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

[amb]

We really should look for evidence for the gospel writers truth or otherwise outside of the gospels themselves, for they are salad of contradictions, myths, magical thinking, and copied and translated dozens of times, and each time something was added or subtracted or re-interpreted until we get to John were this mythical man has become a god before birth and after death.
There is precious little evidence that Jesus even ever existed outside of the N/T.
This story reads just as if it was invented by a hysterical mentally unbalanced person which Paul was.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We really should look for evidence for the gospel writers truth or otherwise outside of the gospels themselves, for they are salad of contradictions, myths, magical thinking, and copied and translated dozens of times, and each time something was added or subtracted or re-interpreted until we get to John were this mythical man has become a god before birth and after death.
There is precious little evidence that Jesus even ever existed outside of the N/T.
This story reads just as if it was invented by a hysterical mentally unbalanced person which Paul was.

I agree that there is precious little evidence that Jesus existed outside of the writing of the New Testament, but that's no shock. I don't think this means anything except that there is little evidence outside the New Testament.

There is good evidence within the New Testament, I believe, that an historical Jesus lived.

I also strongly disagree that it reads as though all of it were invented by Paul. There is, in fact, good evidence that this is simply not the case -- that Paul received this message from others. Paul's influence was to theologize the Jesus movement and to argue for something entirely new within Judaism -- faith instead of works.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[joobz]

Several people are talking for me without responding to a specific post of mine. That should send up a red flag that there is a good chance that a straw man is going on. I never said what you implied I said {thus another Straw Man}.

this is a lie.

But I am asking you to look at historical evidence for Christ in the same way you look at historical evidence for other figures.

No you aren't. YOu are asking me to dismiss logic when evaluating Jesus.

As Geisler has basically said, if it wasn't for a supernatural bias, the miracles of Jesus would be considered historical based on the quality of historical writings we have.

Proof that you wish me to treat Jesus special. I don't beleive the miracles of ANY historical figure because they are often much more logically explained as being dshonest parlor tricks.

Thomas Arnold of Oxford and author of the 3 volume "History of Rome" didn't say there is better and more historical evidence for Jesus (and the resurrection) then for any fact in history (up to that point) for the heck of it.

What evidence for the resurrection? You haven't presented any evidence for the resurrection. ndeed, you are attemptng to conflate evidence for other elements of Jesus' story with evidence for the resurrection. This is EXACTLY what you claimed you were not doing in the first sentence of your post.


Seriously, Geisler has made you so illogical that you can't even be consistent within a post. Let alone between posts.

 

[Lothian]

Not if you read the book.

Given the book refers to all the evidence for Gods existence, why can you not bring any of that evidence here?

 

[Paulhoff]

Given the book refers to all the evidence for Gods existence, why can you not bring any of that evidence here?

And it doesn't show up year after year after. Well, what does one want from something that isn't.

Paul

 

[Mojo]

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC..._brr=0#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

The above URL shows much of that evidence from chapter 11 of the book cited in post 1. If you live outside of the US you'll have buy the book to read chapter 11.

Can you give us a summary of it?

 

[paximperium]

Can you give us a summary of it?

It is basically some idiot, using logical fallacies and really stupid arguments to make excuses for why the Jesus must be real. Geisler keeps claiming there is evidence but fails to produce any. No evidence in there at all.

 

[Mojo]

It is basically some idiot, using logical fallacies and really stupid arguments to make excuses for why the Jesus must be real. Geisler keeps claiming there is evidence but fails to produce any.

And there I was thinking that DOC hadn't presented Geisler's arguments. I stand corrected.

 

[DOC]

this is a lie.

Another unexplained post. Without an explanation, this is a trollish statement. I can go into any thread on the system and say the same thing after any post.

You would think after I have complained about unexplained posts at least twice before people would start explaining their statements to sustain their own credibility, but I guess not.

 

[DOC]

No you aren't. YOu are asking me to dismiss logic when evaluating Jesus.

This is false of course because you won't be able to show any post that demonstrates this.

 

[Hokulele]

Several people are talking for me without responding to a specific post of mine. That should send up a red flag that there is a good chance that a straw man is going on. I never said what you implied I said {thus another Straw Man}.

But I am asking you to look at historical evidence for Christ in the same way you look at historical evidence for other figures. As Geisler has basically said, if it wasn't for a supernatural bias, the miracles of Jesus would be considered historical based on the quality of historical writings we have. Thomas Arnold of Oxford and author of the 3 volume "History of Rome" didn't say there is better and more historical evidence for Jesus (and the resurrection) then for any fact in history (up to that point) for the heck of it.

Ah, so you agree that there are errors in the bible. Good to see some progress on your part.

 

[DOC]

Proof that you wish me to treat Jesus special. I don't beleive the miracles of ANY historical figure because they are often much more logically explained as being dshonest parlor tricks.

Explain how any miracle of Jesus is a dishonest parlor trick.

 

[DOC]

What evidence for the resurrection? You haven't presented any evidence for the resurrection. ndeed, you are attemptng to conflate evidence for other elements of Jesus' story with evidence for the resurrection...

Actually I have presented evidence for the resurrection:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

I've also listed the 11 apostles who were martyred, which makes the resurrection more likely than if one, two, or none were martyred.

And I've explained how it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist without the resurrection, so the fact that it does exist and is the largest religion in the world can be considered partial evidence. This is so obvious, but most people never consider it.

 

[Lothian]

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...les/josh2.html[/url]

No. There are 6 'facts' in that article. For that to be evidence that the new testament is the truth the facts must be verified from material outside the new testament. This your old 'the bible is true because it says it is true' trick. Look I will make it easy for you. Prove the first fact and I will accept the rest. Show evidence for the "BROKEN ROMAN SEAL" without referring to the bible.

I've also listed the 11 apostles who were martyred, which makes the resurrection more likely than if one, two, or none were martyred.

1. 'More likely' is not evidence.
2. Martyrdom is not evidence of the resurrection.

And I've explained how it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist without the resurrection so the fact that it does exist and is the largest religion in the world can be considered partial evidence. This is so obvious, but most people never consider it.

If Christianity makes no sense without the resurrection, why are there reports of Jesus having followers in his life time? Were they without sense?

More people in the world do not believe in Jesus than do. Those that do believe can't agree on what it true and what is not. But that is irrelevant, size does not matter. Think about the logic of what you are saying. You are arguing that as Christianity decreases in size it becomes less true, and the increase in Islam make that more true. This is so obviously wrong. The number of followers has no impact on the truth.

 

[Mojo]

I've also listed the 11 apostles who were martyred, which makes the resurrection more likely than if one, two, or none were martyred.

Why?

And I've explained how it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to exist without the resurrection, so the fact that it does exist and is the largest religion in the world can be considered partial evidence. This is so obvious, but most people never consider it.

The existence of Christianity may be evidence that people believe in the resurrection, but this isn't the same as evidence for the resurrection itself.

 

[Mojo]

If Christianity makes no sense without the resurrection, why are there reports of Jesus having followers in his life time? Were they without sense?

No, they are evidence that the resurrection happened before he died.

 

[dafydd]

Explain how any miracle of Jesus is a dishonest parlor trick.

Evidence that he ever effected any miracles?

 

[X]

Your argument would make sense if I said the number of sales of a book is evidence of the truth of that book or the number of posts in a thread is evidence of the truth of that thread. But I have never said that. Thus, Straw Man.

I said I was out, but like a train wreck, I just can't turn away.

Hokulele already dealt elegantly with the first part of your post (bolded by me).
I shall do the same for the second part (highlighted by me).


First, here's Hok's post:

Then why do you keep bringing up the the number of copies of the bible? You have made reference to this whenever someone asks you for evidence. Are you saying that this isn't evidence, just random chatter?

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

From Wiki's article on the "Best Selling Books"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books..

Doc,

You tell others to read the thread. I suggest you do so. Your earlier link to the greatest selling book of all time showed it was Mao’s little red book,

No, it wasn't it was the Bible.

<snip>

-the Bible is the greatest selling book of all time is a fact.

<snip>

So, onto the DOC "I never claimed post-count lends veracity" thing:

Let's just say if I was an atheist and read a thread where someone was able to place 1200 posts in an New Testament evidence thread, I would spend $4 dollars to get a used copy.

Any troll could continue to make this statement. My 1100 posts and the 2 websites in post #6567 speak for themselves. Your tactic might work in a live verbal debate but in this format with all my posts out there it's not going to work except with those who are maybe too lazy to read my posts. Anyone new to the thread probably the best place to start is the first listed website in post 6567.

My 1100 posts in this thread are out there, if some people don't think the facts I have presented or the arguments I have made are decent then so be it.

And this is only from the past month.

If DOC doesn't think post count lends weight to your arguments, why does he so frequently (in this thread, and others), refer to it as though it did?



Another point: what has the recent digression into the Ten Commandments have to do with evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?
I call for a split.




I'm am still lurking this thread, ever-hopeful that DOC will finally get around to posting the promised evidence. Or that some intrepid debater will finally pound through his thick biases the reasons why Geisler and Turek's appalling book does not contain any actual evidence whatsoever.

 

[sonofgloin]

"Wann der Tschock awer en Loch hot?
Dummer Ding, dann schtopp'n zu!"

Was bedeutet das?