opinionated post. How did you keep your opinionated nature under wraps for 3 months and the 74 pages of this thread that you imply you read. Yes something seems very fishy about your post.

ETA: And if you (and only you) ask what facts I've contributed to this thread I'll give you 10 for starters, and they all have nothing to do with Norman Geisler.

Do not attack other posters. See rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[joobz]

You really are joking aren't you.

Why?

I've been saying all along (as has many other people) that your arguments have either
1.) Relied on a logical fallacy
or
2.) A fallacious statement (not by you, but typically by your sources).

Why do you think that other people would not people able to see this? And pizzadiliveryninja isn't the only Lurker to have come out of silience to state that your arguments aren't convincing. Others have in this very thread.

So, I ask again, Why do you act so shocked?


ETA:
DOC, BTW your post was an "attack the messenger". Instead of trying to prove the person wrong, you simply call him fishy and act indignant. That doesn't advance the conversation.

 

[Worm]

Another lurker, and I thought it worth explicitly saying that I remain totally unconvinced by DOC.

Not because the so-called evidence is laughable (although it is) but because, DOC, you don't seem to realise or acknowledge that this is the case and simply keep repeating the same statements as if suddenly everyone will be converted. Not gonna happen my friend.

Come up with some actual evidence, or accept that faith is faith and evidence is simply not part of it.

 

[L The Detective]

You really are joking aren't you. Well, you did post on April 1st.

DOC, technically you have posted a lot of "facts." It's just that none of the facts work as evidence. For example, you mentioned the fact that Thomas Jefferson said the Bible has the greatest system of morals. 1. I can't seem to find evidence of such a quote using google, 2. Even if he had said it, that would not be evidence of anything except one man's opinion.

DOC, honest question. This is not rhetorical, I'd actually like an answer. Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

He has no faith, just a delusion and a lie.

I have to disagree with you here, Pax. Faith is belief without and/or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Faith is both a lie and a delusion.

So I believe that DOC has an abundance of faith, and that's not a compliment in my book.

 

[Bardy]

You really are joking aren't you. Well, you did post on April 1st. And it seems odd that someone who has been a member over 3 months would only leave a total of 5 posts in the over 3 months. Something seems fishy when someone can be silent for so long and then out of the blue come out with a long opinionated post. How did you keep your opinionated nature under wraps for 3 months and the 74 pages of this thread that you imply you read. Yes something seems very fishy about your post.

For exactly the same reasons that this long-time lurker is now also prompted to post his agreement with pizzadeliveryninja.

I don't find it valid to assume that anyone who breaks a long voluntary silence to criticise you should automatically be under some kind of suspicion. The implication that such criticism could only be the result of suspicious membership activity is the height of arrogance. Have you ever considered that this thread is simply such an overwhelming (and successful) logical onslaught against your superstitions that it even prompts long-time lurkers to voice their opinions when you stubbornly cling to long discredited arguments and flagrantly refuse to even acknowledge the points which are most devestating to your position?

I suspect that some of the frustration you experience from those you have discussions with are the result of the debate tactic you seem to have favoured in this thread, which is largely one of ignoring the valid points which contradict you. People who are genuinely interested in debate and discussion tend not to adopt fingers-in-my-ears-i-can't-hear-you approaches. That's the reserve of preachers.

I'm one of the people who has contributed to the 40,000+ views your threads have had. I hate to burst your bubble, but these views are not representative of your ability to convey your opinions (or the validity of those positions), but rather the eloquence of many other members who are exceptionally good at conveying theirs.

 

[RobRoy]

I have to disagree with you here, Pax. Faith is belief without and/or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Faith is both a lie and a delusion.

I see your logic here Mark, but why does faith have to be both "a lie and a delusion". For exmaple, if I'm aware that my God belief is withouth evidence, and to some degree logical support, is it still a lie, or is it just my own self-delusion regarding this adherence? Is it even delusion if I'm aware of it, yet still hold to my faith?

 

[paximperium]

I have to disagree with you here, Pax. Faith is belief without and/or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Faith is both a lie and a delusion.

So I believe that DOC has an abundance of faith, and that's not a compliment in my book.

I disagree to a degree. You see, I see religious belief as a belief without or inspite of evidence. A person with faith can say, "There is no evidence that the New Testament told the truth, but I believe anyway."

What DOC(and many fundies such as Creationists) is trying to do is to delude himself that there is evidence. He is lying, dodging and twisting to never own up to the fact that there is NO evidence. He and many fundamentalists are unable to come to grips that reality, history and just about everything contradict their claims. Instead of saying, "I don't care, I believe anyway.", we have DOC attempting to manage his cognitive dissonance by making up "It is all a lie by the atheist. There is abundant evidence all over the place but they are hiding this information. All of science and history is a lie."

He has no faith. He has to believe there is evidence. If he ever admits there is no evidence, his beliefs will collapse.

 

[Simon39759]

For what it's worth, I agree with Pax's analysis.

I have no problem with people that admit that they are believing (on blind faith). That's an perfectly acceptable position.
But I have no patience for people that lie to other and to themselves into seeing evidences where they are not, if only because they are implicitly accusing the non-believers (in that particular belief) of being the deluded ones.

 

[Belz...]

What DOC(and many fundies such as Creationists) is trying to do is to delude himself that there is evidence. He is lying, dodging and twisting to never own up to the fact that there is NO evidence.

Well... "reason #1" was that the authors mentioned embarassing details about themselves.

Whoever said the authors were disciples ? This has been known since forever, and DOC should know better.

 

[paximperium]

I have no problem with people that admit that they are believing (on blind faith). That's an perfectly acceptable position.

I wouldn't call it an "acceptable position". I would call it an honest position(maybe not to themselves but at least to others).

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

DOC - I will post as and when I wish. For the most part, the people posting on this thread (with one rather notable exception) have a great deal more knowledge of the relevant subjects than I do. There is very little that I could add that would bring anything new to the discussion. If there is - and I have the time and the inclination - I will post it. Or I might not.

I've been reading the forum for a lot longer than I have been a member. I know from experience that once one starts posting on forums, it can become a quite addictive experience (I'm sure we've all seen the "Someone is wrong on the Internet" cartoon!) and I would rather avoid that and just read.

The only reason that I posted anything was to attempt to answer your fallacious claim that the number of posts and views suggests that there is any form of support for your 'evidence'. It doesn't.

 

[RobRoy]

DOC - I will post as and when I wish. For the most part, the people posting on this thread (with one rather notable exception) have a great deal more knowledge of the relevant subjects than I do. There is very little that I could add that would bring anything new to the discussion. If there is - and I have the time and the inclination - I will post it. Or I might not.

Here here! Quanity does not indicate quality, and vice-versa.

ETA: Although to be somewhat fair to DOC, people showing up out of the woodwork is the first red flag in a poison-pen campaign or a sock puppet attempt to "win" a discussion debate through an appeal to popularity. DOC's issues with such a post are not out of line, although the post itself should signify something in itself, and should probably have been taken on its own merits initially, until other evidence supported a different conclusion.

And thank you for not mentioning my name as the "notable exception". Your check is in the mail!

I wouldn't call it an "acceptable position". I would call it an honest position(maybe not to themselves but at least to others).

What's the distinction?

 

[Simon39759]

I wouldn't call it an "acceptable position". I would call it an honest position(maybe not to themselves but at least to others).

What's the distinction?

What Pax might mean is that accepting something on blind faith is wrong/erroneous/irrational... Hence wrong or unacceptable.

But, at least, admitting that you are doing so is honest.

I read, a while ago, an article arguing about the duty we had to believe according to evidences.


But, I'd personally would not share this point of view. We are all irrational in some aspects of our life and cognitive dissonance is a wonderful tool that people use more often than they might realize.

Furthermore, when dealing with the all powerful, all knowing and eternal, our evidences and even our reasoning can not apply, by definition.
So, if you have faith to begin with, then there is no reason to discard this faith based on logic and or reason... Which, amusingly enough, is a logical/reasoned consequence of the purported ability of the subject matter...

 

[six7s]

I have no problem with people that admit that they are believing (on blind faith). That's an perfectly acceptable position.

In most circumstances, I'd agree

But not here...

The way I see it, this ain't the place to 'witness' blind faith

Furthermore, as the OP promised "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.", I am of the opinion that DOC - in his persistent dodging and spamming - is well out of order

 

[DOC]

For example, you mentioned the fact that Thomas Jefferson said the Bible has the greatest system of morals. 1. I can't seem to find evidence of such a quote using google, 2. Even if he had said it, that would not be evidence of anything except one man's opinion.

Quotes from Jefferson:

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of d blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.

----

No doctrines of [Jesus] lead to schism. It is the speculations of crazy theologists which have made a Babel of a religion the most moral and sublime ever preached to man, and calculated to heal, and not to create differences.

----


A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, & perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in church & state: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated & sophisticated, by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth & power to themselves, that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue & cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.

----

ETA: If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.

 

[joobz]

Quotes from Jefferson:

As a slave owner, Jefferson didn't really see Jesus' condoning of slavery and the beating of slaves as a problem. I, simply, beg to differ.

Do you agree with Jesus and Jefferson's condoning of slavery?

ETA: To your ETA DOC, are you saying that the condoning of slavery and beating of slaves is the most moral and sublime teaching known to man?

 

[RobRoy]

ETA: If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.

Yes, it does. When then begs the question: why didn't he?