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

[Paulhoff]

If there was a guy named Bob and he told his followers he was the son of God and he would rise from the dead.

There have been a lot of Bobs, and many where a so-called god and not the son of one.

Paul

 

[joobz]

If there was a guy named Bob and he told his followers he was the son of God and he would rise from the dead. Would you say there was a greater chance for rapid growth of the "religion of Bob" if he rose from the dead and appeared to his followers. Or if he did not rise from the dead and did not appear to his followers?

If there was a guy named Bob and he told his followers he was the son of God and he would rise from the dead. Would you say there was a greater chance for his followers to slaughter whole civilizations in the name of the "religion of Bob" if he rose from the dead and appeared to his followers?

I maintain that if your answer is there is a greater chance for growth if he did indeed rise from the dead, then when we are told there was great growth of the religion of Bob after his death, that fact would increase the likelihood that Bob did rise from the dead more than if we were told the religion of Bob did not grow after his death.

The islamic faith has spread quite a lot too. Yet you are not advocating it's legitimacy.

Since that fact increases the likelihood of the Resurrection, it can be considered partial evidence.

Nope. It's called a nonsequitor argument and not at all relevant.

How much weight you want to give that evidence is subjective. But to say it has no weight as evidence would be incorrect.

Then you are incorrect about it being incorrect.

I think some skeptics are terrified to give any weight at all to something that might increase the likelihood of the resurrection and I think that hurts their image as being unbiased searchers looking for the truth.

I think some DOCs are terrified of logic.

I would estimate there is 100% chance that popular music would be around whether Elvis was alive or not. But when you think about it the existence of Christianity doesn't even make sense without the Resurrection.

Flawed analogy.
The correct analogy is
Elvis is to popular Music
as
Jesus is to Popular religion, not christianity.

So in order for your argument to make sense, you would have to claim that religion wouldn't be popular if it wasn't for jesus. Considering that the majority of people in the world ARE NOT christian, your argument makes no sense what so ever.
The proper analogy would be "I would estimate
Therefore, the fact that it does exist 2000 years later, and is the largest religion in the world, can be in itself partial evidence for the resurrection. Even though this fact is obvious when you think about it, most people never consider it.[/QUOTE]
STUPID STUPID STUPID.

 

[six7s]

But when you think about it the existence of Christianity doesn't even make sense without the Resurrection.

OK... run with that 'thought' and please explain the continued existence of religions much, much older than christianity, e.g.

• hinduism
• buddhism
• judaism

 

[amb]

Religion has always existed in one form or another on this planet. Just because christianity rose to become the largest for many reasons including that the Emperor Constantine adopted it as the official religion of the Roman Empire does not make it correct/true.
It came from a superstition of a man-god who rose from the dead. Had all this happened a decade ago instead of 2000 years ago, it would have fewer than a couple of hundred followers.

 

[AdinDraco]

Going by Doc's logic, would that mean that Islam, which seems to be on the rise (in Europe at least) is somehow truer? Given that non-belief is on the rise, does that mean that christianity is becoming less true? Argument from popularity is fallacious for a reason.

 

[amb]

Going by Doc's logic, would that mean that Islam, which seems to be on the rise (in Europe at least) is somehow truer? Given that non-belief is on the rise, does that mean that christianity is becoming less true? Argument from popularity is fallacious for a reason.

The rise of islam is mainly due to their very large families. Apart from some idiots, I don't hear of too many people converting to that most despicable of violent religions. Some islamic nutter tried only a few days ago to bomb a Detroit heading aircraft with over 300 people aboard.

 

[dafydd]

That's not accurate, Doc.

2000 years ago, the world was not as connected as it is now. Fables and tall-tales were the norm - and they were believed, in their own times, to be factual.

Hearsay is still that, hearsay. Regardless of how many people believe it, it's still hearsay. Hearsay is not, in any way, valid proof/evidence for anything. It can lend credence to other existing evidence, but if we have no hard evidence, then we are forced to discard the hearsay as nothing more than rumors.

Don't start that again,we have already established that Doc does not know the meaning of the word hearsay.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The rise of islam is mainly due to their very large families. Apart from some idiots, I don't hear of too many people converting to that most despicable of violent religions. Some islamic nutter tried only a few days ago to bomb a Detroit heading aircraft with over 300 people aboard.

Yeah they are all mad raving fanatics just itching to take out a few infidels for a ticket to paradise. [/derail]

 

[six7s]

The rise of islam is mainly due to their very large families. Apart from some idiots, I don't hear of too many people converting to that most despicable of violent religions.

Maybe you're not listening very well...

Fastest-Growing Religion Often Misunderstood
By Barr Seitz, of ABCNEWS.com

Cambel, 23, has joined one of the fastest growing religions in the United States. Experts agree Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America. As many as five million Muslims live in the United States and in the last five years, the number of mosques in this country has increased from 843 to about 1,300. Most of the growth has come from immigration, but much of it is home-grown. For many black Americans, Islam has become the religion of choice and some one million—mostly men—have converted. “It is an American phenomenon, which started in the ghettoes of the north,” says Yvonne Haedad, a professor of history of Islam and of Christian-Muslim Relations at Georgetown University. “It is a response to racism…it is seen as the religion of liberation.”

 

[amb]

Surly now that an African American man has been elected President this phenomena will at least slow down the migration of blacks to islam. Do they not realise that they are going from the fry pan into the fire?

 

[Lothian]

If there was a guy named Bob and he told his followers he was the son of God and he would rise from the dead. Would you say there was a greater chance for rapid growth of the "religion of Bob" if he rose from the dead and appeared to his followers. Or if he did not rise from the dead and did not appear to his followers?

Doc, I have told you evidence does not start with 'if'.

I struggle with abstract analogies.

Rather than Bob can we have Joseph and rather than the resurrection; golden plates. Please then explain how the rise of Mormonism is evidence that God gave Joseph Smith the Golden plates.

I maintain that if your answer is there is a greater chance for growth if he did indeed rise from the dead, then when we are told there was great growth of the religion of Bob after his death, that fact would increase the likelihood that Bob did rise from the dead more than if we were told the religion of Bob did not grow after his death. Since that fact increases the likelihood of the Resurrection, it can be considered partial evidence. How much weight you want to give that evidence is subjective. But to say it has no weight as evidence would be incorrect. I think some skeptics are terrified to give any weight at all to something that might increase the likelihood of the resurrection and I think that hurts their image as being unbiased searchers looking for the truth.

The problem is that you use terms like 'greater chance' that is meaningless. If Jesus rose from the dead I would expect that there would be evidence that the NT writers told this truth, and the whole world would believe. We clearly have seen a much lower than expected growth of Christianity than we would if Jesus was resurrected.

You are also missing the fact that those people who today (and for the last 1980 years or so) are and choose to be Christians have no first hand knowledge of the resurrection. They rely only on the stories passed to them. Of the people around at the time we do not have any original writings. We have the bible which purports to tell their story but we know these stories were put together sometime after the events by people who were not there. As we have established there is no evidence that any of the supernatural events in the bible are true. It follows that the numbers believing are simply reflections of the appeal of the stories handed down not the truth of them.

If popularity = truth, every time someone converts then one religion becomes more true and the other less. That is silly, Christianity is no more or less true today than the day is was made up.

 

[amb]

I think it's time a new thread was started discussing if this Jesus guy can be found in real history outside of the gospels. Can any credence be placed on references from writers of ancient history, writers such as Josephus, Tacitus etc.

This video has been criticized by so-called experts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU&feature=player_embedded

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

Yes, but the likelihood of Bob being being raised from the dead is still greater if we know his religion grew fast then if we were told it did not grow.

No it isn't. Otherwise the success of every other religion - and there have been plenty of others - are therefore evidence of the truth of their claims. You don't believe the claims of Mohammed, you ignore Ahura Mazda, you ignore the Greek gods, the Roman gods. More importantly, you ignore the fact that most people don't actually believe in christianity at all. Though on reflection, the very 'success' of christianity actually belies your point. The more people over the ages that have believed in it, the further away that they are removed from anything that can possible be described as facts or evidence. Unless of course someone ever manages to show some evidence that the NT account of the resurrection is true. So they aren't proof - they are the opposite. They show that people will believe without proof.

 

[Cleon]

LDS. The Mormon faith has grown far quicker over the past 150 years than Christianity did in its first few centuries.

DOC, doesn't that mean that it's more likely that the Book of Mormon is the truth?

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

I guess that one other aspect against DOC's interpretation - though admittedly rather speculative - would concern the number of Christians in the 1st century. I've racked my brain and can't recall anything that I've ever read that purports to give anything more than a vague guess. Here I appeal to those with more knowledge than me - if anyone can think of anything, please let me know.

But what is noticeable is the absence of any report of mass conversions. Granted, it wasn't guaranteed to be noted. I realise that and accept it. But think about it. According to the gospels, Jesus miraculously fed 5000 people. He then brought a man back to life. He wandered around Jerusalem performing miracles and managed to attract the attention of the temple pharisees, who then ensured his death. And then, though again I've yet to see any proof presented for it, he is supposed to have come back to life and wandered around for a few days.

I've never seen anything to suggest that the early churches were large. The [probably] mythical Council of Jerusalem doesn't seem to record that there were so many adherents.

As I say, this is an argument from absence and therefore not susceptible to proof. But I cannot help but think that if all of these things were true, perhaps a fair amount of these people might have converted. But there is no record of it. And there is certainly nothing to suggest that all of them eventually converted - which begs the question of why people who it is claimed actually witnessed 'miracles' failed to convert. And why others should be expected to on thousands of years of lies and hearsay.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, but the likelihood of Bob being being raised from the dead is still greater if we know his religion grew fast then if we were told it did not grow.

DOC, wouldn't it be more likely that everyone in the world would become Christians if Jesus had actually risen from the dead?

Therefore, it's more likely that since everyone in the world is not Christian, that Christianity is a false religion?

Ow, it hurts my head to use DOGIC (DOC logic).

 

[Cactus Wren]

If there was a guy named Bob and he told his followers he was the son of God and he would rise from the dead. Would you say there was a greater chance for rapid growth of the "religion of Bob" if he rose from the dead and appeared to his followers. Or if he did not rise from the dead and did not appear to his followers?

If a group of people decided to form a new religion by splintering off from an established group, would you say there was a greater chance for rapid growth of the new religion if the leaders said, "Our founder said he would rise from the dead and he did! He rose and appeared to us!" or if they said, "Our founder said he would rise from the dead, but he never did. He's still in his grave"?

 

[DOC]

LDS. The Mormon faith has grown far quicker over the past 150 years than Christianity did in its first few centuries.

DOC, doesn't that mean that it's more likely that the Book of Mormon is the truth?

Well, the Mormon church wouldn't even be in existence without Christianity -- it's an offshoot. And what is your source for your first sentence?

And Joseph Smith, founder of the offshoot religion didn't claim he was going to be raised from the dead, whereas Christ did. The resurrection of Christ is the whole essence of Christianity and it doesn't make sense for it to grow so quickly if it didn't happen -- especially when Christ's followers exhibited cowardice and uncertainty before his death. On the other hand the principles of Mormonism could go on regardless of whether Joseph Smith existed or not. His existence was not central to the religion's principles as is Christ's resurrection central to Christianity.

And the Mormons had to flee to the middle of nowhere (Utah) to grow substantially (and also grew from within because of polygamy) whereas Christianity grew within the dangerous Roman empire its first 300 years.

But the fact Mormonism did grow can be considered "some" evidence or indication of its possible truth. Of course this fact alone wouldn't be enough to convince me, but it is more of a positive for the truth of Mormonism than if the church declined in numbers. There are many other factors that are needed to add weight to the totality of evidence but the growth of a religion can be considered some weight. The importance of that weight is subjective.

The rapid growth of Christianity in the dangerous Roman Empire in itself would not be enough to convince me of its truth, but the existence of that fact does support my belief more so than if Christianity didn't grow much. Therefore it meets the definition of evidence (see post 13) because it is a thing that is helpful in my forming a judgment.

 

[Hokulele]

But the fact Mormonism did grow can be considered "some" evidence or indication of its possible truth. Of course this fact alone wouldn't be enough to convince me, but it is more of a positive for the truth of Mormonism than if the church declined in numbers. There are many other factors that are needed to add weight to the totality of evidence but the growth of a religion can be considered some weight. The importance of that weight is subjective.

Ah, so your claim that Christianity is on the decline in the US (which you have made in several posts in various threads) is evidence that the authors of the New Testament did not tell the truth.

Got it.

 

[DOC]

Ah, so your claim that Christianity is on the decline in the US (which you have made in several posts in various threads) is evidence that the authors of the New Testament did not tell the truth.

Got it.

But Christianity is on the rise worldwide. It's numbers are increasing.

And I don't remember saying Christianity is on the decline in the US in several posts.