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

[six7s]

There are millions, in fact close to 2 billion people who think otherwise, Hence, the discussions.

And... throughout the last 1900+ years, there have been many, many more...

However, none of them have presented a coherent argument that could refute post #3 in this thread:

These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.

 

[babbits]

Inconsistencies are normal with eyewitness testimony.

Yes, that's true, in an ordinary trial.

But not in testaments made by people who were inspired by an all-knowing god, who is himself perfect in every way, and therefore incapable of erring or uttering a falsehood or allowing his followers to err or to utter falsehoods in his name.

Because Christians claim that the new testament is the inspired word of the one true god.

If there are false statements in the inspired testaments, then either they are not the words of the one all-knowing god, or the god is not all-knowing.

He just sat idly by, unknowing or uncaring that his message was not truly reported; even though those who misunderstood his message would go to hell because of their innocent misunderstanding.

And there is evidence that this is the case. Because if the god exists, he allows his words to be misrepresented by all but one of the world's Christian sects. Or perhaps by all of them. Since they all claim to be true, and they contradict each other, who is to say that any of them is true?

No one knows which one is the true one. All they can do is catch one brass ring, then hope that it's the right one. And not then until they die.

Any human father who taught his children in that manner would be called abusive.

 

[six7s]

But not in testaments made by people who were inspired by an all-knowing god, who is himself perfect in every way, and therefore incapable of erring or uttering a falsehood or allowing his followers to err or to utter falsehoods in his name.

I think that I know what you mean... and if so, I disagree

Anyhoo... I agree with the rest of your post

Because Christians claim that the new testament is the inspired word of the one true god.

If there are false statements in the inspired testaments, then either they are not the words of the one all-knowing god, or the god is not all-knowing.

He just sat idly by, unknowing or uncaring that his message was not truly reported; even though those who misunderstood his message would go to hell because of their innocent misunderstanding.

Of course, the Abrahamic god is (was? always will be?) a complete and utter bastard, with the conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion​

 

[DOC]

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.

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained. If Barack Obama lived in the bible times some would write he was black, some would write he was half black and half white. Some would write he was born in Hawaii. Some would write he was born in Africa. Some would write he was a Christian. Some would say he isn't. Some would say he won a peace prize, some would say he sent 30,000 additional troops into a war. Skeptics would complain there is too many varying accounts about him for him to be a real person.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained. If Barack Obama lived in the bible times some would write he was black, some would write he was half black and half white. Some would write he was born in Hawaii. Some would write he was born in Africa. Some would write he was a Christian. Some would say he isn't. Some would say he won a peace prize, some would say he sent 30,000 additional troops into a war. Skeptics would complain there is too many varying accounts about him for him to be a real person.

None of those actually contradict each other. However, as has been pointed out, quite a few of your stories about Jesus and his resurrection are directly conflicting.

 

[Lothian]

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained. If Barack Obama lived in the bible times some would write he was black, some would write he was half black and half white. Some would write he was born in Hawaii. Some would write he was born in Africa. Some would write he was a Christian. Some would say he isn't. Some would say he won a peace prize, some would say he sent 30,000 additional troops into a war. Skeptics would complain there is too many varying accounts about him for him to be a real person.

Good I am pleased that you recognise how the biblical account bears little relation to reality other than recognising there probably was around 0 CE at least one preacher, who gained followers.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained. If Barack Obama lived in the bible times some would write he was black, some would write he was half black and half white. Some would write he was born in Hawaii. Some would write he was born in Africa. Some would write he was a Christian. Some would say he isn't. Some would say he won a peace prize, some would say he sent 30,000 additional troops into a war. Skeptics would complain there is too many varying accounts about him for him to be a real person.

And if Jesus lived in present time, our records of his exploits would be much more accurate.

Why'd he choose such a backward time in such a strange land?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained. If Barack Obama lived in the bible times some would write he was black, some would write he was half black and half white. Some would write he was born in Hawaii. Some would write he was born in Africa. Some would write he was a Christian. Some would say he isn't. Some would say he won a peace prize, some would say he sent 30,000 additional troops into a war. Skeptics would complain there is too many varying accounts about him for him to be a real person.

