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

Status
Not open for further replies.
amb, nice one.
joobz, your speculation
Maybe Jesus never claimed to be the son of god and was just a generally good guy with good ideas. But that there were fanatic crazies decades later who decided he should be a god?
Click to expand...

sounds about right to me.
 
DOC said:
We've been through this all before. If you have 4 people watch the Super Bowl and then ask them a year later to describe the game. You will get 4 different accounts of the game. Most probably won't even remember the score. That doesn't mean the Super Bowl never happened. Describing different details is normal with eyewitness accounts. Here is what the Catholic Church says about the different accounts as I reported some 60 pages ago in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4634588#post4634588

ETA

And there are many websites that harmonize the resurrection accounts like this one:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_tomb.html
Click to expand...

Yes, but we're not talking about the Super Bowl, and if the everyone was required to live by what happened at the game, then you better have something better than the vague recollections of a few spectactors. You do realise that you just argued that some of the details reported in the bible have to be inaccurate ie wrong? Are we supposed to accept this horrid story as the divine word of God and that some of it is wrong? Which bits of the accounts in the bible are correct and which are wrong....and how do we know the difference? Also, we be fairly certain that the Super Bowl actually happened! We can't say that about anything in the bible (except the talking snake - I like that bit - I like to think his name is Monty), so is this an example of the false analogy? Is there a reason every sentence I write is in the form of a question?
 
paximperium said:
Who wants to bet he is going to repost his Geisler list of dumb facts?
Click to expand...

Are you saying George Washington was wrong when he said that Luke called that dead historian, who none of us had ever heard of, one of the greatest christian martyrs that ever Geisler had killed?

Well are you?
 
DOC said:
We've been through this all before. If you have 4 people watch the Super Bowl and then ask them a year later to describe the game. You will get 4 different accounts of the game. Most probably won't even remember the score. That doesn't mean the Super Bowl never happened.
Click to expand...

Quite right. However, we don't bundle all four accounts together, publish them and call them all the infallible word of John Madden. :D
 
Not forgetting of course, that there were literally dozens of gospels floating around between 100- 300ce. That the early church chose these four and the epistles is grounds for suspicion as it is without wondering what those other so-called gospels had to say.
Dan Baker was a good little christian when he joined the seminary, he was shocked after only a few months to discover that far from the bible been the inerrant word of god, it was the word of men. The bible didn't literally fall from the sky in it's present form. It was copied and re-copied dozens of times and into different languages by mortal men who implanted their ideas into each re-copied version.
 
DOC said:
We've been through this all before. If you have 4 people watch the Super Bowl and then ask them a year later to describe the game. You will get 4 different accounts of the game. Most probably won't even remember the score. That doesn't mean the Super Bowl never happened. Describing different details is normal with eyewitness accounts. Here is what the Catholic Church says about the different accounts ...
Click to expand...

Another big difference between Super Bowl accounts and the NT is that people who disagree with the Super Bowl accounts have never been dragged through the streets, tortured in surprisingly ingenious ways, dragged through the streets again and burnt alive either as being
a witch/warlock by Presbyterians in Scotland
an uppity science type by Calvinists in Switzerland
a bog standard heretic by Catholics in Spain

at least as far as I know.
 
pakeha said:
Another big difference between Super Bowl accounts and the NT is that people who disagree with the Super Bowl accounts have never been dragged through the streets, tortured in surprisingly ingenious ways, dragged through the streets again and burnt alive either as being
a witch/warlock by Presbyterians in Scotland
an uppity science type by Calvinists in Switzerland
a bog standard heretic by Catholics in Spain

at least as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Neither do the people believing one of the accounts shoot, kill and blow up believers of the other accounts as Christains in Ireland have done.
 
DOC said:
We've been through this all before. If you have 4 people watch the Super Bowl and then ask them a year later to describe the game. You will get 4 different accounts of the game. Most probably won't even remember the score. That doesn't mean the Super Bowl never happened. Describing different details is normal with eyewitness accounts. Here is what the Catholic Church says about the different accounts as I reported some 60 pages ago in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4634588#post4634588

ETA

And there are many websites that harmonize the resurrection accounts like this one:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_tomb.html
Click to expand...


We've been through this all before. When different eyewitnesses see the same event they report that event in their own words. They do not use the exact same words in the exact same order as other supposedly independent eyewitnesses. The fact that the other synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) use the same words in the same order as Mark does indicates that the authors of Matthew and Luke were not eyewitnesses.

Since the author of Mark, even traditionally, was not an eyewitness of these happenings, that leaves you with 0 of 3 accounts that are eyewitness accounts. So your point is moot.

You might want to argue for John's gospel, but it's got its own problems.
 
There is not one author of any description who was an eyewitness to the events described in the N/T. It was a case of a friend of a friend of my uncle Bob who knew someone who spoke to this Jeezus! Nothing more. Even the very first christian writings to appear which were Paul's who also was no eyewitness in the flesh. He heard voices which are the symptoms of an epileptic attack or schizophrenia.
 
amb said:
Not forgetting of course, that there were literally dozens of gospels floating around between 100- 300ce. That the early church chose these four and the epistles is grounds for suspicion as it is without wondering what those other so-called gospels had to say.
Dan Baker was a good little christian when he joined the seminary, he was shocked after only a few months to discover that far from the bible been the inerrant word of god, it was the word of men. The bible didn't literally fall from the sky in it's present form. It was copied and re-copied dozens of times and into different languages by mortal men who implanted their ideas into each re-copied version.
Click to expand...

As always, amb, your posts cut to the chase.
ps Is your avatar on hols?
 
pakeha said:
As always, amb, your posts cut to the chase.
ps Is your avatar on hols?
Click to expand...

You don't like my new avatar? :) It's more 'me', plus I needed a new one, Jennifer was getting a little stale, plus I promised that any new avatar would be less sexually explicit and to stop newbies from thinking I'm an edible female.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom