• 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.
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?

You seem to be missing a major point. There are many people here that are willing to accept that there was a historical Jeasus. Though they are unwiling to accept the super powers. If the claims were that ALexander the Great carried the elephants over the mountains or cause an avalanche to part around army through his superpower then eveyrone here would be all over that.

It is you that is applying a different standard, you are trying to equate the accepting the existance of AtG as equivalent to the existance of Jesus AND his super powers. It is NOT the same.
 
It was not claimed that Alexander defied natural laws.

Lothian that is not a valid comment to Doc's point. He was not meaning the veracity of the texts, just that the texts were or were not written. The point being how many texts are of the time and how many are contemporary, and given that is being used to validate proof it is an erroneous conjecture.
 
Last edited:
So - and I don't believe this for one second, given DOC's repeated history of lying - 10,000 Jews are supposed to have converted to christianity within a few weeks of the death of Jesus. Fine, it's almost certainly bollocks but let's pretend for a second that DOC is capable of posting something that bears a passing resemblance to fact.

If it took something amazing to convert all of those, could I ask about the rest of the Jews who didn't convert, who weren't convinced, who heard about the supposed death and resurrection of your divine zombie but clearly rejected it. Do you not think it shows remarkable obdurance on their part? I mean, they were around but rejected it all. Clearly it wasn't that amazing.

But I post this knowing full well that I am posting it against the brick wall of your ignorance and inability to recognise any criticism. The simple fact remains that you have posted no evidence whatsoever to support the OP. Geisler remains the same pile of steaming horse ***** that it was when you started the thread off with it. Nothing that you have adduced since has added any veracity to your claim in the OP.
 
Last edited:
Lothian that is not a valid comment to Doc's point. He was not meaning the veracity of the texts, just that the texts were or were not written. The point being how many texts are of the time and how many are contemporary, and given that is being used to validate proof it is an erroneous conjecture.


Given DOC's propensity for appeals to popularity, I will guarantee he meant the veracity of the texts is proven by their number.
 
Given DOC's propensity for appeals to popularity, I will guarantee he meant the veracity of the texts is proven by their number.
Actually, DOC is likely to complain that the number of texts doesn't "prove" their veracity. Rather, that they add support to the argument that they are true.

Which, of course, is still a nonsense claim.
 
Given DOC's propensity for appeals to popularity, I will guarantee he meant the veracity of the texts is proven by their number.
Actually, DOC is likely to complain that the number of texts doesn't "prove" their veracity. Rather, that they add support to the argument that they are true.

Which, of course, is still a nonsense claim.
So... we all recognise that DOC employs (so called) arguments that amount to nothing more than a steaming pile of bovine excrement... We all recognise that such entrenched delusions can only be maintained in a mind-numbingly circular fashion, impervious to reason... and yet we, naive fules, live in hope...

Reminds me this oldie:

Q. How many critical thinkers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change​
 
DOC... you do know what circular means, right?


In my opinion it doesn't mean much when you add one of the world's greatest historians (Luke) to the mix.


Just a quick response to that:


Circular5.gif
 
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).

Ah, that's good, DOC. Quoting Luke to prove Luke.
And assuming Jesus defied natural laws.
Could you post up those 10 non-Christian written sources again?
Thanks.
 
Mathew and John were eye witnesses? Just how deluded are you DOC?
Not even some fundamental xtians would agree with that statement.

There is not one shred of a half a sentence written about jesus from a eye witness.
All was written years later.
 
I'd re-post my quote from Professor Houlden again but DOC will pay it scant, if any, attention and other readers are by no doubt aware of the truth of your statement.

It seems likely to me that the earliest written accounts are pretty clearly around 200 years removed from any actual events that they might be describing.
 
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.


Actually 10,000 is a conservative number, he said "over" 10,000. The praised physician/historian Luke reported 3000 on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2:41). Then he reported 5000 more "men" in (Acts 4:4). That's 8000. Remember woman were second class citizens in that era and weren't even counted in tallies (as weren't children). So if you add women and children, one estimate has been 15,000.

And as the book in post #1 points out these were people who were brought up in the Jewish customs all their life. So they're going from strict monotheism to now Jesus the God man. This was a huge change for them. Man worship has always been punishable by death as the book says on page 291. So something huge is going on for all these people to be converted so shortly after the resurrection.

Also if they become Christian there going to have a new Sabbath. This is also a big change because as the above book says Jews of that day believed breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death (Ex. 31:14).

The above all relates to Reason #10 in post #1:

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"

And we're not only talking the NT writers who are making these changes, we're talking 8000 (and most likely at least 10,000) Jews, according to Luke, within weeks of the Resurrection. Yes, something big is going on for this many people to change their lifetime religion and customs. One can now see why Christianity spread so fast if this many people converted within such a short period after the resurrection.
 
Last edited:
But the whole world would have converted had half the tales of this Jesus been true. Especially his resurrection and of reviving Lazarus days after his death.
A very superstitious people that they were in those days had they had an inkling of proof would have converted by the millions.
 
Actually 10,000 is a conservative number, he said "over" 10,000. The praised physician/historian Luke reported 3000 on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2:41). Then he reported 5000 more "men" in (Acts 4:4). That's 8000. Remember woman were second class citizens in that era and weren't even counted in tallies (as weren't children). So if you add women and children, one estimate has been 15,000.


<driffelsnip>


You have no evidence that any of the above is true, apart from very old and far-removed hearsay.
 
Last edited:
Actually 10,000 is a conservative number, he said "over" 10,000. The praised physician/historian Luke reported 3000 on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2:41). Then he reported 5000 more "men" in (Acts 4:4). That's 8000. Remember woman were second class citizens in that era and weren't even counted in tallies (as weren't children). So if you add women and children, one estimate has been 15,000.
OK. That is what the NT writer said. How do we know it is true. What evidence do you have?
 
Actually 10,000 is a conservative number, he said "over" 10,000. The praised physician/historian Luke reported 3000 on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2:41). Then he reported 5000 more "men" in (Acts 4:4). That's 8000. Remember woman were second class citizens in that era and weren't even counted in tallies (as weren't children). So if you add women and children, one estimate has been 15,000.
You have no evidence that any of the above is true, apart from very old and far-removed hearsay.
And... even IF there was evidence that the numbers are correct: SO FREAKIN' WHAT?!?!?11??

Or... in other words... an argument from popularity is, was and forever will be a logical fallacy

Whether or not 1st and 2nd century CE Jews accepted Jesus as the messiah is NOT relevant to this thread

All that IS relevant is evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth

Ya got ANY?
 
"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"

Hmmm...where does that leave poor Peter? No True Christian?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom