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

[Akhenaten]

If you want to read about what I say about science and you have a couple of weeks to spare you can read these threads I put up.

<snip>

And we even have paper which they didn't have then.

What comes up for you when you Google 'papyrus', DOC?

Now back to this thread.

Quite

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Another post where you say nothing but ask questions, explain nothing, and is a total waste of time. Your whole purpose in these type of useless posts is to try to demean me in some way and we learn nothing. You might fool some people but putting useless posts like this up will sooner or later destroy any credibility you might have.

Actually, if you would answer the questions presented (rather than posting no-explanation posts that attack other posters, ya know - instead of letting the posts just stand for themselves), then maybe we would learn something.

Instead, you choose to regurgitate the same crap over and over - this is why nothing new is being learned from your posts. I have learned quite a bit throughout this thread - but it was most definitely not from you (nor your 1470+ posts), Doc.

 

[Paulhoff]

65, 66, 67, 68, and 69 are less than 70, the year the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple.

65 AD thru 80 AD is a range of years that are thought that the gospels where written. What makes you think that the Jesus temple thing was written in only those first few years.

Paul

 

[six7s]

Another post where you say nothing but ask questions, explain nothing, and is a total waste of time. Your whole purpose in these type of useless posts is to try to demean me in some way and we learn nothing. You might fool some people but putting useless posts like this up will sooner or later destroy any credibility you might have.

It's only a "total waste of time" if you persist in being obtuse and refuse to answer such simple, straightforward and pertinent questions

• Do have any idea what abiogenesis entails?

• Do you understand how it differs from evolution, by any definition at all?

• Do you even know the true definition of the word "evolution" and why Darwin originally rejected it as a name for his theory?

As YOU are the one making extraodinary claims, it is YOUR credibility that is at stake here.

The way you respond to these (and other, similar) questions is the MOST significant factor in determining your credibility, which can only improve as - so far - it's zip, nada, zilch

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5481073#post5481073

Now, back to this thread.

And you have the gall to accuse others of wasting time!

Seriously DOC...

With your credibility at a record low, you really ain't doing your side any favours

TIP:

When you find yourself in a hole, the trick - to finding a way out - is to resist the urge to dig down​

 

[joobz]

And you have the gall to accuse others of wasting time!

Seriously DOC...

With your credibility at a record low, you really ain't doing your side any favours

TIP:

When you find yourself in a hole, the trick - to finding a way out - is to resist the urge to dig down​

I thought I provided a rather clear and honest analysis of how one maintains/improves credibility. You would think DOC would perhaps pay attention, given his desire to challenge others' credibility.

 

[DOC]

Instead, you choose to regurgitate the same crap over and over - this is why nothing new is being learned from your posts. I have learned quite a bit throughout this thread - but it was most definitely not from you (nor your 1470+ posts), Doc.

So then you knew about all of these facts I brought in before you started to read the thread?

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

The Moral Argument,

The Cosmological Argument,

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

The fact that there are 41 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points. This can be expected in a thread this long but every once in awhile new info does come out. For example most people probably did not know the new information that many people died of famine in Jerusalem around 70 ad and Jerusalem was reported to be completely destroyed by the Romans during that time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps DOC will have a New Year's resolution of not making fallacious arguments? This thread could then be put back on topic with some actual evidence.

I didn't really believe it myself.

 

[X]

Most of DOC's post was the same long-debunked and completely irrelevant nonsense we've seen before.

Nevertheless, I want to pick out one point, and I will continue to do this until DOC understands.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

LIAR!

 

[Hokulele]

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

Which is an incomplete quote taken out of context by a person who died long before much of the current knowledge of the bible was learned.

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

Which is an incomplete quote taken out of context by a person who died long before much of the current knowledge of the bible was learned.

The Moral Argument,

Which has serious flaws and isn't used by anyone other than severely myopic apologists.

The Cosmological Argument,

Which has serious flaws and isn't used by anyone other than severely myopic apologists.

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

Which turns out to be false when the claim is examined. How many of those are original and how many are relatvely recent documents? Hmmm?

The fact that there are 41 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Which is not only false, but completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This says nothing regarding the resurrection.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Which is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This says nothing regarding the resurrection.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Which is completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This proves nothing regarding the resurrection.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Which is not only false, but completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This proves nothing regarding the resurrection. Most archaeologists? Really? I suppose you can support this claim, right?

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

Which is not only unsupported, but completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This proves nothing regarding the resurrection.

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points.

No, it gets repeated because you do not actually have any evidence of the resurrection.

This can be expected in a thread this long but every once in awhile new info does come out. For example most people probably did not know that many people died of famine in Jerusalem around 70 ad and Jerusalem was reported to be completely destroyed during that time.

I bet most people do not know that Proxima Centauri is the closest neighboring star. What exactly that has to do with anything is beyond me, but there it is.

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you knew about all of these facts I brought in before you started to read the thread?

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

The Moral Argument,

The Cosmological Argument,

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

The fact that there are 41 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points. This can be expected in a thread this long but every once in awhile new info does come out. For example most people probably did not know the new information that many people died of famine in Jerusalem around 70 ad and Jerusalem was reported to be completely destroyed by the Romans during that time.

So, still no evidence then?

Pity they didn't have papyrus back then to write stuff down. You might be able to find some if they had.

 

[X]

Uhhh... Hokulele?

The topic isn't the resurrection, but whether the New Testament writers told the truth.

All of what you quoted is either discredited or irrelevant on the point.

I appreciate that you are using the resurrection as an example of the unproven and unevidenced supernaturalism in the Bible, but since your objections apply to much much more than just that one event, wouldn't it be better to make broader references?

That way DOC can't object by saying that the resurrection is not the main topic of this thread.


That said, kudos to you.
You had more patience than I did to rebut every point DOC made. I read them, but with the quote-mining exception, couldn't be bothered to rebut the same nonsense yet again.

 

[Hokulele]

Uhhh... Hokulele?

The topic isn't the resurrection, but whether the New Testament writers told the truth.

All of what you quoted is either discredited or irrelevant on the point.

I appreciate that you are using the resurrection as an example of the unproven and unevidenced supernaturalism in the Bible, but since your objections apply to much much more than just that one event, wouldn't it be better to make broader references?

That way DOC can't object by saying that the resurrection is not the main topic of this thread.

The point is that DOC, early on in this thread, stated something along the lines that the resurrection was the most important event in the New Testament and is essentially the basis of Christianity. I do not dispute that there are things in the New Testament that are true, but that the things that are unevidenced are the important ones (virgin birth, resurrection, miracles, etc.). I couldn't care less that Luke knew the name of a town on the bank of the sea of Galilee. Without evidence for the important bits, the New Testament is nothing but an interesting historical and cultural document. Nothing special.

That said, kudos to you.
You had more patience than I did to rebut every point DOC made. I read them, but with the quote-mining exception, couldn't be bothered to rebut the same nonsense yet again.

Actually, I posted in a bit of hurry. In the background, I have saved that post and am creating a response where links to posts where every single bit of DOC's nonsense is refuted. This way when he splurges out this list again (and he will), I can just copy and paste the response to the copy and pasted list.

And now, some muzak while we wait for the parade of martyrs to make their next appearance...

 

[Baylor]

Why are we discussing this when we could be discussing Wilt Chamberlain's penis?

 

[joobz]

The Moral Argument,

What moral argument? The one which shows that Jesus condoned the beating of slaves (or as you call them, servants) who unknowingly broke rules.
You know, the kind of behavior that would land a person in jail in today's society, Jesus(the person you say is god) condoned and thought was completely acceptable.

 

[amb]

You people out there realize of course that this discussion could quite possibly be about nothing if the founder of christianity proves to have never existed in real history.

www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

[Hokulele]

So then you knew about all of these facts I brought in before you started to read the thread?

All of these "facts", most of which have been refuted, don't even support your premise. But just for fun, here we go:

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5093485#post5093485

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2659155#post2659155

The Moral Argument,

Although there are bits and bobs of discussion about this, the best summary of this in all its forms is here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

The Cosmological Argument,

Discussed (ad nauseum) here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4984792#post4984792

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5042421#post5042421

The fact that there are 41 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Discussion on the 9 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ (ignoring the 31 Christian sources as it is using the NT as evidence for the NT, yellow flag, 15 yard penalty, repeat 3rd down):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3279037#post3279037

Ignoring the bit about Caesar as being a meaningless tu quoque.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Well, this is the closest thing to being a fact (at least the bit about Nero). Of course, most of the credit can go to Paul who, as we all know, never met Jesus in person. At best, he had some sort of visionary experience. I would say this point is more evidence that Paul was convincing than what he believed had any basis in truth. Of course, many people have tried to use the spread of Christianity as an argument of its truth, but that rarely ends well, as can be seen here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94853&page=3

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Refuted here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4705438#post4705438

And here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4708185#post4708185

And here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4720381#post4720381

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Partially discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5124142#post5124142

More discussion here, with much more detail about any archeological support of any biblical story:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4997467#post4997467

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

Discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4664470#post4664470

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points.

The same questions are repeated because these arguments have all been refuted, and just like a Weeble, they keep coming back up again.

And most interestingly, none of these "facts" have much to do with the "evidence" laid out in the OP. Of course, those were dealt with pretty much on page 1.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So then you knew about all of these facts I brought in before you started to read the thread?

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

The Moral Argument,

The Cosmological Argument,

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

The fact that there are 41 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points. This can be expected in a thread this long but every once in awhile new info does come out. For example most people probably did not know the new information that many people died of famine in Jerusalem around 70 ad and Jerusalem was reported to be completely destroyed by the Romans during that time.

While Hok did an excellent job of pointing out why none of those points are valid...as this post was directed at me, I'd like to respond:

Doc, you fail to realize that everything you've claimed to be true has turned out to be not so true/accurate. As such, I haven't learned anything from what you've posted. The facts/factoids I have learned of from this thread were all presented by others (for which I am, btw, most grateful) in response to, and correcting, your fallacious arguments/lies.

 

[dafydd]

So then you knew about all of these facts I brought in before you started to read the thread?

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay calling gospel writer Luke a great historian,

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection.

The Moral Argument,

The Cosmological Argument,

the fact that there is over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

The fact that there are 41 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

And a big reason some of these get repeated is that they are needed to give a complete response to some skeptics who keep asking the same questions or bring up the same points. This can be expected in a thread this long but every once in awhile new info does come out. For example most people probably did not know the new information that many people died of famine in Jerusalem around 70 ad and Jerusalem was reported to be completely destroyed by the Romans during that time.

Sometimes I get the strangest feeling of deja vu..........

 

[paximperium]

I do find DOC's factoids amusing since I always have to fact check his claims due to his tendency to lie so often. I do learn some interesting points on those occasion while doing this research but more often than not learn the complete opposite of his claims.

His factoids are amusing and still completely irrelevant to his epic failure of supporting his OP.

 

[DOC]

I do find DOC's factoids amusing since I always have to fact check his claims due to his tendency to lie so often.

Of course you won't be able to give one lie I've have supposedly made in over 4000 posts I've have made since I have been on the system. But that has never stopped you before, so why should this time be any different and it will more than likely continue. I find it so ironic that someone who continuously asks where's the evidence has absolutely none for your assertion about lying. It's really quite sad when you think about it.