Any maneuver you make to explain an issue carries consequences. This particular maneuver brings with it fairly profound consequences. If you decide to explain perceived inconsistencies on the basis of varied accounts from eye-witnesses (neglecting the fact that none of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses), then you have lost the ability to be sure of any account. You have necessarily admitted that none of the accounts are inspired (for if they were we would not see variations in them, since they would have a single source despite being written by more than one person) and that none are entirely reliable. You must also admit that, since the words were written many years after the occurrences, we do not have the actual words of Jesus. Most of what he reportedly said in the gospels was fairly pedestrian and there is no way that a regular Joe would remember the words precisely.

I'm afraid you are going to have to decide what you believe. Were the gospels inspired, so you are left with problems of inconsistency? Or were they written by regular folks who just don't agree about what happened, so we can't be sure what happened?

You cannot assume both without committing a logical inconsistency.

 

[six7s]

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained.

Likewise!

However, going by your track record, I suspect that you use a rather peculiar (i.e. fallacious) interpretation of the term 'logical'

Please, prove me wrong by explaining how, why, etc it is logical that your (supposedly 'divinely inspired') bible has so many inconsistencies

TYIA

 

[Hokulele]

None of those actually contradict each other. However, as has been pointed out, quite a few of your stories about Jesus and his resurrection are directly conflicting.

Well, other than the claim that Obama was born in Hawai'i (true) and the claim that Obama was born in Africa (false).

And to DOC's latest attempt at logic, sure, explanations can be invented for any of the inconsistencies between various parts of the New Testament (Which is more important, faith or deeds?), but only by causing poor William of Ockham to rotate freely within his grave.

 

[joobz]

I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained.

And I've never come across a logical argument from you.

 

[joobz]

You cannot assume both without committing a logical inconsistency.

Then DOC should have no problem assuming both.

 

[babbits]

Doc says: "I've never come across a supposed inconsistency in the NT that can't be logically explained."

I'm noticing more and more that Christian apologists are downplaying or denying that there is a hell; or that the existence of hell is a Christian teaching.

I don't know where you stand on this one issue, Doc. So I'll ask you.

Here are some quotes from the New Testament.
---------------------
Matthew 18:8-9
If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 25:41, 46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Mark 9:43-48
... into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Luke 16:22-24
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

(But this is not possible to the all-powerful god )

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

John 5:28-29
The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

Revelation 14:10-11
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

----------
Seems pretty clear to me that these writings are describing a literal hell. So that means that those who 'know not god' must be tortured forever.

But people don't get to choose what culture they're born into, do they?

So all the pagan babies will be tortured eternally for being born pagan.

And Christians call their god 'good'.

And Christians say that the Lord of the O.T. and Jesus of the N.T. are one god.

So how can a 'good' god treat his creatures so unjustly?

Isn't that a profound and unanswerable contradiction in the N.T. ?

What loving father would throw his newborn into a fire ?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Doc's not interested in logical consistency, Page One is all that he's worried about.

 

[amb]

And if Jesus lived in present time, our records of his exploits would be much more accurate.

Why'd he choose such a backward time in such a strange land?

Because it never happened. It's pure and simple myth. People were much more superstitious two thousand years ago than they are today. That story would not make a current affair program these days, let alone start a new religion.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Because it never happened. It's pure and simple myth. People were much more superstitious two thousand years ago than they are today. That story would not make a current affair program these days, let alone start a new religion.

Have you watched TV lately?

 

[Akhenaten]

Because it never happened. It's pure and simple myth. People were much more superstitious two thousand years ago than they are today. That story would not make a current affair program these days, let alone start a new religion.

But if he'd come today he would have reached the whole nation.

Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But if he'd come today he would have reached the whole nation.

Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.

Maybe DOC thinks he's Jesus here?

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe DOC thinks he's Jesus here?

I wonder if he'll tell us what he thinks
About his friends at the top
And who he thinks besides himelf
Is the pick of the crop?

 

[Lucian]

I wonder if he'll tell us what he thinks
About his friends at the top
And who he thinks besides himelf
Is the pick of the crop?

Don't you get me wrong.

Only wanna know.