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

[Paulhoff]

IOW...Even if God exists, the NT could still be a work of fiction, any more than God's existence would be evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

That is something that doesn't seem to get thru to them, even if they state that they may be wrong, they don't really believe that their idea is wrong.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

So if you could prove with absolute certainty that there is no God, would that hurt, help, or have no effect, on the argument that the NT writers were telling the truth.

I missed your comments on this DOC:

"It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . . theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story."

– J. L. Houlden, Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11​

The Rev. J. L. Houlden is Emeritus Professor of Theology at King's College, University of London.​

Could you please post a link to your response so I can read it again?

 

[Simon39759]

Let's illustrate the problem from a mathematical point of view.

You have to bags full of tokens.
Your option, 'the NT writers told the truth' is in the first bag, the 'God does exist' bag.

So, a) if you knew that the truth came from the second, the 'God does not exist' bag, you would know for certain that the NT writers did not tell the truth.

Now, if you happen to know that the solution comes for the first bag, it does, indeed, increase the likelihood of selecting your token. For example, imagine if you will, that each bag contains 10 tokens, knowing to pick from the one bag increase the likelihood of your token to be the correct one from 5 to 10%. Substantial.

But, in reality, there is a infinity of scenario where God would exist and the NT writers would still be lying. Literally. No matter how many you imagine, you can always imagine another one.
So, the likelihood of picking up your token increases from 1 divided by two infinities (so, zero), to 1 divided by one infinity (also zero).

By any reasonable standard, it does not affect the situation.

 

[DOC]

You know that Rule 11 of the MA states that 'Posts must be on topic to the thread subject.' yet you persist in posting off-topic nonsense

Were talking about the "Moral Argument" which is topical to giving evidence for God; and showing increased evidence for God is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth. And if something is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth it can be considered some evidence to be put on the scale for the NT writers telling the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

Were talking about the "Moral Argument" which is topical to giving evidence for God and showing increased evidence for God is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth. And if something is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth it can be considered some evidence to be put on the scale for the NT writers telling the truth.

Piffle.

 

[Paulhoff]

Were talking about the "Moral Argument" which is topical to giving evidence for God

There is no need for a so-called god for one to be moral. I see lots of people that believe in something like your so-called god, and after hearing what they say about other people, NOT BEING LIKE THEM, I find them anything but moral.

If one does not treat others on an equal level with themself, morals mean nothing.

Paul

 

[Lucian]

The NT telling the truth is dependant of God existing, so, God not existing would, automatically mean they were not telling the truth.
But, God could exist and they could still be telling a lie, or be mistaken so, God existing only rise the likelihood of them telling the truth by a infinitely small amount.
I explained that in the post you quoted.



Let me try again:

Most adventures of Superman happen in the city of Metropolis.
The fact that Metropolis does not exist, in itself, implies that Superman is fictitious.

Most adventures of Spider-man happen in the city of New-York.
The fact that New York does actually exist (and the adventures of Spider-Man got so many details of the city geography right that one could truly call Stan Lee one of the greatest historians) does not, in any substantial level, rise the level of likelihood of spider-man being real.

Metropolis does exist. There's a Superman statue, a Superman museum, etc. So there is evidence that the DC Comics writers told the truth.

 

[six7s]

That is something that doesn't seem to get thru to them, even if they state that they may be wrong, they don't really believe that their idea is wrong.

That's the beauty of faith - it does NOT matter if/when/how reality conflicts with a bleevers delusions...

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.
If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
​

With this in mind, it seems reasonable to consider that the NT - although demonstrably absurd, contradictory and ridiculously incredible - may well have been authored by people who weren't consciously lying...

If only we had some credible 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Metropolis does exist. There's a Superman statue, a Superman museum, etc. So there is evidence that the DC Comics writers told the truth.

I just felt the need to point out the obvious here:

There is more evidence that Superman exists and all the writers of the comic series were telling the truth than there is that God exists and the NT writers were telling the truth...

 

[six7s]

...showing increased evidence for God is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth.

NO

You have been shown - in clear, concise and coherent ways - that your 'logic' is fundamentally flawed

Stop lying for your messiah

 

[Simon39759]

Were talking about the "Moral Argument" which is topical to giving evidence for God; and showing increased evidence for God is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth. And if something is increasing the probability the NT writers were telling the truth it can be considered some evidence to be put on the scale for the NT writers telling the truth.

And you had four posts that explain why it was not the case in the previous page.

Metropolis does exist. There's a Superman statue, a Superman museum, etc. So there is evidence that the DC Comics writers told the truth.

Absurd, the real Metropolis of fiction (hurm) is on the East Coast, probably in the State of New York.
Don't make me burn you at the stakes now, arguing about Gospels is all fun and jokes, but Comics are SERIOUS BUSINESS.

 

[maddog]

I just felt the need to point out the obvious here:

There is more evidence that Superman exists and all the writers of the comic series were telling the truth than there is that God exists and the NT writers were telling the truth...

Why is this obvious? Or why is it even accurate?

Seems to me, there is evidence, however significant or trivial, of the truth of both Superman/comics and of God/NT. As well as evidence, though much more substantial, of the falseness of same.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why is this obvious? Or why is it even accurate?

Seems to me, there is evidence, however significant or trivial, of the truth of both Superman/comics and of God/NT. As well as evidence, though much more substantial, of the falseness of same.

Perhaps you would care to step in where Doc has failed and present us with this evidence for the veracity of the NT and of God's existence?

 

[DOC]

I disagree, deep down every sane person knows it is wrong to kill innocent people and children. But just because they know it is wrong doesn't mean they will restrict their actions. They might find some rationalization for their actions but they know it is wrong to kill innocent people and children.

Criminals know it is wrong to rob a bank, but banks are robbed every few minutes.

So... The Spartan knew that what they were doing was wrong. Even if they kept the practices for centuries, didn't let any record of people dissenting about the tradition and even bragged about it in some of their text?

"Sure, all evidences point out that they thought it normal and good, but, thank to my amazing trans-temporal mind reading abilities, I know that, deep down, they agonized about it".

Notice I said sane people above.

All the evidences point that Hitler thought his actions were moral and good too. Many people including myself believe and believed Hitler was insane.

And guess who Hitler admired:

From Wiki's article on Sparta:

Adolf Hitler praised the Spartans, recommending in 1928 that Germany should imitate them by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans." The Spartans had created "the first racialist state.".[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta

So the argument can be made the Spartans were not normal sane human beings like Hitler wasn't a normal sane human being.

And from the same Wiki site above you will also notice that the Spartans believed these laws came from a individual lawgiver.

Between the eighth and seventh centuries BC the Spartans experienced a period of lawlessness and civil strife, later testified by both Herodotus and Thucydides.[13] As a result they carried out a series of political and social reforms of their own society which they later attributed to a semi-mythical lawgiver, Lykourgos.[14] These reforms mark the beginning of the history of Classical Sparta.

Looks like the Spartans were deceived by a great deceiver, like the German people were deceived, and like the biblical Adam and Eve were deceived.

 

[Simon39759]

So... "there is an asolute universal morality that is only absolute and universal for the people that applies it (aka sane people)".

That's not very absolute, is it?

 

[joobz]

Notice I said sane people above.

...
So the argument can be made the Spartans were not normal sane human beings like Hitler wasn't a normal sane human being.

So based upon the biblical evidence I provided, below, you would argue that god is, in fact, insane.

Maybe you should tell god that!

2 Samuel 12:14-18
Exodus 11
2 Kings 2:23-24
psalm 137:9

ETA:
Isaiah 14:21
Hosea 9:11-16
Ezekiel 9:5-7
Jeremiah 51:20-26
Leviticus 26:21-22
Isaiah 13:15-18

But I guess those aren't "Bad killings" because god wishes it...

What's it called again when something is unacceptable unless the conditions surrounding the action mean it's acceptable?

It's not absolute....it's rela.......

 

[joobz]

Were talking about the "Moral Argument" which is topical to giving evidence for God;

Which, in conjuction with the fact that Jesus is ok with beating slaves employees , if there was an ultimate morality we can conclude that Jesus ISN'T that source of absolute morality.

 

[six7s]

And guess who Hitler admired:

From Wiki's article on Sparta:

From Wiki's article on Hitler:

In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews. In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/HitlerJesus.htm

Despite how often Christian apologists try to argue that Adolf Hitler is an example of the evil caused by atheism and secularism, the truth is that Hitler often proclaimed his own Christianity, how much he valued Christianity, how important Christianity was to his life, and even how much he was personally inspired by Jesus - his "Lord and Savior." Like many German Christians of the time, however, Hitler saw Jesus Christ in a very different light from what is normally the case.

In a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book My New Order, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.​

 

[zooterkin]

And from the same Wiki site above you will also notice that the Spartans believed these laws came from a individual lawgiver.

Really? An individual lawgiver handing down some moral absolutes?

I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality. So that means almost everyone believes something is right or wrong regardless of how many people believe so.

So where did these absolute moral laws that almost everyone believes in come from? I contend moral laws must come from a lawgiver, they don't come from swamp scum. And since these absolute moral laws are outside the human experience they must have been made by someone outside of humanity {aka God}. That is unless you believe non living material like swamp scum can make absolute moral laws.

So, was Lykourgos swamp scum or god?

 

[Simon39759]

So based upon the biblical evidence I provided, below, you would argue that god is, in fact, insane.

Yeah, saw a movie about that.