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

[zooterkin]

And you keep putting words in my mouth, I never said events in the NT are true because of things written in the OT.

I've already quoted one place where you did just that, and there's another on the second page of this topic. Don't you read your own posts?

Yes, but the Greek and Roman gods were not writing about themselves. There is a difference from what I was saying in post #1.

ETA: And none of the Greek gods were prophecized as being the long awaited Messiah.

You can apologise now for accusing me of putting words in your mouth.

 

[Akhenaten]

The fact that believers in the qu'ran are willing to die for their beliefs means the qu'ran is more likely to be true.[/doc]

The Three Wise Men™ have discovered an ancient text, created by Ram-seh, and are using it to resolve their uncertainty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Don't forget the special pleading of skeptics who want to use Josephus when they talk about Luke's census, but then say Josephus is wrong about his writing that Moses existed, and lived in Egypt.

DOC, please define the following:

Hearsay
Circular Reasoning
Special Pleading

When and where was this logic course that you took and who was the instructor?

 

[wollery]

Me neither. Is it a combination of heresy and hearsay?

It's hearsay that doesn't agree with DOC's preconceptions?

 

[RoboTimbo]

DOC, please define the following:

Hearsay
Circular Reasoning
Special Pleading

When and where was this logic course that you took and who was the instructor?

Also, did you keep the receipt?

 

[Simon39759]

Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."

Yes, it's an interesting quote -- one that reveals an amazingly ignorant understanding of early Christianity even as it is reflected in the New Testament.

They didn't start a new religion. They were Jews. They believed they were practicing one form of Judaism, of which there were at least four that Josephus himself identifies; and of which there were probably many other variants.

They simply believed that God had elevated a man, resurrected him, and ushered in the beginning of the Kingdom and the general resurrection. Read Paul's letters and the gospels yourself if you don't believe me.

The "new religion" was an evolution of this brand of Judaism being rejected by Jews and embraced by gentiles who lived near Jewish settlements in large urban areas, a melding of Judaism and Hellenism, Judaism and mystery cults, Judaism and Platonism, etc.

They didn't "almost immediately" reject the centrality of the Temple, circumcision, etc. Read the New Testament for crying out loud. None of that is reflected there. Paul argued that circumcision and the Law would not save people in and of themselves so there was no reason for a gentile to become a Jew in order to follow the Christ. He firmly believed that Jews should continue to observe the Law and that Jews should continue to be circumcised because that is what it meant to be a Jew. He argued that gentiles needn't follow the Law or be circumcised. There was obvious controversy in the community over this very issue -- so any argument that "they almost immediately rejected x" is just ignorant. Temple worship, as far as any one can tell was "rejected" when there was no more Temple. There is no indication that Paul urged Jews to avoid the Temple.

I'm sorry that people lie to you and you believe them when you could read this stuff for yourself. Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the New Testament and less time listening to the distortions of that book you keep quoting you might gain some degree of enlightenment on this topic?

I will have to agree with Ichneumonwasp. In this paragraphe, Geisler shows his lack of knowledge about the people he is writing about. Either that or his willingness to lie about it to make weak points.

In either case, he proves himself a source of little value and I am glad I avoided reading his book.

 

[Lothian]

Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."

But you must remember it was not written for the intelligent and educated people of today rather it was designed to convince people who lack the modern understanding of the universe, people who have primitive knowledge of logic and reason. In many ways it is similar to the bible.

 

[pakeha]

I find it interesting, but not unexpected DOC is obliged to return to square one to provide evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.

Here is an interesting passage from the book cited in post #1 of this thread. Page 234.

"The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated non-Jews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years."

my bolding
Almost immediately? Ichneumonwasp dealt with this thoroughly earlier on this page.
What will DOC come up with next?

 

[zooterkin]

But you must remember it was not written for the intelligent and educated people of today rather it was designed to convince people who lack the modern understanding of the universe, people who have primitive knowledge of logic and reason. In many ways it is similar to the bible.

Nominated.

 

[six7s]

They didn't start a new religion. They were Jews. They believed they were practicing one form of Judaism, of which there were at least four that Josephus himself identifies; and of which there were probably many other variants.

They simply believed that God had elevated a man, resurrected him, and ushered in the beginning of the Kingdom and the general resurrection. Read Paul's letters and the gospels yourself if you don't believe me.

The "new religion" was an evolution of this brand of Judaism being rejected by Jews and embraced by gentiles who lived near Jewish settlements in large urban areas, a melding of Judaism and Hellenism, Judaism and mystery cults, Judaism and Platonism, etc.

They didn't "almost immediately" reject the centrality of the Temple, circumcision, etc. Read the New Testament for crying out loud. None of that is reflected there. <snip/>

Although DOC shows no sign whatsoever of even formulating an argument to support his preposterous claim in the OP, posts like yours above make it worth being subscribed

So...

Thank you, Ichneumonwasp, you made me think and actually see things that should be obvious

 

[Lucian]

It's hearsay that doesn't agree with DOC's preconceptions?

herasay: an unorthodox dogma that you've heard about from the friend of a friend of a proponent.

 

[six7s]

I find it interesting, but not unexpected DOC is obliged to return to square one to provide evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.

I find it pathetic - but not surprising - that DOC continues to ignore simple, straight-forward posts that question his delusions

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thank you pakeha and six7s.

 

[NavyPack]

Just to reiterate the obvious...

Add another longtime lurker who has consumed the totality of this monstrosity.

Nowhere in this random collection of thoughts, have you managed to maintain any affinity for, nor acquaintance with; congruity of position, validity of logic, consistency of word definitions, and reality in the general.

Every single post of your opinions and promised evidence has been thoroughly disputed, then refuted, ad nausem.

It would be expected that the volume of adversarial posts would be a challenge to anyone with the temerity to promise what you did in the title of this thread. However, you fail/refuse to realize the fundamental difference between your "refutations", and those provided by the rest of the forum.

How many purposefully unanswered questions remain on your side of the ledger? You undisputedly decide to respond to only the weakest fragments of any response, doubly so if it diverts attention from a subject you are losing ground on.

Do you dare challenge the forumites to produce a list of queries you have dodged/flat out ignored?

If your position is founded in reality, the logic you use to support one argument should be applicable to any reasonable alternative scenarios. (i.e. martyr's of other religions, skepticism towards other religious texts, etc.)

Yours are obviously not.

To any rational or honest person reading this thread, your lack of integrity and intellectual honesty has been laid bare.

 

[Simon39759]

Very nice exit from the lurking Navy and welcome to the madness.

 

[six7s]

Add another longtime lurker who has consumed the totality of this monstrosity.

Nowhere in this random collection of thoughts, have you managed to maintain any affinity for, nor acquaintance with; congruity of position, validity of logic, consistency of word definitions, and reality in the general.

Every single post of your opinions and promised evidence has been thoroughly disputed, then refuted, ad nausem.

It would be expected that the volume of adversarial posts would be a challenge to anyone with the temerity to promise what you did in the title of this thread. However, you fail/refuse to realize the fundamental difference between your "refutations", and those provided by the rest of the forum.

How many purposefully unanswered questions remain on your side of the ledger? You undisputedly decide to respond to only the weakest fragments of any response, doubly so if it diverts attention from a subject you are losing ground on.

Do you dare challenge the forumites to produce a list of queries you have dodged/flat out ignored?

If your position is founded in reality, the logic you use to support one argument should be applicable to any reasonable alternative scenarios. (i.e. martyr's of other religions, skepticism towards other religious texts, etc.)

Yours are obviously not.

To any rational or honest person reading this thread, your lack of integrity and intellectual honesty has been laid bare.

Nominated for The Language Awards

 

[X]

Ichneumonwasp has already dealt succinctly with Geisler's abysmal ignorance of Early Christianity. So I shall not add to that.



However, I have a point about the Josephus mention that has once again cropped up.

One mention, the Testimonium Flavianum, is widely regarded by those with an understanding of textual criticism as being a later interpolation (read: forgery). It is, of course, clung to rabidly by those with a predisposed desire for it to be true. In much the same way that 9/11 CTers, for example, will cling happily to arguments that agree with their views, even when an understanding of physics shows it to be wrong.


The other mention, Jesus as James' brother, reads as follows:

"[...] so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned [...]"​

(Josephus, it seems, had a fondness for run-on sentences.)

It is regarded by some scholars that the phrase "who was called Christ" is also a later addition. The thinking is that it originated as a note in the margins, later copied into the work by a scribe.

But this, to my knowledge, is speculation. So let's assume that is what was originally written.

Let me ask you a question, DOC:
Suppose there was a Christian historian writing during the Crusades. nd he wrote a history on the Holy Lands. Suppose, in this history, he writes "Muhammad, who is called the Prophet".

By your logic, DOC, this means that whoever wrote the Qu'ran is likely to have been telling the truth. And therefore, the miraculous parts are more likely true.

(For everyone else, I got a kick out of this website, where much DOC-ian^TM logic is used. ...To prove the truth of Islam...)



By the way, DOC, have you had a chance to think about what I wrote earlier?
(see below)

If we know he got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles [...] right.

Emphasis mine

The emphasized bit here is perhaps a slip on your part, but is nonetheless highly important.

You are correct. It is indeed a bias against the supernatural that prevents us from accepting supernatural claims.

The reason for this bias is simple: To date, no supernatural claim has ever been shown to have any substance beyond ignorance of the underlying causes.
Not one.

Why, then, should we accept claims of things that have never been demonstrated, never been shown as realistic?

You do, because you have FAITH.

You have FAITH that these things are real. Your so-called "evidence" makes sense to you because you have faith in these supernatural events being true.

Underlying all your claims has been this faith.

And you know what?

I have no problem with you having faith.

If you wish to claim that you have faith in Jesus' resurrection, in Jesus being the son of God, in the New Testament gospels being authored by eyewitnesses who later martyred themselves, that's fine.

You are free to have faith. I can't touch it. And I won't try to stop you from having it.

But if you are going to claim to have evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth, it had better be able to stand up to critical scrutiny.

So far, not a single piece of "evidence" you have trotted out has even fit the proper definition of evidence, let alone pass a rudimentary application of rational thought.

If you want to claim that you take the New Testament as truth based on faith, do it. No one will attack you for it. They might call into question your reasons for your faith (to which you really don't need to respond, if you don't want), but they will not attack you for admitting that your belief is faith-based.

But this thread promised "evidence".

Either bring it up, or admit you have no evidence that does not relay on a pre-existing faith in the supernatural.

And if you insist on continuing to use the stuff brought up so far in this thread, you will receive only continued disrespect, mockery, and belittlement.
Why?
Because all the primary and supporting evidence you have brought forward to date has not stood up to critical scrutiny.
The reasons why the arguments have failed has been explained to you in patient detail.

DOC, it's time to stop pretending that American Presidents, supposed (and unproven) martyrs, opinions about what is embarrassing, and landmarks constitute evidence that Jesus' resurrection and miracles really happened as documented in the New Testament.


Because other works can also make these claims, as has been pointed out, forcing you into desperate "special pleading" mode where you bring out more irrelevant, illogical nonsense that gets torn apart and spit back at you. And then you get all huffy and "persecuted".

I repeat:
Either bring forward some real evidence (or sound arguments for why the stuff you've brought forward so far should be considered as such), or admit it is a matter of faith to you and that you have no solid evidence.

Edit to add:
Welcome, NavyPack. Well-written post. But I must caution you against daring DOC to produce a list of queries he's dodged. In the past, DOC has made many challenges (even in this thread) to point out flawed logic, lies, and so-on. The recurring result is an overwhelming number of posts in reply quoted such instances, and DOC getting huffy and demanding a moderator deal with the off-topic posts.

 

[pakeha]

Welcome to the pit, NavyPack.
I liked you post very much, X, DOC's reliance on his ministry approved sources has been a keynote of this thread.

I saw a video clip the other day that reminded me of this.




Which do you reckon is more likely, six7s- the Second Coming of Christ or pakeha ceasing to mawl the QE?

Originally Posted by pakeha
I find it interesting, but not unexpected DOC is obliged to return to square one to provide evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.

I find it pathetic - but not surprising - that DOC continues to ignore simple, straight-forward posts that question his delusions

 

[six7s]

Which do you reckon is more likely, six7s- the Second Coming of Christ or pakeha ceasing to mawl the QE?

Well... I suspect that maul is the word you were looking for...

Nevertheless... you still have the advantage of a significant head start; bearing in mind that a second coming necessitates a resurrection from the first...

1,976 years and counting...

Tick

Tock

 

[pakeha]

Ta evaso, six7s!