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

[Lothian]

Doh, the idiocy of my last post just struck me. We haven’t had any evidence yet.

 

[Agatha]

Patience, Lothian! That elusive evidence might be contained in the next of DOC's posts. Of course, it might not, and past experience tends to favour the latter; but with courage and fortitude we will wait.......

 

[AdinDraco]

All of my Doc bingo cards now have the '# of posts' square marked off. Could we please move onto famous believers (presidents would be good) and lists of matyrs please. For a bit of variety though, could we leave Alexander alone and speculate on how much evidence we have for the existance of.....Vlad the Impaler. Cmon, as a bonus he was a believer wasn't he?

 

[Akhenaten]

All of my Doc bingo cards now have the '# of posts' square marked off. Could we please move onto famous believers (presidents would be good) and lists of matyrs please. For a bit of variety though, could we leave Alexander alone and speculate on how much evidence we have for the existance of.....Vlad the Impaler. Cmon, as a bonus he was a believer wasn't he?

So, the stakes are getting higher, it seems. Time for some evidence.

A Hungarian court chronicler reported that King Matthias "had acted in opposition to general opinion" in Hungary when he had Dracula imprisoned, and this played a considerable part in Matthias reversing his unpopular decision. During his time as a "distinguished prisoner" before being fully pardoned and allowed to reconquer Wallachia, Vlad was hailed as a Christian hero by visitors from all over Europe.

Wikipedia


I have further references from the the great historian, Bram Stoker, which corroborate the above evidence.

Clearly the fact that an such eridite and insightful personage as Vlad Dracul was a christian is evidence itself that the New Testament writers told the truth.

 

[Waterman]

Another general opinion trying to discredit my 1400 posts in 2 sentences. My posts our out there. One day people will let the posts stand for themselves without continually offering general opinions about them.

If I list at least 3 things that haven't been debunked will you agree apologize since you said everything has been debunked?

This is not a fair challenge, there are a number of facts that you have thrown out there that are in fact true. However where you argument has fallen short (as it has been pointed out repeatedly by others) is you opinion that these facts somehow support your argument. People have not disputed the factual parts such as whether or not the Presidents were Christians or not. This does not qualify as evidence in support of the OP.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is not a fair challenge, there are a number of facts that you have thrown out there that are in fact true. However where you argument has fallen short (as it has been pointed out repeatedly by others) is you opinion that these facts somehow support your argument. People have not disputed the factual parts such as whether or not the Presidents were Christians or not. This does not qualify as evidence in support of the OP.

Shhhhhh. Let him do it. You may not have noticed earlier in the thread when he specifically stated that none of his original 10 reasons was sufficient to support the idea that the New Testament writers told the truth, but the weight of all of them was.

If he now admits that he's down to 3 -- which he hasn't actually, but he certainly seems to imply -- then he has already admitted defeat whether or not he realizes it.

 

[paximperium]

Shhhhhh. Let him do it. You may not have noticed earlier in the thread when he specifically stated that none of his original 10 reasons was sufficient to support the idea that the New Testament writers told the truth, but the weight of all of them was.

If he now admits that he's down to 3 -- which he hasn't actually, but he certainly seems to imply -- then he has already admitted defeat whether or not he realizes it.

Well...it is fact that Jerusalem exist therefore Jesus was resurrected and you must therefore listen to DOC's preaching.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well...it is fact that Jerusalem exist therefore Jesus was resurrected and you must therefore listen to DOC's preaching.

According to this excellent logic, since ancient Egypt existed (in fact, the sheds and things are still there), then it is proven that the ka of Akhenaten lives on to this day.

Therefore, given the further evidence of the Sun's existence, I propose that there is far more valid evidence for the Aten than there is for the writers of this new testament thingy having told the truth. It's a rip of my stuff anyway.


Re-horakty etc.


ETA: I have to admit. This Vlad fellow has a point. Many points, in fact.

 

[joobz]

Shhhhhh. Let him do it. You may not have noticed earlier in the thread when he specifically stated that none of his original 10 reasons was sufficient to support the idea that the New Testament writers told the truth, but the weight of all of them was.

If he now admits that he's down to 3 -- which he hasn't actually, but he certainly seems to imply -- then he has already admitted defeat whether or not he realizes it.[/QUOTE
Unfortunately, he'll deploy special pleading shields. And likely invoke his presidential non sequitor.

 

[Cactus Wren]

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

Yes

I've seen no evidence of that.

From the article what is a Primary Source:

primary source: A primary source is a document, speech, or other sort of evidence written, created or otherwise produced during the time under study.

http://www.knowledgecenter.unr.edu/instruction/help/primary.html

Much of the time under study in this thread is the period that the New Testament was written- the years before 100 A.D.. So we have 31 primary sources from the New Testament and several primary sources from Josephus who mentions Christ twice, John the Baptist, and James the Just {the first bishop of Jerusalem}.

Josephus isn't a primary source, DOC. He was writing decades after the events in question. At least one of the references you describe, the longer of his mentions of Jesus -- the so-called "Testimonium Flavianum" -- is a later interpolation: he didn't even write it.

The Bible can't be a primary source for its own authenticity. You can't claim, "The events in the Bible are true -- of course I have a confirming primary source, it's the Bible!"

DOC, in the year 1666 most of the City of London burned to the ground. There are references to this in documents of the time -- records of the damage, of how it was dealt with, of people's reactions. Some come from the time of the events, some from later. Samuel Pepys, a secretary on the Navy Board at the time, kept a detailed diary during this period. He wrote about the fire and events surrounding it at the time:

Some of our mayds sitting up late last night to get things ready against our feast to-day, Jane called us up about three in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City. So I rose and slipped on my nightgowne, and went to her window, and thought it to be on the backside of Marke-lane at the farthest; but, being unused to such fires as followed, I thought it far enough off; and so went to bed again and to sleep. About seven rose again to dress myself, and there looked out at the window, and saw the fire not so much as it was and further off. So to my closett to set things to rights after yesterday's cleaning. By and by Jane comes and tells me that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down to-night by the fire we saw, and that it is now burning down all Fish-street, by London Bridge. So I made myself ready presently, and walked to the Tower, and there got up upon one of the high places, Sir J. Robinson's little son going up with me; and there I did see the houses at that end of the bridge all on fire, and an infinite great fire on this and the other side the end of the bridge; which, among other people, did trouble me for poor little Michell and our Sarah on the bridge. So down, with my heart full of trouble, to the Lieutenant of the Tower, who tells me that it begun this morning in the King's baker's house in Pudding-lane, and that it hath burned St. Magnus's Church and most part of Fish-street already. So I down to the water-side, and there got a boat and through bridge, and there saw a lamentable fire. Poor Michell's house, as far as the Old Swan, already burned that way, and the fire running further, that in a very little time it got as far as the Steeleyard, while I was there. Everybody endeavouring to remove their goods, and flinging into the river or bringing them into lighters that layoff; poor people staying in their houses as long as till the very fire touched them, and then running into boats, or clambering from one pair of stairs by the water-side to another. And among other things, the poor pigeons, I perceive, were loth to leave their houses, but hovered about the windows and balconys till they were, some of them burned, their wings, and fell down. Having staid, and in an hour's time seen the fire rage every way, and nobody, to my sight, endeavouring to quench it, but to remove their goods, and leave all to the fire, and having seen it get as far as the Steele-yard, and the wind mighty high and driving it into the City; and every thing, after so long a drought, proving combustible, even the very stones of churches, and among other things the poor steeple by which pretty Mrs.—lives, and whereof my old school-fellow Elborough is parson, taken fire in the very top, an there burned till it fell down: I to White Hall (with a gentleman with me who desired to go off from the Tower, to see the fire, in my boat); to White Hall, and there up to the Kings closett in the Chappell, where people come about me, and did give them an account dismayed them all, and word was carried in to the King. So I was called for, and did tell the King and Duke of Yorke what I saw, and that unless his Majesty did command houses to be pulled down nothing could stop the fire.

That's only the beginning, DOC: his account of the Great Fire of London, converted into twelve point Times New Roman, is six pages long with no paragraph breaks.

Now: according to the gospel of Matthew, at the time Jesus was crucified "from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour". We're also told that "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Where's a confirming primary source for these? A few pages back in this discussion, you referenced a source named Phlegon who had in his own writings mentioned an earthquake and an "eclipse" -- but Phlegon was born nearly half a century after the events he's purportedly describing. That's not a primary source. It seems to me that such incidents would garner massive public attention -- why has not one, not one, primary record survived? Not one tax roll saying "This man's house is no longer taxable, it fell down in the earthquake"? Not one scroll from a philosopher saying "It's the most bizarre thing -- a solar eclipse took place at a phase of the moon when a solar eclipse can't happen"? Not one ostrakum reading "Dear Mom, So you felt the earthquake too? That was exciting, but here in Jerusalem we got an invasion of zombies. Love to Daddy"? Those would be primary sources. Where are they? There's not one?

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

All I will say is that I am damn glad that I don't have to have recourse to such a deal of self delusion/active lying to explain my own existence.

This entire thread is a thread devoted to failure and to a particularly pernicious form of failure. The failure to think rather than follow dogma like an unthinking slave. DOC has presented no evidence at all to support the OP. It has all been supposition, special pleading and simple dishonesty.

The OP has been given ample time to show proof and has failed to the point where I think that any wavering christian would probably be more disgusted with the postings of the OP than any of the replies.

The thread is clearly going nowhere. There is no point in actively debating someone who is manifestly incapable of understanding the simplest points of logic, history and evidence. I could write '****' for a 1000 posts and I'd still be more constructive than DOC.

Let's move the thread to a 'Hoist by their own petard' zone. Where the arguments of the religious are so transparently contradictory, dishonest and **** that they actively dissuade those they pretend to persuade.

Because that is all this is now. A simple dishonest fool lying and being humiliated for his dishonesty and lack of ability to think for the amusement of everyone else. It has gone beyond debate.

 

[nopoetlaureate]

for doc

first beast = babylonian judaism. ten laws and seven holy days. the beast with the wound that was healed is the high priests servant whose ear was cut off and healed by Joshuah on passover. passover is actually the eighth holy day but is hidden in the first day of the seven day feast of unleavened bread. it ascends out of the sea = bronze laver in the temple court, i.e the judaic priests who wash themselves in it. which then becomes christianity, which takes its authourity from the first beast, i.e., christianity is romanised babylonian judaism.
scond beast = is christianity. looks like a lamb, but isn't. the dragon is the 'firey serpent', i.e., the bronze devices used for burning flesh and washing. christianity claims the power of the bronze devices yet knows NOTHING about them. christianity shoves babylonian judaic lies down the throat of the unwitting in the form of biscuits and grape juice. point of interest: the official vatican endorsed size of the biscuits is 40mm for the masses and 90mm for the hierarchy. question: what part of a man is 40mm in diameter? google ‘sexual averages’.

I could go on but my point is this:

I know christianity is a lie because the bible tells me so

game over

 

[Waterman]

Shhhhhh. Let him do it. You may not have noticed earlier in the thread when he specifically stated that none of his original 10 reasons was sufficient to support the idea that the New Testament writers told the truth, but the weight of all of them was.

If he now admits that he's down to 3 -- which he hasn't actually, but he certainly seems to imply -- then he has already admitted defeat whether or not he realizes it.

Well you probably have nothing to fear. My posts have gone unremarked upon by DOC despite his voiced desire for people to address the points in his posts. The recent responses seem to indicate that he is more interested in defending what he sees as attacks on his honor than the attacks on his arguement.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

I could go on but my point is this:

I know christianity is a lie because the bible tells me so

game over

If we put another coin in the slot before the timer reaches zero, can we keep playing?


Welcome, unpoet.

 

[MIKILLINI]

So Doc, after 210 pages, why haven't you produced any evidence that proved New Testament writers were stating complete and accurate facts? Just askin'

 

[AdinDraco]

So, the stakes are getting higher, it seems. Time for some evidence.



Wikipedia


I have further references from the the great historian, Bram Stoker, which corroborate the above evidence.

Clearly the fact that an such eridite and insightful personage as Vlad Dracul was a christian is evidence itself that the New Testament writers told the truth.

Nominated for the stake pun alone. I literally lol'd.

 

[amb]

So Doc, after 210 pages, why haven't you produced any evidence that proved New Testament writers were stating complete and accurate facts? Just askin'

Can that be because that's impossible? Can that be because christianity is nothing more than an evolution of the mystery religions like Mithra ism, Horus and Isis ism?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Josephus isn't a primary source, DOC. He was writing decades after the events in question.

Minor quibble -- there are different uses of the term "primary source". Some consider primary sources to refer only to contemporary accounts, generally eye-witness or little removed and others to refer to any ancient source not separated by centuries.

So, I'm not sure that we can say that Josephus is not a primary source for the existence of Jesus the way the term is used, given the significant ambiguity. The rest I agree with. Josephus did not write the Testimonium Flavium as we have received it.

There are ancient non-Christian sources that refer to Jesus, but none of them give us actual accounts of him. None prove his existence by themselves.

 

[amb]

All non N/T references to a historical Jesus are suspect. Not one eyewitness. All, including Josephus reference to Jesus were written decades later and most scholars acknowledge that his reference was somewhat forged and others like Tacitus were probably writing hearsay. Philo who was from the Gallelli makes no reference to him at all.
Funny how up to a hundred historians between the year 0-100 AD are all silent on this man yet left us a library full of accounts of the histories of those days.

 

[DOC]

Anyway.
I'm at a loss, myself, to imagine what DOC will come up with and almost interested enough to want to know what hasn't been debunked and long ago at that.
It seems odd DOC would wait so long (200+ pages) before asserting this, since it seems pretty clear the OP was debunked on page one.
Do I 'sense' a derail attempt in this attempt to get an 'apology' from someone in the forum?

Since DOC has never accepted that neither hearsay nor American presidents' opinions nor martyrs lists constitute evidence the NT writers were telling the truth, I think the 'challenge' is basically a preacher's trick to wow the faithful from the pulpit.

Still.
Bring on the list, DOC! Make me laugh again.

You didn't answer my question. You said everything posted up has been debunked. I said if I can list at least 3 things that haven't been debunked would you apologize? You haven't answered that question so that implies you really didn't mean what you said or are having second thoughts.

People have got to realize that when you make a general statement that is derogatory towards me or the thread you better be able to back it up because there is a good chance I'm going to ask you to back it up.