• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
X said:
Have you even been reading the responses in this thread, DOC?
Click to expand...
The answer is no.

This thread should be closed as it is clear that nothing new will be discussed nor will there be any actual debate from DOC.
 
joobz said:
The answer is no.

This thread should be closed as it is clear that nothing new will be discussed nor will there be any actual debate from DOC.
Click to expand...
I'd like the thread to remain open - as a 'living monument' to the unsupportable, circular (il)logic that is christian scriptural faith/belief
 
 
Red is red, because it is red, that why it is red, for if it wasn't red, it would not be red.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
DOC said:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Geisler 10 reasons&f=false

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4704978#post4704978

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4693173#post4693173

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643
Click to expand...

I appologize for the long post but since Geisler has resurfaced I decided to look into it myself.

From the Top Ten list in the “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” the book reference by DOC Page 275. Paraphrased for brevity

1. The New Testament writers included embarrassing details

Geielser’s own discussion uses the phrase regarding the principal of embarrassment, ‘the principal assumes that any details embarrassing to the author are probably true.’ Bolding is mine. While I am unfamiliar with this ‘principal’ it is somewhat indefinite in its core. It does NOT say that it if it is embarrassing that is MUST be true but that… well… maybe… I’m leaning that way. Besides the principal is only addressing the EMBARRASSING DETAIL not the rest of the story it is embedded in. However for that to be even applicable in this case it would have to be a first person account of events. There does seem to be some questions evening religious circles as to the authorship and date that the gospels were actually written down instead of carried on by oral traditions. If this is what was written down after many retellings by anyone other than the actual ‘authors’ then this does not apply.

To assert that the authors of the actual gospels are those that they are attributed to despite the questions raised even by Biblical Scholars is already accepting the conclusion that the Bible is factual and rasping and wisps of ‘evidence’ that is no more than mere smoke.

2. included embarrassing details and difficult saying of Jesus

The flawed misunderstood hero is a common story telling technique and allows you to identify with the character. The idea is for the listener to feel that they have been where the character is ‘not believed’ or ‘abandoned by family and friends’ but bore all the hardship and came out victorious in the end. The listener goes away with the idea well if he could do all that my might be able to do some of it… This is evidence of good compelling story telling not that the story is true.

3. left in demanding saying of Jesus

isn’t this essentially the same as 2 with the difficult saying? I have read the section in the link and I still don’t understand why this is relevant to establishing veracity. There are some good ideas embedded amonst the chaff in the bible. We accept that about that time there were a group of folks that ran around saying wouldn’t it be nice if we treated people nicer for a change even if our immediate reaction would be to smack them upside the head. The idea caught on and grew, this does not mean that all the fluffery that is painted around the ideas is true.

4. carefully distinguished Jesus’ words form their own

Ok… why is this considered evidence, in any story telling you have to identify who is saying what or everything is a jumble and know one knows what is going on.

5. Not available in the link

6. Not available in the link

7. includes divergent details

Ok, so it is true that they don’t agree. While this is seem as ‘evidence for veracity’ by apologists. Others see this as evidence for oral traditions that evolved over time and the diverged from the original telling. This actually argues AGAINST inerrancy but does not address veracity one way or another.

8. writers include challenge to check out the facts.

This is an empty challenge, the vast majority of those that heard the oral traditions by the disciples would have had little means to check things out. From what I have gathered here the initial Christians (by that I mean those that were contemporaries of the disciples) were the poor and underclass looking for a better life in the here-after. They certainly didn’t have the means to travel about verifying everything. Within a generation there would be no one left to be able to verify the events it would all be back to the oral traditions.

9. they describe miracles in like other historical events with simple unembellished accounts

So what, this is not evidence but merely a matter of opinion regarding the writing style.

10. Not available at this link. The OP states that ‘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’

First of all they did not make some major change from animism to monotheism. The Old Testament is the root of Judaism, the messiah was expected according to Jewish to lore, the god of the Jews is the same god of the Christians, they were a sect of Jewish heretics at that time. When they couldn’t gain traction with their own they expended to include gentiles and found an accepting audience

Please note that the issue of martyrdom has been beaten to death (HA) and is not an acceptable indication of veracity, it is only an indication of the persons conviction of belief, idea or perhaps sheer stubbornness.
 
Paulhoff said:
Apparently you don’t hold the writers of the bible to a high standard DOC. This is a book that a so-called all powerful, all knowing god has inspired and one would think with that behind the book there would not be so many loopholes and inconstancies in it. Also it wouldn't need people to defend it all the time.

Paul
Click to expand...

Inconsistencies are normal with eyewitness testimony. Could you imagine all the different accounts there would have been about what happened on 9 /11/2001 if it had not been televised and their was no paper to write newspaper articles like in biblical times. And imagine if the great majority of people couldn't read like in biblical times and news about it was spread mostly by word of mouth.
 
DOC said:
Inconsistencies are normal with eyewitness testimony. Could you imagine all the different accounts there would have been about what happened on 9 /11/2001 if it had not been televised and their was no paper to write newspaper articles like in biblical times. And imagine if the great majority of people couldn't read like in biblical times and news about it was spread mostly by word of mouth.
Click to expand...

So, you admit there are inconsistencies and therefore the NT writers did not in fact tell the truth. Rather they each wrote down what particular hearsay they had come across.
 
DOC said:
Could you imagine all the different accounts there would have been about what happened on 9 /11/2001 if it had not been televised and their was no paper to write newspaper articles like in biblical times. And imagine if the great majority of people couldn't read like in biblical times and news about it was spread mostly by word of mouth.
Click to expand...
Certainly. You'd have a bunch of crazy stories about how the hand of god came down and destroyed the towers. That people saw in the smoke the devil's face. But of course, we are aware that fanciful stories are just that.

Amazing how events can easily become fantastic upon the retelling. BTW, did you mean to give one of the best arguments discrediting the biblical ressurection stories or was that an accident?
 
DOC said:
Inconsistencies are normal with eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...
Helloooooo, a so-called god inspired this book, an all-powerful one and all, are we making excuses for it now.

Where do we cut inconsistencies in this book from the truth and who does this, YOU, ME, WHO.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
joobz said:
Certainly. You'd have a bunch of crazy stories about how the hand of god came down and destroyed the towers. That people saw in the smoke the devil's face. But of course, we are aware that fanciful stories are just that.

Amazing how events can easily become fantastic upon the retelling. BTW, did you mean to give one of the best arguments discrediting the biblical resurrection stories or was that an accident?
Click to expand...


It should also be pointed out that we don't have some people saying it was a few airplanes, other saying it was a fleet helicopters, and still others insisting it was flying saucers.
I'm referencing, of course, the highly varied accounts of who was present at the tomb.
 
X said:
It should also be pointed out that we don't have some people saying it was a few airplanes, other saying it was a fleet helicopters, and still others insisting it was flying saucers.
I'm referencing, of course, the highly varied accounts of who was present at the tomb.
Click to expand...
It should be pointed out that we have people who actually saw the planes crash into the towers. As for the whole rising Jebus affair, not one first person account. Zero, Zilch, Nada.
 
Yes, oral tradition for 30-50 years before anyone wrote any part of the N/T.
Imagine an original story of a molehill becoming a mountain. A crucified man rising again a couple of days later. No eye witnesses, just total hearsay for decades until the first of the gospels appeared. Even the letters that are not forged of Paul, also decades after the so-called facts.
 
"Uh.. God's not real and the New Testament was written by people a very long time after the setting for Jesus' fictional lifetime."

Am I missing why the above wasn't the immediate response to this thread and every response thereafter?
 
There are millions, in fact close to 2 billion people who think otherwise, Hence, the discussions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom