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

[joobz]

Well, it's possible.

How else do you explain triathlons?

 

[X]

Actually there are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand binary, and those that don't.

And then there are those of us who don't confuse ternary and binary systems.


Anyway, back on topic:

I notice that DOC has once again claimed that Luke is described as a "first rate historian". I covered this claim earlier...

In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo describes France in the 1800's. He covers the land, the architecture, and history. He describes events that really occurred. Does this make Hugo a "great historian"?
He has several characters running around. All of whom are flawed and, well, human. He includes details of their transgressions as well as their victories. Their flaws and their strengths. Does this mean Jean Valjean exists?

Alexandre Dumas described Europe in 1800's as well. He includes real historical characters, such as Napoleon. And places, such as France, Italy, and the Mediterranean. He includes details on sailing. Does this make him a historian?
He also has several wonderfully quirky characters running around. All very human, and flawed. Does this mean that Monsieur Noirtier de Villefort really lived?


I could go on.

All the "facts" you trot out are either people writing in settings they knew (which proves nothing about the storyline's truth) or are lies.

 

[paximperium]

Pax, I said it a long time ago but I want to say it again. Seems to me there are 2 kinds of people in this world,
1.Those like Doc and me that know it's true and take it on faith and then we make all these incredible discoveries that confirm it even more.

2. People that choose not to believe it and no have faith. God does prove his word plenty, lots of evidence out there but you have to try to see what's right with it rather than what's wrong with it. Do you think you could try a different set of eye glasses?

God loves us so much he left his love letter to open the eyes of blind souls. The Bible is a love letter!

I get it. You make it seem as if I should take your blind faith as something good. I think it just makes you and the other fundies incredibly dishonest and stupid.

 

[Niggle]

Does one baby count as a spree?

Depends. Was it a really big baby? And did you only have to kill it once?

Is there such a thing as a zombie baby?

 

[six7s]

How else do you explain triathlons?

That is a secret of the Universe

 

[Hokulele]

That is a secret of the Universe

Now you've done it. If this inter-thread kook vortex destroys the very fabric of space and time, we'll know who to blame.

 

[six7s]

Now you've done it. If this inter-thread kook vortex destroys the very fabric of space and time, we'll know who to blame.

Says someone living so far in the past its almost illegal! Hah!

 

[Akhenaten]

Pax, I said it a long time ago but I want to say it again.

That's the nature of prosletysing isn't it? Incessant repetition of the same false premise. Incessant repetition of the same false premise. Incessant repetition of the same false premise. Incessant repetition of the same false premise.

Seems to me there are 2 kinds of people in this world,

It seems to me that you're wrong. *

1.Those like Doc and me that know it's true and take it on faith and then we make all these incredible discoveries that confirm it even more.

How did that system work for you with Santa Claus?

2. People that choose not to believe it and no have faith.

I choose not to believe your fairytale and yet I'm chock-full of faith. How can this be? Frankly, I find YOUR lack of faith in the Aten . . . disturbing.

God does prove his word plenty, lots of evidence out there but you have to try to see what's right with it rather than what's wrong with it.

Evidence is neither right or wrong. It's the assertions that people try to support with the evidence that can be prone to error.

This thread was created to present evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth, and yet here we are, 94 pages later and still no sign of it. Any clues where it might be?

Do you think you could try a different set of eye glasses?

Bollé have a nice range of atenglasses. Will they do?

God loves us so much he left his love letter to open the eyes of blind souls. The Bible is a love letter!

It's a Spirit thing, you could only understand if you had Jesus yourselves.

There's a pattern here, far more disturbing than even your lack of faith. I suppose you'll be wanting to tell us about the holy spirit coming into you next.

* 3. People on Kathy's ignore list.​

Cheers,

Waenre.

 

[Belz...]

1.Those like Doc and me that know it's true and take it on faith

Those two propositions are mutually exclusive. If you take something "on faith", then you don't "know it".

Care to comment ?

2. People that choose not to believe it and no have faith. God does prove his word plenty, lots of evidence out there

Of course there isn't. Otherwise you wouldn't need to "take it on faith".

Care to comment ?

God loves us so much he left his love letter to open the eyes of blind souls. The Bible is a love letter!

Which part ? The one where he says only 144,000 people will escape eternal suffering ? Or the one where he gets a wild animal to eat children who laughed at a bald guy ? Or the one where he asks for the sacrifice of women in his name ?

 

[Paulhoff]

Gee, over 6,000,000,000 people.

144,000 people escape.

0.0024%, or one out of 41,666 people, not very good odds.

KK, you're going to hell, see you there.

Paul

 

[Lothian]

Gee, over 6,000,000,000 people.

144,000 people escape.

0.0024%, or one out of 41,666 people, not very good odds.

KK, you're going to hell, see you there.

Paul

She is certainly not going to be saved. It is not 144,000 people rather 144,000 celibate men. I wonder how long into eternity they will last before they rewrite Leviticus.

 

[Belz...]

Gee, over 6,000,000,000 people.

I think you forgot the very important fact that not only are there 6.7 billion people alive now, but you have to count all the dead ones, too.

 

[Simon39759]

Gee, over 6,000,000,000 people.

144,000 people escape.

0.0024%, or one out of 41,666 people, not very good odds.

KK, you're going to hell, see you there.

Paul

According to Revelations, aren't the 144,000 in question 'the sons of the tribes of Israel' anyway?
You know, 12,000 people from each one of the 12 tribes.

Then, Christians like all other gentiles are SOOL.

 

[Marduk]

According to Revelations, aren't the 144,000 in question 'the sons of the tribes of Israel' anyway?
You know, 12,000 people from each one of the 12 tribes.

Then, Christians like all other gentiles are SOOL.

there are two mentions of the number in Revelations

9:4And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

which shows you have to be a member of one of the tribes of Israel
and

14:3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

which shows you have to be a male virgin with a lamb fixation as well as being a member of a tribe of Israel

so thats just about it for the Xtians, maybe next time you guys think about basing a religion on plagiarism you should check the small print first

 

[Belz...]

Ouch.

 

[DOC]

Because trying to link Nero and Pliny the Younger to your Wikipedia list (which contains more than just James and doesn't include Jesus), is pure speculative fiction.

It wasn't speculation to the Christians (if we are to believe the Roman historian Tacitus) who got animal skins tied to them and were fed to the dogs or who were set on fire or who were crucified by orders of Nero. And it wasn't speculation to those Christians who got executed by the Roman governor Pliny the Younger for not renouncing Christianity.

But I've got to give Pliny credit he did ask the emperor if it was OK to do this. Unfortunately he ask permission "after" he executed the Christians. And of course the emperor said he acted correctly in executing them. Ol' Pliny must have been relieved.

 

[Hokulele]

It wasn't speculation to the Christians (if we are to believe the Roman historian Tacitus) who got animal skins tied to them and were fed to the dogs or who were set on fire or who were crucified by orders of Nero. And it wasn't speculation to those Christian who got executed by the Roman governor Pliny the Younger for not renouncing Christianity.

But I've got to give Pliny credit he did ask the emperor if it was OK to do this. Unfortunately he ask permission "after" he executed the Christians. And of course the emperor said he acted correctly in executing them. Ol' Pliny must have been relieved.

Excellent. Now prove that one of those Christians was Stephen.

Or Phillip.

Or Matthias.

Or ...

Otherwise your linking historical fact to a non-historical list is speculation.

It is the same as linking facts of the French Revolution to the Scarlet Pimpernel as evidence of the existence of Marguerite.

 

[DOC]

Hey DOC, I noticed you haven't answered this yet:

We might not know with 100% certainty who wrote the gospels, but I have claimed that the evidence (some of which I brought in) supports that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the most likely authors of the Gospels that have been attributed to them for 2000 years. I've also pointed out how it made sense not to sign them (if in fact they didn't sign them because all we have is many many copies of the originals) because Christians were getting tortured and executed for their beliefs. See my above post 3756 for the kinds of things that were happening to the Christians.

 

[paximperium]

We might not know with 100% certainty who wrote the gospels, but I have claimed that the evidence (some of which I brought in) supports that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the most likely authors of the Gospels that have been attributed to them for 2000 years. I've also pointed out how it made sense not to sign them (if in fact they didn't sign them because all we have is many many copies of the originals) because Christians were getting tortured and executed for their beliefs. See my above post 3756 for the kinds of things that were happening to the Christians.

What a long winded way of stating YES.

And we can add more DOC confessions:

So are you conceding that your Bible was written decades after the fact based on old "memories"(at best, more likely old stories) which research shows to be inaccurate and prone to confabulation by authors who did not sign their writings AND WHICH NO KNOWN ORIGINAL EXAMPLES OF ANY WRITING IS KNOWN TO EXIST?

So why should anyone believe anything in your book again?

 

[DOC]

Excellent. Now prove that one of those Christians was Stephen.

Or Phillip.

Or Matthias.

Or ...

Otherwise your linking historical fact to a non-historical list is speculation.

It is the same as linking facts of the French Revolution to the Scarlet Pimpernel as evidence of the existence of Marguerite.

When someone like Gospel writer Luke (whom a famous (once secular) archaeologist said should be included among the world's great historians) talks about Stephen twice and states he was stoned for his faith then that is historical evidence -- and thus it takes more faith to believe it wasn't true than to believe it was true.