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

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
Pay attention this time:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Jesus doesn't state that parable with the idea that it is acceptable to force the sale of people and property to pay off debt. Instead, the parable states that if you forgive others as god forgives you, all's cool. If you don't, then you'll be tortured.

Interestingly, the parable makes the implicit assumption that we all owe god an immense debt that he forgave us of, which is something else I can't accept. It's the protection racket version of morality.
 
Actually I'm dead serious about every one of my 4,414 posts.


I made most of my 5200 posts up as I was typing them, usually as a joke response to something because I have trouble keeping up with the srs bsns.

I find it horrifying that people would take me seriously, when there are so many clever people that they should be listening to.

Now, having said that, I'll pose you a hypothetical question of my own.

Who do you think would win a credibility poll here, the Joker or the Proselytizer?


Go on, dare me to do it.


Waenre
 
Last edited:
DOC, it's not about whether or not the item is possible. It's about which person you trust.
.

Well then you disagree with the people in here who say "whether the item is possible" is important to the question.

And I agree with you, my hypothetical question was about who do you trust more, which I believe should be obvious -- you trust the person who was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic over some random person when you find out only one person can be right.

Consider MY hypothetical:

Let's change your hypothetical to see why this is:
If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.

And person A claimed he ate a ham sandwich last night.
And person B claimed he ate a ham sandwich two weeks ago .

And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.


Which person do you believe is telling the truth about eating a ham sandwich? and why?

Well in my original question I should of additionally said that the person who said I will kill you if you don't answer the question right was absolutely telling the truth when he said only one person was right?

And in answer to your question, if it was absolutely true that only one person was right, my response would be easy to make. My response would be A, because the incident happened almost 2 weeks sooner so it was easier to remember such a mundane incident, and also A would have much more credibility to me (over some random person) because A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic.

And if A said he saw a flying giraffe and B said he saw a flying giraffe in a "hypothetical" question, I wouldn't worry one second about whether or not it was possible for a flying giraffe to exist since it was only a hypothetical question and I would answer A is more likely to be correct in this hypothetical question since he has more credibility with me over some random person off the street.
 
Last edited:
.

Well then you disagree with the people in here who say "whether the item is possible" is important to the question.
You miss my meaning. My point is that if the item is impossible, I have additional information to know that neither are telling the truth.

My point was that even if it's a case where we know the item can be true, the positive reputation of one person doesn't impact my trust in another person's statement.

And I agree with you, my hypothetical question was about who do you trust more, which I believe should be obvious -- you trust the person who was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic over some random person when you find out only one is right.
again. No.
There is no reason to trust a person called a great historian more. Especially about something outside their field of expertise.

I gave an example of this. Newton is one of the most important people in physics history. However, he believed in alchemy. That is a perfect example of how/why reputation in one area doesn't mean a free pass.


Well in my original question I should of additionally said that the person who said I will kill you if you don't answer the question right was absolutely telling the truth when he said only one person was right?
You can't know that they were absolutely telling the truth. You're adding to the hypothetical.
And in answer to your question, if it was absolutely true that only one person was right, my response would be easy to make.
Of course you can't know this. It's not part of the hypothetical.

My response would be A, because the incident happened almost 2 weeks sooner so it was easier to remember such a mundane incident, and also A would have much more credibility to me (over some random person) because A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic.
This is highly illogical. There is no reason to assume a "famous" historian is telling truth about lunch and not someone else.


And if A said he saw a flying giraffe and B said he saw a flying giraffe in a "hypothetical" question, I wouldn't worry one second about whether or not it was possible for a flying giraffe to exist since it was only a hypothetical question and I would answer A is more likely to be correct in this hypothetical question.
Then you are being completely foolish.
Rationality trumps all. If something is impossible, I get to use that bit of information to know if someone is lying or not. That's reality.


Now, DOC, in your defense, Reputation does matter. But only negative reputation. If we have person A and B, and they give conflicting testimonies on the SAME setting. (for instance, one claims the bears won and the other claimed the ravens won).
If person A is known to be a liar, I would not trust their testimony. and place greater weight on person B.

However, if person A is known to be a "famous historian", that doesn't mean I instantly trust their testimony more than someone else.
 
You can't contrive the time period you lived in. You can't contrive being born in country where Bethlehem exists. You can't contrive how the Romans decided to put you to death. For example some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.
ETA: The Jews killed by stoning, not crucifixion.
For the fourth time:

DOC, do you have any references that might substantiate your vague claim?
 
And I agree with you, my hypothetical question was about who do you trust more, which I believe should be obvious -- you trust the person who was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic over some random person when you find out only one person can be right.
hiliting mine


I'm reminded of your claim to have taken (and passed) a course in logic.

If that is true, you've evidently failed to retain the knowledge, because this post clearly shows that you have no understanding of logical fallacies.

Which is, frankly, an impressive level of ignorance, since the fallacy in questions has been explained to you repeatedly in this very thread.
 
Suggestions on how to draw 'Appeal to Authority'? I got nothin'


ETA:

Word.jpg

I looked it up, and a Becks beats a Ramsay. I win.
 
Last edited:
This is somewhat of a derail (sort of, it does fit in this thread)...

There I was, just a short while ago, scrubbing away at a tool at work when I had an epiphany...

Being as there's absolutely no evidence that the NT writers were telling the truth, I have a plausible scenario for how the whole NT thing was started...

So, we have the "Virgin" Mary...an unwed teen from the hood (aka Mary Hoodrat) who realizes she's pregnant - a stoning offense back in the day (still is in some parts of the world, in fact). Scared of what her parents will do to her when they find out, she points the finger skyward and says "Goddidit. I swear Daddy. I'm still a virgin!" Her parents, devout Jews not only accept this, they believe their daughter is special (speshul?) As does Joseph (who's either the real father or the sucker - false dichotomy? Maybe he's both...:D)

Her parents go to the Synagogue on the Sabbath and begin spreading the wonderful news - that Mary, their daughter, has been chosen by God to bear the "prophesied" savior. Cue snowball, and voila - the NT...

Prove me wrong, Doc.
 
six7s said:
...some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.

ETA: The Jews killed by stoning, not crucifixion.
For the fourth time:

DOC, do you have any references that might substantiate your vague claim?
I've already answered that, if you don't like my question so be it.
Its not that i don't like it... I skimmed about five pages of the backlog and saw nothing in the way of a reply...

Please, do repeat it
 
This is highly illogical. There is no reason to assume a "famous" historian is telling truth about lunch and not someone else.
Sure there is when your talking about something that happened over a day ago. Someone like Luke who has proven he is highly accurate in details is not likely to to be loosey goosey with the facts like some random person off the street.

Answer me this Joobz if your life was on the line if you answered wrong who would you say was the one who is most likely to be right about the sandwich. And they both claimed to eat the sandwich 3 days ago.

A Famous historian who was called one of the world's greatest.

B Some random person off the street.

C Either one because its a 50 50 propositon.
 
Last edited:
I've already answered that, if you don't like my question so be it.

Very true. You made the claim (classic claim it should be noted) that Psalm 22 predicts Jesus.

However, upon closer inspection, we see that you this argument doesn't make any sense. Indeed, it requires highly flawed translations to even make sense. And even if we accept it as prophecy, it would mean that Jesus was prophecized to be a normal man and not a god made flesh.


Yes. Psalm 22 is quite interesting in regards to the story.
Obviously, first and for most, Mathew 27:46, where jesus says:
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!" is a reference to the first line of psalm 22. This has been the source for the claim that this psalm is a prophecy of Jesus.

Interestingly, it has the following implications (not mutually exclusive)
1.) Psalm 22 clearly is written in the first person by a follower of god. Nowhere in the text of Psalm 22 does it suggest that the speaker is, in fact, god. But is merely one who is singled out and beaten upon by the wicked people surrounding him. The Psalm speaks of glory to come, regardless of the strife being observed today. That one day, the Lord's kingdom will be everywhere. that the "The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever." (inherit the earth, anyone?)

2.) it was a clearly intentional allusion in matthew. Whether or not this allusion was intentional by the author of matthew or by (in fact) jesus, is unkown. NO extrabiblical account exists of Jesus' words, so we can't know it is a fabrication. What we do know is that who ever made the allusion made it expressly with the idea that the speaker of the words (Why hast thou forsaken me) considered himself a man and not god.


So, if we do accept the idea that the psalm is prophecy, and prophecy fulfilled, christians must accept that this prophecy states Jesus was a man and not god.


But I do not believe that. It seems to me another example of the Jesus narrative being of redemption and the eminent coming of god. Remember that Christianity emerged from Jewish apocalyptic cults. Cults that would be familiar with passages like Psalm 22, which is incredibly apocalyptic in it's statements. The author of Matthew most likely made the allusion to emphasize the idea that god will win in the end and his followers will be the big winners, which is sort of the point of Psalm 22.


ETA:
Interestingly, a Jewish translation of the Jewish Psalm 22 states:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Psalms22.html
Psalm 22:17 " For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."


Interesting how the bible translation has lacks the "like a lion" part.
The original Hebrew text states:
יז כִּי סְבָבוּנִי, כְּלָבִים: עֲדַת מְרֵעִים, הִקִּיפוּנִי; כָּאֲרִי, יָדַי וְרַגְלָי.

Notice the word:
כָּאֲרִי,
which translates as aryan, or like a lion

go one step further from:
http://www.behindthename.com/nmc/jew.php

ARI (1) אֲרִי m Hebrew
Means "lion" in Hebrew.


From another site we are given a bit more clarity of what this states:
"In Hebrew, the verse reads karah ari yad regal. Literally, mauled lion hands feet. Or, the lion mauled my hands and feet. The KJV, and virtually all Christian translations, completely ignores the word ari. It’s easy to see why they do that – because it significantly alters the context of the verse. If we’re talking about lions mauling the Psalmist rather than the Psalmist being pierced by some unknown entity, then it’s clear it doesn’t refer to Jesus. Fabricating messianic prophecy via incorrect translation is a modus operandi of Christians today and has been throughout history."
http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id18.html


Do you not think it odd that the KJV translation of the bible completely omits this "like a lion" part?
 
Its not that i don't like it... I skimmed about five pages of the backlog and saw nothing in the way of a reply...

Please, do repeat it
If you agree to apologize for making me look it up I'll do it.
 
Sure there is when your talking about something that happened over a day ago. Someone like Luke who has proven he is highly accurate in details in not likely to to be loosey goosey with the facts like some random person off the street.

Answer me this Joobz if your life was on the line if you answered wrong who would you say was the one who is most likely to be right about the sandwich. And they both claimed to eat the sandwich 3 days ago.

A Famous historian who was called one of the world's greatest.

B Some random person off the street.

C Either one because its a 50 50 propositon.

I'm going with "C"...mostly because even the most famous person in the world can be (and often is) wrong. The data presented is what carries the weight, not the credentials of the person presenting the data. This, in fact, is what Ramsey is saying in the passage you, yourself, posted in this very thread. Ramsey says that while Luke was a first rate historian, that is not enough to prove the supernatural events of the bible are true because the data does not support this assertion. Ironic fail (again) resulting from a poorly executed quote mine...
 
Sure there is when your talking about something that happened over a day ago. Someone like Luke who has proven he is highly accurate in details is not likely to to be loosey goosey with the facts like some random person off the street.
there is no reason to assume someone on the street is loosey goosey with facts. Again, my hypothetical only dealt with eating a ham sandwich. Nothing more nothing less.


Answer me this Joobz if your life was on the line if you answered wrong who would you say was the one who is most likely to be right about the sandwich. And they both claimed to eat the sandwich 3 days ago.

A Famous historian who was called one of the world's greatest.

B Some random person off the street.

C Either one because its a 50 50 propositon.
I would say there is no way to know without knowing more. That is the plain and simple truth.

This is my honest opinion.
If you were to tell me that person B was a secretary, or highschool student, or farmer, or a famous novelist, I would still say there isn't enough information to give an answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom