• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
amb said:
How the hell could the N/T writers be telling the truth when they were writing hearsay, copying, translating, and in particular, each of these writers were writing for different people in different parts of the Roman Empire. Putting in their translations to the events circulating at the time. There is not a single eye witness. Only third and more hand hearsay's and myth at best. Even the the letters of Paul were at least10- 20 years after any event. Mark the first gospel to appear, 30 or more years after any event.
How anyone can have faith on such a hosh posh of sources is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...

Well actually the gospel writers (and apostles) Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.

And with regard to those NT writers who were not direct eyewitnesses, you, other skeptics, and history books, have no problem believing in Alexander the Great who conquered much of the known world and upon which there are no contemporary writings in existence. Why do you and others put a different standard on Alexander who conquered much of world?
 
DOC said:
Well actually the gospel writers (and apostles) Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.

And with regard to those NT writers who were not direct eyewitnesses, you, other skeptics, and history books, have no problem believing in Alexander the Great who conquered much of the known world and upon which there are no contemporary writings in existence. Why do you and others put a different standard on Alexander who conquered much of world?
Click to expand...
It was not claimed that Alexander defied natural laws.
 
Lothian said:
It was not claimed that Alexander defied natural laws.
Click to expand...

And Christ did, so maybe that's why we have 10 non-Christian and 32 Christian written sources for the life of Christ for a total of 42 sources whereas we only have 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source for the life of the Roman Emperor during Christ's life, Tiberius Caesar, for a total of 10 written sources. So 42 sources for Christ and 10 for Tiberius Caesar.

And the fact that Christ defied natural laws could be the reason at least 8000 people ( and probably much more since only men were counted at that time) became Christian within weeks of the resurrection. From the physician/historian Luke (Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4).
 
DOC said:
Well actually the gospel writers (and apostles) Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
OK... For the sake of argument, let's accept that they were 'eyewitnesses'... But... to what? Everything they claim? Matthew kicks off with a shedload of begats aimed - presumably - to assert the authenticity of your messiah's claim to the throne...

Weird thing is that... the Book of Matthew, allegedly the divinely inspired and inerrant word of your god is at odds with the other divinely inspired books in the NT

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/intro
Matthew is a very contentious book. If you have an opinion about anything, Mathew is likely to disagree with you. The SAB lists 131 contradictions in Matthew, more than any other book of the Bible.
Click to expand...

DOC, you have repeatedly spammed this thread with the abject nonsense that is Geiesler's 84 detailed facts... and many of us have read them enough to thoroughly debunk them

How about YOU read the SAB's 131 contradictions in Matthew - www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/contra_list.html and get back to us?

OK?

If not, why not?

DOC said:
And with regard to those NT writers who were not direct eyewitnesses, you, other skeptics, and history books, have no problem believing in Alexander the Great who conquered much of the known world and upon which there are no contemporary writings in existence.
Click to expand...
Oh DOC... this rehashed nonsense is pathetic!

At issue is NOT a belief in AtG... instead its a question of how (in)consistent the accounts of AtG are with regard to other other accounts of the period

The key difference between bleevers and thinkers is that if/when new/better evidence surfaces, bleevers go into denial and/or issue jihads or similar hate/ignorance inspired nonsense that justifies invoking arcane edicts for persecution/annihilation/etc whilst thinkers merely go 'Wow! That's cool!'

DOC said:
Why do you and others put a different standard on Alexander who conquered much of world?
Click to expand...
We don't

Why do you persist with your lies that pretend we do?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And Christ did, so maybe that's why we have 10 non-Christian and 32 Christian written sources for the life of Christ for a total of 42 sources
Click to expand...
Ah... well... in that case... it MUST be true!

:p
 
Hokulele said:
Argumentum ad populum.

Fail.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no video cameras or recording devices at the time, so we have to go by the reported history of people like Luke... And go by the known history of the rapid expansion of Christianity during the brutal Roman regime. As one writer J P Moreland basically put it, something very big was going on for 10,000 Jews to come to Christianity within 5 weeks of the Resurrection.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Sorry, no video cameras or recording devices at the time, so we have to go by the reported history of people like Luke... And go by the known history of the unexplained rapid expansion of Christianity during the brutal Roman regime. As one writer J P Moreland basically put it, something very big was going on for 10,000 Jews to come to Christianity withing 5 weeks of the Resurrection.
Click to expand...
DOC... you do know what circular means, right?
 
DOC said:
In my opinion it doesn't mean much when you add one of the world's greatest historians (Luke) to the mix.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that it is true because Luke says so. Pretty pathetic.

If Luke is such a good historian you can tell me where this took place

4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

I want to climb that mountain.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
<snip> for 10,000 Jews to come to Christianity within 5 weeks of the Resurrection.
Click to expand...

That's a mighty specific number and time frame you have there. Don't suppose you have any verifiable evidence to support it, do you?
 
DOC said:
Sorry, no video cameras or recording devices at the time, so we have to go by the reported history of people like Luke... And go by the known history of the rapid expansion of Christianity during the brutal Roman regime. As one writer J P Moreland basically put it, something very big was going on for 10,000 Jews to come to Christianity within 5 weeks of the Resurrection.
Click to expand...


Appeal to tradition, appeal to popularity, begging the question.

Fail.
 
doc said:
sorry, no video cameras or recording devices at the time, so we have to go by the reported history of people like luke... And go by the known history of the rapid expansion of christianity during the brutal roman regime. As one writer j p moreland basically put it, something very big was going on for 10,000 jews to come to christianity within 5 weeks of the resurrection.
Click to expand...

10,000?
 
Fitter said:
That's a mighty specific number and time frame you have there. Don't suppose you have any verifiable evidence to support it, do you?
Click to expand...


I remember Lee Strobel making that claim but I am not sure where that's supposed to come from. I guess he probably went through the book and added everybody that seemed to think that Jesus was kinda of a ok guy.
But, even then, ten thousand is a lot.

Act 2 does mention a mass conversion when the Holy spirit visited the apostles at the beginning of the evangelism, but only three thousand are mentioned...



And, of course, the only record that we have of this mass conversion is from the Bible that this anecdote is suppose to prove.
Circular reasoning is like intellectual masturbation, it makes you blind toward the evidences.
 
DOC said:
In my opinion it doesn't mean much when you add one of the world's greatest historians (Luke) to the mix.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... did you miss the earlier discussion about how Luke was a chronicler of the land and language of the times he witnessed in his travels with Paul and to those facts could be considered to be historicaly correct... HOWEVER he was not a witness to Jesus's life and was recalling what HE was TOLD by Paul, so that makes it hearsay.

I wonder... Since Luke is recording Pauls stories how do they sync up when compared? I would be curious to know from any scholar out there.
 
DOC said:
Sorry, no video cameras or recording devices at the time, so we have to go by the reported history of people like Luke...
Click to expand...
Which reported history? the one that claims he's the son of god, or the ones that claim he was just another prophet?


DOC said:
And go by the known history of the rapid expansion of Christianity during the brutal Roman regime.
Click to expand...
the rapid expansion happened AFTER the roman regime.

DOC said:
As one writer J P Moreland basically put it, something very big was going on for 10,000 Jews to come to Christianity within 5 weeks of the Resurrection.
Click to expand...
evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom