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

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by DOC
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.

I knew I'd read that recently.
Enjoy.

Oh, I thought he was talking about atheists when he mentioned swamp scum. You know, that atheists are non-living material with no sense of morality.

 

[pakeha]

I see what you mean, Lucian.
At the time DOC first posted this characteristic little post, I was doing some investigation of Creationism (meh. youtube. One thing that fascinated me was a nine part debate between banana man and thunderfOOt ) and so that 'catchphrase' "From goo to you through the zoo" was very much present.

Now whether that 'swamp scum' phrase means DOC is a 'young' or 'old' Creationist is another matter.
For another thread or here, pushing on to 500?

 

[amb]

So.....let me get this straight. DOC believes in an old creation by evolution guided by god yet he still believes in Adam and Moses and all the rest of the characters written about in the whole babble which according to Bishop Usher was created much less than 10.000 years ago.

 

[Paulhoff]

The guy is funny, and has a good twist on it all.

Paul

 

[DOC]

It's not special pleading because it's talking about two completely different things. One which happened during living memory and the other which happened over a thousand years before. Unless he had some undivulged independent source, his stories of Moses were based on what we now call the Old Testament.

He either had sources different than the bible when talking of Moses or he made it up because he talks about how Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war. This is not in the bible. This has already been talked about in this thread.

 

[zooterkin]

He either had sources different than the bible when talking of Moses or he made it up because he talks about how Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war. This is not in the bible. This has already been talked about in this thread.

Way to miss the point, DOC, as I believe you foreign johnnies say.

 

[Akhenaten]

He either had sources different than the bible when talking of Moses or he made it up because he talks about how Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war. This is not in the bible. This has already been talked about in this thread.

What do ancient Egyptian sources have to say about it DOC? They did keep records, you know. In stone. And they're still there.

Just like your evidence isn't.

 

[DOC]

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."

So it was a cult. Have you any evidence that this cult's leader was any different to more recent ones? Certainly the actions of the believers cited does not materially differ from those in other cults.

I can't think of any cults-

1) whose major teachings make up the greatest selling book of all time.

2) where they affected our calender like Christ did with A.D. and B.C.

3) believed in by our last and current president like Christianity is.

4) whose formerly cowardly followers were martyred "after" their leader died at different times and different places and most could have saved themselves by recanting.

5) where the major teachings of those cults have been called the most moral and sublime he's read by someone like prolific reader Thomas Jefferson. Yes, I know Jefferson (a cafeteria Christian) did not believe in the divinity of Christ but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses when using his statement.

 

[Akhenaten]

All that seems to demonstrate is a lack of understanding of what a cult is.

 

[Lothian]

I can't think of any cults-

Your lack of imagination is not the issue

1) whose major teachings make up the greatest selling book of all time.

When you last gave a link to this 'fact' it showed the little red book was the greatest selling book of all time

2) where they affected our calender like Christ did with A.D. and B.C.

You mean CE and BCE, and why stick to 'our' calendar?

3) believed in by our last and current president like Christianity is.

I know Bush has some affiliations with some dodgy ritualistic 'clubs' in the past. I didn’t know Obama had.

4) whose formerly cowardly followers were martyred "after" their leader died at different times and different places and most could have saved themselves by recanting.

Many cults followers killed themselves.

5) where the major teachings of those cults have been called the most moral and sublime he's read by someone like prolific reader Thomas Jefferson. Yes, I know Jefferson (a cafeteria Christian) did not believe in the divinity of Christ but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses when using his statement.

Have you not read Tom Cruise's autobiography? Yes, I know Cruise (a total fruitcake) did not believe in Xenu but I think the fact that he does not keep slaves outweigh the minuses when using his statement

But the above is irrelevant, not one of those 'facts' stops Christianity being a cult.

 

[zooterkin]

5) where the major teachings of those cults have been called the most moral and sublime he's read by someone like prolific reader Thomas Jefferson. Yes, I know Jefferson (a cafeteria Christian) did not believe in the divinity of Christ but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses when using his statement.

There you go again. You're seeking to provide evidence that what is in the New Testament is true, and the parts which are most open to doubt are those which are supernatural. So of what benefit is it to bring in someone who quite specifically does not believe those parts?

 

[amb]

He either had sources different than the bible when talking of Moses or he made it up because he talks about how Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war. This is not in the bible. This has already been talked about in this thread.

DOC. Most modern scholars now days doubt Moses ever existed. He like most of old testament heroes were legends, myths that were ingrained into the Israelite story that has nothing at all to do with history.

 

[Cactus Wren]

DOC, do you know what a "primary source" is?

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Why the hell does DOC, who firmly believes that the resurrection of Christ is an established fact, keep dragging Thomas Jefferson's name into this thead? DOC, you must know by now that Jefferson's own edited version of the New Testament ends with the burial of Jesus. He rejected all the supernatural elements you are so desperate to believe in. Yes, Jefferson thought that some of Christ's pronouncements were worth salvaging, but this has nothing to do with providing "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth". We are now on page 208 and you have provided no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Lothian]

DOC, do you know what a "primary source" is?

It is clear that he thinks the bible is the primary source, anything else secondary....

 

[six7s]

He either had sources different than the bible when talking of Moses or he made it up because he talks about how Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and defeated Ethiopia in a war. This is not in the bible. This has already been talked about in this thread.

Here's an idea:

Instead of rehashing what "already been talked about in this thread", how about you introduce something completely new, like... oh, maybe some evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.​

Just a suggestion

 

[joobz]

I can't think

I agree

 

[paximperium]

DOC, do you know what a "primary source" is?

He also has no idea what hearsay is.

 

[Cleon]

I can't think of any cults-

I'm guessing you don't know the meaning of the word "cult."

1) whose major teachings make up the greatest selling book of all time.

Appeal to popularity.

2) where they affected our calender like Christ did with A.D. and B.C.

Appeal to authority. (It was the Roman authorities who chose the dating scheme we use. It's also rather silly, as Jesus was not actually born on the date our scheme says he should've been.)

3) believed in by our last and current president like Christianity is.

Appeal to authority.

4) whose formerly cowardly followers were martyred "after" their leader died at different times and different places and most could have saved themselves by recanting.

As I've said before, when it comes to martyrs, we Jews have a few million legs up on you Christians. Not a particularly convincing argument.

5) where the major teachings of those cults have been called the most moral and sublime he's read by someone like prolific reader Thomas Jefferson.

Appeal to authority.

Yes, I know Jefferson (a cafeteria Christian) did not believe in the divinity of Christ but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses when using his statement.

That's merely an excuse for taking his words and beliefs completely out of context.

Fallacy after fallacy...

 

[DOC]

DOC, do you know what a "primary source" is?

Yes