• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Posted by Hokulele

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




Likelystory, here is how I responded to Hokulele's statement she made in post #3.
Click to expand...

So what's the diff between evidence and proof?
 
DOC said:
You've must have missed all the posts on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. And are you seriously saying the historical person Jesus' body did not disappear.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence he even existed, so we're still a ways to claiming that his body was in a particular place, and then dissapeared. The fact that people believe in it is not evidence.

it certainly is evidence (although not proof) when the famous historical person 11 apostles were following for 3 years died and was reported to have risen from the dead within their lifetime and in their hometown.
Click to expand...

He wasn't. Someone wrote about it 40-60 years later. Some reporting.

Don't you think they required some evidence he rose from the dead?
Click to expand...

If they required evidence of the sort people need today to believe in crap like reflexology, no, not really.

Let's put it this way, is the truth of Christianity more likely because it grew in a dangerous environment where you could killed for your belief or if it grew out in the middle of nowhere in a peaceful environment like the Mormon Church in Utah.
Click to expand...

Neither. Truth is not related to degree of faith.
 
DOC said:
Well Jesus did tell the apostles there was some things he did not teach because they were more then they could bear and that he would send the Holly Spirit who would teach all things. The bible also said Jesus said many things that were not recorded just before he was resurrected.

Slavery could have been one of those things he did not think the apostles could bear at that time or slavery could have been one of those many things he talked about that was not recorded.
Click to expand...

Are you... are you trying to ascertain the mind of god ? I thought that was a big no-no.
 
DOC said:
So you believe some stranger off the internet you have never met, but you don't believe someone called one of the world's greatest historians (gospel writer Luke) by Sir William M. Ramsay?
Click to expand...

Sir William M. Ramsay is a stranger to me. So why should I believe his opinion ?

I thought we'd been through this before. How is 'Luke' an example of a great historian ?
 
DOC said:
Well Jesus did tell the apostles there was some things he did not teach because they were more then they could bear and that he would send the Holly Spirit who would teach all things. The bible also said Jesus said many things that were not recorded just before he was resurrected.
Click to expand...


HollySpirit.jpg
 
DOC said:
So you believe some stranger off the internet you have never met, but you don't believe someone called one of the world's greatest historians (gospel writer Luke) by Sir William M. Ramsay?

And even if what this single person says is true, that's just his opinion and doesn't prove Geisler and others are wrong. Even Jesus caused people to hate him, does that mean Jesus is wrong. Notice as of yet, this person has not explained specifically why he has lost his faith, just that he has. If he "specifically" said why and what "specific" posts caused this maybe I could show him that his reasoning is incorrect or not logical.
Click to expand...

A. Sir William Ramsay is some stranger who did "research" a hundred years or so ago, much of which has been superseded by more recent studies. So he's not that different from "some stranger on the internet."

B. "Even Jesus" caused people to hate him. Are you comparing yourself to Jesus? Isn't that just a teensy weensy beensy bit spiritually arrogant? And Carlitos didn't say he hated you. He said your arguments, meant to display evidence that the authors of the New Testament were telling the truth, have in fact had exactly the opposite effect on at least one Christian.

C. I suppose it's beyond your powers of comprehension that it's the general tenor of your posting - the "coulda, woulda, mighta" strain of argument, the constant return to arguments and theories that have been pretty conclusively disposed of, the general ignorance of science and contemporary Bible scholarship, the support of truly abhorrent practices, and the special pleading - that have dissuaded Carlitos, rather than one or two specific posts.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
No. Most historians agree there was probably a real person Jesus who inspired the legend. They don't agree that there is any actual evidence that he existed. But I don't expect you to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Well, the existence of Christianity would be considered evidence for the existence of Jesus.

The testimonies (Gospels) could also be considered evidences for both Jesus' existence and his performing of miracles, but very, very weak ones. Hearsay of the weakest kind (being written decades after the fact and from author unknown -the identification of authorship being even weaker hearsay)
In a trial, I can't find how the Gospels would not be immediately rejected as evidence.

On the other hands, the absence of corroborating testimonies when some would be expected (earthquake, walking dead...) would be evidence that the events did not occur as mentioned in the Gospels.
(for example, John's alibi was that he was out of town for a meeting at the time of the murder but he is unable to show a train ticket or a highway receipt or a hotel bill and his credit card does not mention any withdrawal out of town at the same time, worse, the registry he supposedly attended his lacking his signature. This absence of expected evidence would be inconsistent with the hypothesis and would be considered as falsifying evidence: John lied and never went to that meeting).

Similarly, there are apparent contradictions in the Gospels accounts (identity of women going to see the tomb; number of angels...).
(John say he took a train downtown and then was late for having to park his car, when the contradiction is pointed to him, he explains that a friend also drove his car there so that he could drive too because he hates the subway. That seem a far stretched explanation and the most logical explanation is simply that the accounts are simple contradictory and John lied).


These two line of evidences clearly out-weight the remarkably meager evidence supporting the Gospels.
None of this directly contradict the existence of Jesus, which is therefore often accepted by Historians, but it clearly falsify the literal truth of the Gospels whose literal account can be rejected.

I know I am repeating myself, but, he, I already knew and mention in that post that Doc would avoid it...
 
Coming thick and fast.
Two Dozen 24,
More than Eleven 37,
Once score 20,
8 Garden gate, and
Get Up and Run 31
1 | xx | 3 |xx | 5 | xx | xx | xx | 9 | 10
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx
21 | 22 | xx | xx | 25 | xx | 27 | xx | 29 | 30
xx | 32 | 33 | xx | 35 | xx | xx | 38 | xx | 40
41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
it certainly is evidence (although not proof) when the famous historical person 11 apostles were following for 3 years died and was reported to have risen from the dead within their lifetime and in their hometown.
...
Name one person killed by a Christian in the first 300 years of its spread and growth from 12 cowardly apostles cowering in an upper room.
Click to expand...

Could you decide how many apostles you want to claim? Is it Judas you are omitting in the first case? If so, why are you including him in the second?

And why are you limiting yourself to 11 or 12; what happened to the thousands converted at Pentecost?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom