• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
A science fiction writer seems a perfect choice for god. He has a great imagination and is able to communicate well with the masses.

We have lots of eyewitnesses and plenty of his writings so L. Ron looks like a better bet than JC.
Click to expand...

That's true. I once had a friend who got pretty high in the organization and got to visit L. Ron's boat and everything. There's one eyewitness right there.

DOC said:
So you're implying that 11 of 12 apostles were then willing to travel all over the Roman Empire preaching Christ, get tortured, and die, for something they knew was a lie.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use small words and say this very slowly, so that perhaps even you will understand it:

All - that - that - proves - is - that - the - apostles - believed - that - what - they - were - saying - was - true. (No one in this thread has denied that, by the way.) It - does - not - prove - that - what - they - were - saying - actually - was - true.
 
DOC said:
According to the bible, all of the apostles (11 or 12 whom were martyrs) witnessed the resurrected Christ.


Then why does Wiki say this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs
Click to expand...


Because; as I mentioned in the post in question, we have no evidence, outside of Christian propaganda, that it ever happened.

It certainly seems possible in many cases, after all, David Koresh' followers were quite happy to die for him, but in other, we have multiple conflicting accounts. In other, the gruesome details are a bit hard to believe (they skinned him alive. Really? He was boiled? But he still survive? Really?).

But still, you are using circular reasoning again: 'The Bible must be true. Because we know from the Bible that people died for it'.
 
supercorgi said:
Hey Niggle, I welcome you as a new voice of rationality. Without science, my 89 year old mother wouldn't have lived pass age 50 (multiple bypasses, artificial heart value, and a pacemaker). I am truely thankful that she's still with me but it's not through the power of jebbus, it's through the power of science and research.
Click to expand...

I'm rational? Really?!? I'm glad I've got that in writing!! :D

Seriously, though, I understand. My own mother was a miracle of modern medical science (liver transplant at 55, then breast cancer, lymphoma, and Hep C). All the "I'll pray for you" nonsense did nothing; it was a very dedicated team of doctors who scrambled to work out these problems withing the parameters of the existing conditions, using every scrap of medical knowledge they could find to juggle immunosuppressants, chemo, radiation, and a host of other factors to fight the bad stuff and keep the good stuff going.

So when KK gets scornful about the value of college and science, I get a little peeved. My mother had multiple degrees and taught high school chemistry and math. And raised five kids who were teenagers at once (Catholic family, you know; we're all pretty close in age). I'm not impressed with KK's whining about how tough she's had it.
 
DOC said:
joobz said:
According to the bible, Jesus condoned the beating of slaves.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4574964#post4574964
Click to expand...

What is this? Circular posting?

Cool!

May I play?

joobz said:
DOC said:
Joobz your flooding the thread over and over again; try to come up with something new. And you did the same thing in the "Thomas Jefferson's Admiration and Financial support of Christianity" thread on the slavery issue.
Click to expand...
The slavery issue is HUGE and one that you have failed to address. I know you'd like to pretend it's going away, but It won't.

Sorry.

DOC said:
If you are so obsessed with this issue you need to start your own thread. I've said all I'm going to say about this issue. I think my almost 20 posts are enough. If you continue to flood the thread I'll have to start complaining to a moderator.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly acceptable here as it contradicts your claims of truthfulness and moral goodness of the bible. As long as that's the theme of your thread, the slavery argument is valid.

If you feel this is not fair, I encourage you to contact a moderator. If they feel the argument is off topic, then I'll stop. But as it is a perfect example of why the bible can't be both true and moral, it is relevant.
Click to expand...


@DOC
Please note: The slavery issue is still HUGE and still one that you have failed to address... but then... you've failed to address anything - at least sincerely, let alone convincingly

Hey ho
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
What if they were preaching in good faith what they believed to have happened, but they were just lying about their having participated in/witnessed the events in question?
Click to expand...
There is no way the Apostles would have lied, they were called and chosen to start the church of Christ and it's still growing today because Jesus is very much alive. It's a Spirit thing, you could only understand if you had Jesus yourselves.
 
kurious_kathy said:
Jesus showed me. Call it divine revelation but He truly does open the eyes of the blind!
Click to expand...
I have an honest question:

Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus materialised, in your presence, and audibly spoke directly to you?

Or are you merely using poetic licence to fudge some vague concept that your dreams/hopes/wants have been magically fulfilled?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
No, sorry, not quite. What is characteristic of accounts written independently of one another is that they use different words to convey similar meanings or similar stories.

When it comes to the gospel accounts Matthew and Luke lift stories and entire passages from Mark -- even using exactly the same words in the same sequence. This has been known for a long time and is the reason why Mark is considered the first gospel written.

Eyewitnesses to events do not use the writings of other people to tell their story. They tell their story.
Click to expand...

Well only Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. But what if Matthew, happened to miss a sermon or an event of Christ's. Why not add a portion of Mark, since it was known that Mark was an associate of the Apostle Peter and certainly must have gotten a lot of info from Peter. And if Mark happened to give an account of an event that Matthew knew was written very well and he couldn't improve on it, why not save time and copy it (assuming that is what happened). Remember none of the Gospels were signed --which made sense since promoting Christianity could get you killed in Roman occupied Palestine. So if you aren't going to sign your gospels, what difference does it make to copy a few segments to save time and maybe give some info you might have missed, and then add any additional info you have. Of course, this is all assuming that some segments were copied.

Ichneumonwasp said:
Mark is an independent witness -- one who everyone seems to think was not an eyewitness.
Click to expand...

That's nothing new. Mark was an associate of Peter and not an original apostle.


Ichneumonwasp said:
You can never successfully argue that the authors of Matthew and Luke were eyewitnesses -- so they were not simply describing the same events from another perspective.
Click to expand...

Nobody has ever argued that the physician and friend of Paul (Luke) was an eyewitness.

Sure you can argue Matthew (the probable author of Matthew) was an eyewitness. He was one of the 12 apostles. This site also give reasons why Matthew should be considered the author.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

Ichneumonwasp said:
That leaves you with John.

We've been through the issues with John before. He is specifically said to be uneducated in Acts. It is highly unlikely that a fisherman --specifically said to be uneducated in a society in which only a small number of people could read and write -- wrote that gospel, especially since it is written in Greek and uses Greek philosophical ideas. There are many arguments against a Galilean fisherman being the author of the work, but suffice it to say that none of them can be the absolute final word since it is always possible that such a person could have learned to read and write later in life. It's just horribly improbable that he did.
Click to expand...

Greek was commonly spoken in Palestine since the invasion of Alexander the Great so it is no big deal for John to know Greek. He also lived in the Greek speaking city of Ephesus as an old man, so he definitely knew Greek then. And the only people who called John uneducated was a Jewish authority who knew very little about him. John also traveled with whom some considered the smartest human (while on earth) who ever lived for 3 years. That would be quite an education. This site also gives evidence why it is probable the apostle John was the author of the Gospel that has been attributed to him for 2000 years.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Greek was commonly spoken in Palestine since the invasion of Alexander the Great so it is no big deal for John to know Greek. He also lived in the Greek speaking city of Ephesus as an old man, so he definitely knew Greek then. And the only people who called John uneducated was a Jewish authority who knew very little about him. John also traveled with whom some considered the smartest human (while on earth) who ever lived for 3 years. That would be quite an education. This site also gives evidence why it is probable the apostle John was the author of the Gospel that has been attributed to him for 2000 years.
Click to expand...


Spoken Greek, sure. Written Greek, not so likely.

And it was your "excellent historian" Luke who describes John as being uneducated.

Acts 4:13; KJV said:
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
Mashuna said:
You can get a cream to clear that up, you know.
Click to expand...
061083020002E_4.jpg
 
DOC said:
Remember none of the Gospels were signed --which made sense since promoting Christianity could get you killed in Roman occupied Palestine.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the issue of real authorship, we have none of any of the canonical gospels so how do you know whether or not they were signed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom