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

[Marcus]

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.

You claim your faith is strong but it wasn't enough to withstand Hokulele's challenge. Not too impresive.

 

[joobz]

Well below are the sources. You will notice the book with the Ramsay's quote was published in 1915 but Ramsay died in 1939. It would be logical to assume that Ramsay would complain of any false quote attributed to him.

DOC,
The quote (original source) in 1915 was from RAMSAY'S BOOK! Of course he wasn't going to contradict himself. That's rather bizarre and STUPID. But, please show in that book where he says Luke's a first rate historian.

I know of no such complaint. And Ramsay had 24 years to complain.

DOC, from your website, the book that made the claim that Ramsay said LUke was a first rate historian was:
"2 Cited by Josh McDowell on page 43 and 44 of More Than a Carpenter; Living Books; Tyndale House Publishers Inc. Wheaton, Illinois"

If we look at google, we find that More than a Carpenter was written in 1977.

So, Given that Ramsay was dead for 38 years, and that we have no evidence of anyone ever rising from the dead, I am left to assume that Ramsay never had a chance to rebut the misquoted information.

 

[Paulhoff]

144,000 people, whatever, it is a made up number anyway, I will not argue over it. And we shouldn't argue over a made up so-called god either.

Paul



Total est. of all people that ever lived 106.000,000,000

KK you is goings to hell.............

 

[Belz...]

When someone like Gospel writer Luke (whom a famous (once secular) archaeologist said should be included among the world's great historians)

I've heard from a friend that some people say that Luke may have been what some may prefer to call a child molester.

There. That proves it.

 

[paximperium]

I've heard from a friend that some people say that Luke may have been what some may prefer to call a child molester.

There. That proves it.

I heard that Luke was a Jedi.

 

[Akhenaten]

I heard that Luke was a Jedi.

Anakin prove it too, if you like.

 

[AWPrime]

I heard that Luke was a Jedi.

The difference?

 

[DOC]

You must have forgotten that those statements are 1)a forgery and 2)mentions Christians and their beliefs.

Josephus mentions Christ twice - to state otherwise is to be in the small minority of scholars so it looks like you're in the small minority even behind those who believe Josephus' statements were entirely his.

Actually just about all scholars believe that.

You have no source that just about all scholars believe both of Josephus' quotes are forgeries. And I doubt if you will find any.

So DOC has already fessed up to the credibility of the Bible.

1)Written decades after the events supposedly happened

I could very easily write many pages about the events that happened in my high school over 35 years ago. And Christ did say he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach the apostles all things and bring all of the statements he made to their remembrances (John 14:26). So the Holy Spirit (being part of the Godhead) could bring things to your memory in 5 minutes or 500 years - time is irrelevant.

Christ told the apostles to go into all the world and "teach" the gospel (Mat 28;19). He never said write down every thing I said, make them into heavy scrolls of papyrus and lug them around with you all over the world and distribute these heavy costly scrolls to the few people who can read.

2)Unsigned and written by unknown authors.

Although I originally said they were unsigned, I now realize there is no evidence they were unsigned since the originals don't exist (only many copies exist). And even if they were unsigned it doesn't affect the highly detailed facts in several of them that some scholars marvel at... We also have no signature of Julius Caesar -- so what.

3)No original whole copies of any of these writings.

So what, that is common for ancient writings -- you must be putting this in here for some kind of emotional purpose because anybody who knows anything about ancient history knows there are no originals of ancient writings. There are no originals of Plato, Tacitus, Homer's Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars - so what.

But just to show you how important the New Testament writings were to the ancient world their are a total of about 24,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings if you include Greek, Latin, and other languages but there are only about 10 manuscripts of Caesars Gallic War and only 7 manuscripts of Plato.

4)Contradictory with each other and sometimes even with itself and sometimes often completely false.

I've already explained how divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses. Legal scholar Simon Greenleaf (now a Christian) will tell you that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4438104#post4438104

He also said how all the Gospel accounts would be admissible in court {even with their minor discrepancies}. Also divergent accounts prove independence and no collusion.

Give an examples of your sometimes often {??} completely false statement. I have a feeling whatever it is I've already responded to your point in this thread.

5)No extra-Biblical sources that back up any Christians claims of magic man except for forgeries, statements of Christians and their beliefs.

Maybe not of a magic man but Tacitus, Seutonius, and Josephus all mention Christ or Latin name Chrestus. Josephus mentions him twice. There is some dispute about part of 1 of the times though.

6)Evidence of whole sections being copied from each other which shows that several of these gospels are based off others.

So what - If a writer can't improve on something he knows to be true why change it. And all of the gospels have new material that is original and not in the other gospels, which is why it makes sense to include all the gospels in the bible.

 

[paximperium]

The difference?

Star Wars is a better movie than Passion of the Christ...although I still have a fondness for Jesus Christ Superstar.

 

[paximperium]

Josephus mentions Christ twice - to state otherwise is to be in the small minority of scholars so it looks like your in the small minority even behind those who believe Josephus' statements were entirely his.

Wrong. Josephus mentions a Yeshuah once and there is one forgery. So no Christ mentioned.

If you mean by small minority as in people who know what they are talking about as to the masses of Christian Sheep who take things on faith, then yeah sure.

You have no source that just about all scholars believe both of Josephus' quotes are forgeries. And I doubt if you will find any.

Thanks for battling your little straw figurine. Does that make you happy now?

I could very easily write many pages about the events that happened in my high school over 35 years ago. <snip to remove the stupid>

Wrong again. Memories change. All the evidence shows this. I doubt you'd believe the falsehoods and errors you wrote down about your high school experience no matter all the evidence that shows how innacurate and downright wrong your memories are.

So the Holy Spirit (being part of the Godhead) could bring things to your memory in 5 minutes or 500 years - time is irrelevant.

Ahhh, so your god could give some person in the current age some super powerful revealed history? So why don't we have anything new in the Bible again? Oh, because those would be considered nutjobs.

Christ told the apostles to go into all the world and "teach" the gospel Mat 28;19. He never said write down every thing I said, make them into heavy scrolls of papyrus and lug them around with you all over the world and distribute these heavy costly scrolls to the few people who can read.

So it was written down decades later by humans with terrible memories. Glad to hear you come clean.

You have no evidence they were unsigned since the originals don't exist (only many copies exist).

So the lack of evidence is evidence?

And even if they were unsigned it doesn't affect the highly detailed facts in several of them that some scholars marvel at.

Still waiting for your quote from these "scholars".

We have no signature of Julius Caesar -- so what.

So? I don't worship Caeser. If he didn't exist, big whoop. Now, if your Luke or any of your apostles didn't exist, now that would be a big deal.

So what, that is common for ancient writings -- you must be putting this in here for some kind of emotional purpose because anybody who knows anything about ancient history knows there are no originals of ancient writings. There are no originals of Plato, Tacitus, Homer's Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars - so what.

Yup hence we back those up with OTHER contemporary writings to determine if they are consistent. You Bible isnt consistent even within itself and there are no external sources. Do you have any at all?

But just to show you how important the New Testament writings were to the ancient world their are a total of about 24,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings if you include Greed, Latin, and other languages but there are only about 10 manuscripts of Caesars Gallic War and only 7 manuscripts of Plato.

So? A big pile of crap is still crap. Ask those Christians to stop burning other people's writings.

I've already explained how divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses. Legal scholar Simon Greenleaf (now a Christian) will tell you that. He also said how all the Gospel accounts would be admissible in court {even with their minor discrepancies}. Also divergent accounts prove independence and no collusion.

It is not divergent accounts; it is contradictory and often copied word for word ie. plagiarism. Big difference.

Maybe not of a magic man but Tacitus, Seutonius, and Josephus all mention Christ or Latin name Chrestus. Josephus mentions him twice. There is some dispute about part of 1 of the times though.

Yup, they do mention that Christians believe in some fella called Christ...so?

So what - If a writer can't improve on something he knows to be true why change it. And all the gospels have new material that is different from the others, which is why it makes sense to include all the gospels in the bible.

It just shows that they weren't EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS that you so love to claim. They are stories copied from other stories. Embelished by unknown writers.

 

[joobz]

Josephus mentions Christ twice -

False. See Pax's statement.

You have no source that just about all scholars believe both of Josephus' quotes are forgeries. And I doubt if you will find any.

Evidence was provided that shows this. Your request is foolish.

I could very easily write many pages about the events that happened in my high school over 35 years ago. And Christ did say he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach the apostles all the things and bring all of his statements he made to their remembrances. John 14:26 So the Holy Spirit (being part of the Godhead) could bring things to your memory in 5 minutes or 500 years - time is irrelevant.

So You're saying that because the bible says the bible writers were given magic memory, the bible is true.
Can't see anything wrong with that logic...except that it isn't logic.

Christ told the apostles to go into all the world and "teach" the gospel Mat 28;19. He never said write down every thing I said, make them into heavy scrolls of papyrus and lug them around with you all over the world and distribute these heavy costly scrolls to the few people who can read.

True, but he also never said slavery was bad...

Although I originally said they were unsigned, I now realize there is no evidence they were unsigned since the originals don't exist (only many copies exist). And even if they were unsigned it doesn't affect the highly detailed facts in several of them that some scholars marvel at. We have no signature of Julius Caesar -- so what.

And some scholars marvel at the wonders of dowsing. Some doesn't mean all or mean truth.

you have no evidence for any of the magical events in the bible. If you did, you'd have presented it. Instead, you're amazed that the bible got some geography right. That's like being amazed that Harry Potter describes parts of the English country side with amazing accuracy.

So what, that is common for ancient writings -- you must be putting this in here for some kind of emotional purpose because anybody who knows anything about ancient history knows there are no originals of ancient writings. There are no originals of Plato, Tacitus, Homer's Illiad, Caesar's Gallic Wars - so what.

Plato doesn't claim to be the word of god.
Tacitus doesn't claim to be the word of god.
Homer's Illiad doesn't claim to be the word of god.
Shall I go on?

But just to show you how important the New Testament writings were to the ancient world their are a total of about 24,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings if you include Greek, Latin, and other languages but there are only about 10 manuscripts of Caesars Gallic War and only 7 manuscripts of Plato.

And the variations between those 24,000 manuscripts are enough to make you realize that the bible we have today contains some stark differences that didn't exist 1700 years ago.
For instance, Many of the original gospels didn't claim Jesus to be divine, merely the son of god...which isn't a god-hood title.

I've already explained how divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses. Legal scholar Simon Greenleaf (now a Christian) will tell you that. He also said how all the Gospel accounts would be admissible in court {even with their minor discrepancies}. Also divergent accounts prove independence and no collusion.

Sure they'd be admissible in court. The Defense attorney would welcome them:
"You see your honor, the witnesses can't even agree if there were 1 person at the tomb, 2 people, an angle inside or outside. I move to dismiss the charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence..."

So what - If a writer can't improve on something he knows to be true why change it.

Oh he can, but he must make it his own then. Otherwise it's a forgery.

And all the gospels have new material that is different from the others, which is why it makes sense to include all the gospels in the bible.

Wow....just wow...

 

[DOC]

And the variations between those 24,000 manuscripts are enough to make you realize that the bible we have today contains some stark differences that didn't exist 1700 years ago.For instance, Many of the original gospels didn't claim Jesus to be divine, merely the son of god...which isn't a god-hood title.

boldness added

Please name 3 of these many original gospels that didn't claim Jesus to be divine.

 

[zooterkin]

And the variations between those 24,000 manuscripts are enough to make you realize that the bible we have today contains some stark differences that didn't exist 1700 years ago.For instance, Many of the original gospels didn't claim Jesus to be divine, merely the son of god...which isn't a god-hood title.

boldness added

Please name 3 of these many original gospels that didn't claim Jesus to be divine.

Since you appear to be quoting yourself, perhaps you could answer.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

First of all, Christ is not a name. It is a title. Second, Chrestus is not a latinization of the Greek christos. Third, only Suetonius uses Chrestus and no one is sure if this means that there was a fight within the Jewish community in Rome over nascent Christianity (and Suetonius garbled a word) or if it referred to a person's name who was in that Jewish community. Fourth, the whole thing is beside the point because Suetonius does not refer to anything in Jesus' life.

Fifth, when it comes to non-Christian sources for Jesus vs. Tiberius you must be joking about the number of mentions. With Tiberius we have four biographies; with Jesus we have several mentions of Jesus' followers with no mention whatsoever of his life, though Tacitus obliquely refers to his death. Do you honestly want to compare the existence of four long treatments, one from a contemporary of the man (Tiberius) with a few obscure references to a group of people who thought Jesus was a god and pretend that they are somehow equivalent or come out on Christianity's side?

I've seen some bad arguments before, but to repeat this one again and again is a little much, don't you think?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Please name 3 of these many original gospels that didn't claim Jesus to be divine.

The synoptics. Only John claims that he was divine. We would also probably have to inclde the gospel of the Ebionites or the Nazorean gospel in this category. Marcion's gospel IIRC did not have a divine Jesus but had two different gods (one of the Old and one of the New Testament). There are more, should I go on?

 

[joobz]

First of all, Christ is not a name. It is a title. Second, Chrestus is not a latinization of the Greek christos. Third, only Suetonius uses Chrestus and no one is sure if this means that there was a fight within the Jewish community in Rome over nascent Christianity (and Suetonius garbled a word) or if it referred to a person's name who was in that Jewish community. Fourth, the whole thing is beside the point because Suetonius does not refer to anything in Jesus' life.

Fifth, when it comes to non-Christian sources for Jesus vs. Tiberius you must be joking about the number of mentions. With Tiberius we have four biographies; with Jesus we have several mentions of Jesus' followers with no mention whatsoever of his life, though Tacitus obliquely refers to his death. Do you honestly want to compare the existence of four long treatments, one from a contemporary of the man (Tiberius) with a few obscure references to a group of people who thought Jesus was a god and pretend that they are somehow equivalent or come out on Christianity's side?

I've seen some bad arguments before, but to repeat this one again and again is a little much, don't you think?

This post is dripping with win. I think I got some on my shoes.

 

[paximperium]

The synoptics. Only John claims that he was divine. We would also probably have to inclde the gospel of the Ebionites or the Nazorean gospel in this category. Marcion's gospel IIRC did not have a divine Jesus but had two different gods (one of the Old and one of the New Testament). There are more, should I go on?

Amen.

 

[joobz]

DOC, you started this thread with the claim that there was evidence that the biblical writers told the truth.

We now have evidence that:
1.) That the original gospels weren't written at the time of Christ but decades later.
2.) That several (if not all) of the gospels are not first hand accounts.
3.) That Many of the original gospels did not claim Jesus was god.
4.) That there exists nothing but a passing mention of Jesus outside of the bible.
5.) You are willing to accept forgeries as evidence.
6.) That you do not understand the importance of primary sources vs. secondary or tertiary references.

In other words, you helped prove that not only are the gospels as we know them are unreliable in regards to Jesus' divinity, but that your opinion is unreliable when discerning the veracity of a claim.

 

[Belz...]

Josephus mentions Christ twice - to state otherwise is to be in the small minority of scholars so it looks like you're in the small minority even behind those who believe Josephus' statements were entirely his.

Evidence ?

And Christ did say he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach the apostles all things and bring all of the statements he made to their remembrances (John 14:26). So the Holy Spirit (being part of the Godhead) could bring things to your memory in 5 minutes or 500 years - time is irrelevant.

Of course, now we're in the realm of magic.

Christ told the apostles to go into all the world and "teach" the gospel (Mat 28;19). He never said write down every thing I said, make them into heavy scrolls of papyrus and lug them around with you all over the world and distribute these heavy costly scrolls to the few people who can read.

Ah, I get it. So this is a lease to believe whatever you want from the bibble and discard the parts you don't like.

Although I originally said they were unsigned, I now realize there is no evidence they were unsigned since the originals don't exist (only many copies exist).

Proving a double negative.

So what, that is common for ancient writings

I thought the Bible was exceptional ?

I've already explained how divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses.

Not those purportedly inspired by an all-powerful entity.

 

[Belz...]

boldness added

Please name 3 of these many original gospels that didn't claim Jesus to be divine.

Speaking of gospels that don't claim Jesus to be divine... doesn't Mark ?