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

[paximperium]

Nowhere does it say God would punish monks for eternity in the bible.

The bible says God is Perfect and Just. A perfect and just God will give a perfect and just judgement.

 

[Hokulele]

Nowhere does it say God would punish monks for eternity in the bible.

The bible says God is Perfect and Just. A perfect and just God will give a perfect and just judgement.

Yeah, because as we all know, having small children torn apart by bears is a perfect and just punishment for making fun of baldness.

 

[paximperium]

Yeah, because as we all know, having small children torn apart by bears is a perfect and just punishment for making fun of baldness.

Killing off most of the entire human population along with most animal species on the planet in a flood because YHWH was too stupid and unimaginative to do anything else is signs of a most just god...or more likely unimaginative iron age priests.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
You need to read the book "What if Jesus Never Came" and you would "really" be terrified about how the world would have likely ended up if Christ didn't come.

____

Excuse me, I gave the wrong title, it's actually:

"What if Jesus Had Never Been Born"

 

[pakeha]

I said I'd talk about the Muslim martyrs but first let me give a quote of Norman Geisler from his book cited in post #1, page 296:

"...in the early days of Christianity, you might be killed for becoming Christian; in the early days of Islam's growth, you might be killed for "not" becoming a Muslim! In other words, the spread of these two great monotheistic faiths couldn't have been more different: Islam spread by the use of the sword on others; Christianity spread when others used the sword on it."

___

Wrong yet again.
I'm surprised DOC relies so heavily on what reads like a book of published sermons- not a fact in sight, only bare assertion adorned with an exclamation point.

Hmmm.
Just out of curiosity:
When did Christianity experience its greatest growth, before or after Constantine?

In summary the martyrdom of 11 of the 12 apostles doesn't prove Christianity but it is certainly evidence that something radical happened to change them from how they were depicted before the reported resurrection...

Well, DOC said it himself: 'how they were depicted' and 'the reported resurrection'

Now let's add: 'the reported martyrdom'.
Is there evidence for martyrdom specifically for being Christian, rather than being punished under law or by mobs for other charges?
Obviously, the NT and the Church Fathers are dodgey sources. I'd actually like to know more about this.

Given that this depiction of cowardice is written long after the events, isn't it possible (if not probable) that the authors of those accounts simply did a 'Geisler'-
oversimplify/mis-state facts to make a point to impress the faithful?
That is to say, wasn't preaching the whole 'martyrs' faith' argument just basically throwing a red herring at what I understand to have been a largely illiterate, untutored audience.

And it is not circular reasoning to report a story that was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians as gospel writer Luke was called by Sir William M. Ramsay

Well, that was fun.
Whatever sir William might have written about Luke back in 1915, the man's opinions are simply that. Opinions.
Modern biblical scholarship calls his interpretations of his own 'findings' wishful thinking.

I'm of the opinion Christianity is not served by lying.
It's very clear to me McDowell and cie are misrepresenting the truth when they hold up Sir William Ramsay's opinions about Luke as an historian. As they do with the 24,000 manuscript figure. As they do with the 'Roman guard'.

Why bother with defending Luke's historical accuracy?
Whose well-being depends on the accuracy of Luke's account of the Nativity, especially since Luke apparently depended on second and third hand accounts from believers for 'his' gospel?

One is reminded of the 'snow on their boots' argument from WWII.
I think DOC could be right here: it's not a circular argument, it's un-evidenced opinions bolstered by an appeal to authority.
What I find humourous about all this is that DOC's 'appeal to authority' is to a figure he's never actually read, as well as being totally and completely out of date, even among Christian biblical scholars.

 

[Hokulele]

You need to read the book ...

How odd, when anyone suggests that you need to read a book (such as a current text on cosmology or biology), you claim you either do not have the time or that you are not interested. And yet, you think everyone else should read your suggestions.

 

[paximperium]

How odd, when anyone suggests that you need to read a book (such as a current text on cosmology or biology), you claim you either do not have the time or that you are not interested. And yet, you think everyone else should read your suggestions.

I'm too busy rereading Ender's Game for the seventh time to read another fantasy book recommended by DOC.

 

[paximperium]

What I find humourous about all this is that DOC's 'appeal to authority' is to a figure he's never actually read, as well as being totally and completely out of date, even among Christian biblical scholars.

DOC's seem to be only able to appeal to the authority of outdated scholars because there isn't much else he can appeal to.

 

[pakeha]

Well, that's interesting.
Now DOC recommended the work of a deceased telepreacher as proof of...something or other.

For more on the author, Wikipedia is your first stop

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...wikipedia&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

To get a feel for the man's views:

Constitution Restoration Act: a bill promoted during the 2005 Confronting the Judicial War on Faith conference that sought to authorize Congress to impeach judges who fail to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" and to limit the power of the federal judiciary to rule in religious liberty cases.[23]
Creation-evolution controversy: Kennedy was a Young Earth Creationist[4][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and supporter of intelligent design[31][32][33] who rejected the theory of evolution and believed that it "led to the death of nine million people in Nazi Germany.... The greatest mass murderers of all time [are] all compliments of evolution,"[34] an idea reflected in Coral Ridge's controversial documentary Darwin's Deadly Legacy in 2006. Darwin's Deadly Legacy is based on the 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany by Discovery Institute Fellow Richard Weikart. The Discovery Institute is the hub of the intelligent design movement,[35] and the Institute's Fellows are infrequent Coral Ridge Ministries guest speakers. Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the movement,[36] was a featured speaker at Coral Ridge Ministries' 1999 Reclaiming America for Christ Conference.[37] There he gave a speech called How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won which was widely promoted by the Ministries' Truths that Transform.[38]
Kennedy was a co-signer of the "Land Letter" sent to President George W. Bush in October 2002 which outlined a "just war" rationale for the military invasion of Iraq.[39]

 

[pakeha]

DOC's seem to be only able to appeal to the authority of outdated scholars because there isn't much else he can appeal to.

Does that mean he's just joshin' us?

 

[Hokulele]

Does that mean he's just joshin' us?

Boo! Hiss!

 

[AdinDraco]

Posted by DOC
<snip> "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born"

If? (btw I accept that a man called Jesus probably existed, but so what? --and many here do not and need actual evidence beyond bible and bald assertions).

 

[pakeha]

Yes, you're right, hokulele, it was weak.

Anyway, back to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire:

...Much closer to the capital, John of Ephesus, Inquisitor, began a campaign of forced conversion in 542. The government appointed him charge d'affaires for pagans, specifically responsible for rooting them out in Asia Minor. He destroyed what he called a "house of idols" and built 24 churches and four monasteries in the Turkish mountains and near the city of Ephesus. The great temple of Artemis/Diana at Ephesus, considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world had already been burned down by Christians a century and a half earlier (405). In 558 John became bishop of Ephesus, and started a new round of persecutions and pogroms. Holy groves and woods were axed, altars overturned and as usual, statues broken and temples pulled down; converts who helped out were paid with a coin, the expenses divided between the government and the Church.42 70,000 people were forced to convert. ...

Great stuff.
There's a lot more here:
http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter9.html

 

[Lothian]

.... there was only one who was perfect. And Jesus is the only hope for this world even if his followers have not been perfect throughout history.

Doc, Can I remind you that this is a thread for providing evidence.

I appreciate that to date your evidence is not evidence by the normal standards. It consists entirely of Christian apologists opinions that Jesus might have done this and the Romans could have done that.

You now are really scraping the barrel.

You have described Jesus as perfect. A) Perfect is an objective opinion. You define perfect as anything Jesus does so your logic is circular. B) You have no evidence that your understanding of Jesus's reported deeds are what happened.

You need to read the book "What if Jesus Never Came" and you would "really" be terrified about how the world would have likely ended up if Christ didn't come.

Christian Scaremongering. Reminds me of the Transcendental Meditation 2 month anti-crime experiment in Washington. They claimed their yogic flying reduced violent crime during the period by 18%. When a reporter noted that Crime was up on the same period the previous year and asked, "An 18% reduction compared to what?", They answered answered, "Compared to the level of violent crime had the experiment not taken place."

I think you and some others are living in a dreamworld if you think humanity's problems can be solved by atheistic logic. Stalin and Pol Pot tried that way.

Atheistic Logic is that there is no reason to believe in any God. That is it in its entirety.

Stalin and Pol Pot’s regimes were nothing to do with atheism. Just as the Nazi’s, who were nearly all Christain’s, were not spreading the word of God.

 

[joobz]

Nowhere does it say God would punish monks for eternity in the bible.

So hell is temporary?
Didn't the Parable of the servant say that the Slaves who knowingly or unknowingly broke a rule would receive punishment? Provided, those who knew they broke a rule, would receive a more stiff punishment.

The bible says God is Perfect and Just. A perfect and just God will give a perfect and just judgement.

So beating slaves is perfect and just now?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So hell is temporary?
Didn't the Parable of the servant say that the Slaves who knowingly or unknowingly broke a rule would receive punishment? Provided, those who knew they broke a rule, would receive a more stiff punishment.



So beating slaves is perfect and just now?

God works in mysterious ways?

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by joobz
And let us not forget that DOC's god would punish those monks for eternity because they didn't kiss his butt.

Nowhere does it say God would punish monks for eternity in the bible.

The bible says God is Perfect and Just. A perfect and just God will give a perfect and just judgement.

I have the feeling DOC isn't aware that those monks are Buddhists, that is to say, atheists.
They neither follow the KJV, nor recognise JC as their saviour, nor, as far as I know, believe in the resurrection of dead corpses, even on Matthew's sayso.

 

[pakeha]

Just to refresh the collective memory, the OP

In the "Do Most Atheists know that Science..." thread I mentioned Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" a few times because of its clear explanations of scientific theories. But, yes, they did talk about more than science.

In chapter 11 of their book they give the top 10 reasons we know the New Testament writers told the truth. I'll mention some of those reasons and maybe expound on them as time permits.

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

In post 13, DOC refines his argument:

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The things posted in my first post are helpful in my forming a judgment that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true.

My bolding. Now I understand why DOC goes on about Luke's historical value, quite literally, his faith depends on it; just one fissure, one shadow of a doubt and down goes DOC's faith and he's condemned to the burning lake.
No wonder DOC freaks so badly when fellow posters show his 'lynch-pin'* arguments are out-dated wishful thinking and shot down so off-handedly.

We're witnessing a life or death struggle here.

Now about that bolded bit:
"And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true."

I'm not sure how that applies, since obviously none of the NT authors were witnesses to the resurrection.
I'd like to hear DOC's explanation of that idea.

 

[Belz...]

Killing off most of the entire human population along with most animal species on the planet in a flood because YHWH was too stupid and unimaginative to do anything else

...or see it coming.

 

[amb]

God works in mysterious ways. Like when he completely ignored his own chosen people during the holocaust and allowed up to 6 million to perish without raising a yelp.