Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
!Could everyone reply this way to DOC's posts from here on, please? Would bring the threads to a halt pretty quickly. Again,
.Lucian
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,257
Or simply "Evidence That the New Testament Writers Told the Truth," but considering the singular lack of said evidence, it seems a bit pointless to quibble over the awkwardness of the title now.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Could everyone reply this way to DOC's posts from here on, please? Would bring the threads to a halt pretty quickly. Again,
Sadly, that would require us all to be as clever as Hokulele and I, for one, have already been aspiring to that for some time.
Originally Posted by DOC:
Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection and how he considered them to have more historical evidence than any other fact in history up to that point.
Yes it is the opinion of an Oxford Scholar and the author of the 3 volume "History of Rome".
And you don't say what recent archaeological and historical evidence makes his opinion any less valuable today.
And to this date I have never seen any archaeological evidence that disproves the bible. But there is a lot that supports it.
And Pax and Hoku do the same thing -- criticizing older quotes just because they are old without giving any evidence to support why.
As John Wooden has said, "the problem with new books is they keep us from reading the old ones."
Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection and how he considered them to have more historical evidence than any other fact in history up to that point.
Yes it is the opinion of an Oxford Scholar and the author of the 3 volume "History of Rome".
And you don't say what recent archaeological and historical evidence makes his opinion any less valuable today.
And to this date I have never seen any archaeological evidence that disproves the bible. But there is a lot that supports it.
And Pax and Hoku do the same thing -- criticizing older quotes just because they are old without giving any evidence to support why.
As John Wooden has said, "the problem with new books is they keep us from reading the old ones."
Possibly not; I took joobz's comment to mean that there had been some new one's in DOC's post, but perhaps he just meant that there were a lot of old balls in his post.
Posted by DOC
Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.
More of the if it's not recent its probably not right thinking.
And actually if divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses it does increase the likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth since some of their accounts seem on the surface to differ. But as many websites point out, everything that appears not to be similar on the surface like the one angel and two angel accounts are not actually conflicting and a logical explanation can be given for what seems at first glance to be differing accounts. I have never seen one seeming inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be logically explained. I've already given explanations earlier in the thread for the one and two angel accounts at the tomb of Christ.
Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.
Waterman said:
More of the if it's not recent its probably not right thinking.
And actually if divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses it does increase the likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth since some of their accounts seem on the surface to differ. But as many websites point out, everything that appears not to be similar on the surface like the one angel and two angel accounts are not actually conflicting and a logical explanation can be given for what seems at first glance to be differing accounts. I have never seen one seeming inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be logically explained. I've already given explanations earlier in the thread for the one and two angel accounts at the tomb of Christ.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
All this time and you still can't figure out the quote function? How do we know that you're really, truly quoting this 'DOC' character?
That's not a sentence, and that's the only thing saving it from being a logical fallacy.
That is a logical fallacy. Marginal improvement noted.
Brief Summary:
All of it.
Lengthy Synopsis:
All of it.
You can't not know that this is the logical fallacy of 'Argument from Incredulity' and your use of it is worthless except as a demonstration of your blatant dishonesty.
Then why do you continue to refuse to present it?
You lied then, you're lying now. What difference does it make which posts are used to demonstrate this apalling habit of yours.
Yes, but have a wild stab at figuring out whom it is out of all of the participants in this thread that suffers terminally from this affliction.
Hint: You.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
DOC, your lame, pathetic, tired and unsupportable claims that you've already explained this or that, given evidence for such-and-such, and demonstrated some unutterable nonsense have made your posts the laughing stock of the entire Forum. That you are unaware of this is the best part of the joke.
You couldn't get any more laughs if you just posted Monty Python clips. Why are you so adamant about posting in a Forum that regards every word you post with the utter contempt they so richly deserve?
You couldn't get any more laughs if you just posted Monty Python clips. Why are you so adamant about posting in a Forum that regards every word you post with the utter contempt they so richly deserve?
Last edited:
Waterman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 251
So you agree that this is his opinion. My assertion is that as AN OPINION it is irrelevant as evidence. This is the same reasoning I used when discussing Ramsey AND Ross.
First of all you haven’t presented the evidence that he used to arrive at that conclusion so we don’t yet know if what he based it on has been refuted or supported. Second, no one claims that every statement in the bible is false. The bible is a big book that spans centuries, some of the information can be confirmed by geography and other historical texts in regard to the some of the events and places. However as a very large book written over the ages by people in a era steeped in myth. We have to be careful about accepting the entirety of the mundane and especially the non-mundane events as factual.
If you will reread my remarks you will note that I commented that it was old that I dismissed it because it was an opinion.
I merely mention the age of the quote particularly because the methods used and available to the field of archeology has advanced by leaps and bounds since them. Additional MS have been found see the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, based on what I have read here, many scholars have taken a harder look at the History (and evolution) of the Bible in ways that were unthinkable a hundred years ago. The age of a quote or passage by itself is not a reason to dismiss it. However it must be taken in the context of what was known at the time. The teachings of Plato from 2400 year ago can still have some relevance in the realm of Philosophy, much can be learned from Euclid’s 2300 year old geometry. Heck even the basic engineering equations I use in my job were developed in the mid 1800s. However I don’t want to my doctor to be trained based on the medical texts from even 100 years ago.
What people are asking for is not some authority figure’s opinion about the evidence but what is the evidence on which he based that opinion. If you provide that then we can get into a real discussion and avoid the argument form authority.
Why did he hold that opinion?
What Evidence did he consider?
What was his reasoning?
You have only presented his conclusion. That won’t fly here.
If the thread was:
Famous People that had the opinion that the bible was true. No one would be arguing with you. Well perhaps a few if you decided to include Thomas Jefferson in that list.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
So it was just a lot of old balls?
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
I just figured that it would be nice to come to an agreement on SOMETHING. Even if it is a quibble.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
they were wrinkly.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Appeal to authority is still a stupid argument.
you know DOC, this thread may need to be changed to
Evidence for why we know the bible isn't anything other than an odd collection of unsubstantiated beliefs.
You've got a lot of points to address..
Waterman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 251
If you read my statement more carefully you will see that while I note the approximate age of the quote I dismissed it because it was an opinion. Again I will asked those hard questions that you seem to be missing.
Why did he hold that opinion?
What Evidence did he consider?
What was his reasoning?
You have only presented his conclusion.
BTW – I am not a lawyer, but I would much rather be tried in a 21st century court room than an 19th century one. I believe that I might get a fairer trial. Perhaps a lawyer could address advanced in the legal system since then.
Actually divergent accounts are normal for stories told by oral tradition especially retellings by those that were not eyewitnesses. It does increases the likelihood the NT writers were recording the stories that they heard since some of their accounts differ. But as it has been pointed out, the accounts differ in sufficient detail which would indicate multiple oral histories with diverging paths from what seems at first glance to be the same account. I have never seen one inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be contorted beyond all logic by an apologist. You've already be given these explanations earlier in the thread yet fail to address them adequately.
Last edited:
Waterman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 251
Simon Greenleaf has surfaced (resurfaced) in the discussion and I thought I would look into what I could learn.
All Quotes from Wikipedia
Re: Simon Green Leaf
There is more on him there than that but this was relevant to the point at hand. I had never heard of the ancient document rule and thought that this sounded interesting. This is sounding suspiciously like ‘because it is old it is true.’
Re: Ancient Document Rule
I could see where this would apply in certain legal documents where the signatories have all passed away.
Hmm... this is a head scratcher… it seems to be saying that because they couldn’t know how it was going to be used today they wouldn’t have written it to support the case. However I don’t know that the NT meets this test. When it was assembled it was with the expressed idea to be the foundation of the Church and is still being used for that today. This is not some new application it still being used as it was intended to by the drafters.
Also I note they use the word authentic not true. I don’t know the legal distinctions there.
Yea! There are some limitations based on the ‘AND’ it has to meet all three!
20 years old. CHECK
Free of Suspicion regarding authenticity. Ooh big problem there, questions exist regarding authorship as well as transcription errors / edits. This is one area that Greenleaf may have failed to consider.
Found in appropriate place. More problems, we have no clue as to where the disparate documents were found that were assembled into the Bible.
The use of this rule is often limited property transaction, deeds and wills. The Bible does not meet this criteria
Based on my understanding of this information is that the legal thinking has advanced some since Greenleaf arrived at his conclusion. The use of the Ancient Document Rule that he used as one of his founding principals does not appear to apply to the Bible with the current thinking.
Therefore his opinion on the matter doesn’t count as fact because it is opinion AND it is outdated.
All Quotes from Wikipedia
Re: Simon Green Leaf
There is more on him there than that but this was relevant to the point at hand. I had never heard of the ancient document rule and thought that this sounded interesting. This is sounding suspiciously like ‘because it is old it is true.’
Re: Ancient Document Rule
I could see where this would apply in certain legal documents where the signatories have all passed away.
Hmm... this is a head scratcher… it seems to be saying that because they couldn’t know how it was going to be used today they wouldn’t have written it to support the case. However I don’t know that the NT meets this test. When it was assembled it was with the expressed idea to be the foundation of the Church and is still being used for that today. This is not some new application it still being used as it was intended to by the drafters.
Also I note they use the word authentic not true. I don’t know the legal distinctions there.
Yea! There are some limitations based on the ‘AND’ it has to meet all three!
20 years old. CHECK
Free of Suspicion regarding authenticity. Ooh big problem there, questions exist regarding authorship as well as transcription errors / edits. This is one area that Greenleaf may have failed to consider.
Found in appropriate place. More problems, we have no clue as to where the disparate documents were found that were assembled into the Bible.
The use of this rule is often limited property transaction, deeds and wills. The Bible does not meet this criteria
Based on my understanding of this information is that the legal thinking has advanced some since Greenleaf arrived at his conclusion. The use of the Ancient Document Rule that he used as one of his founding principals does not appear to apply to the Bible with the current thinking.
Therefore his opinion on the matter doesn’t count as fact because it is opinion AND it is outdated.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Well Done!
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
Well, you haven't been looking very hard, have you?
Sure, that's a bit tricky as, in many case, you are asking us to prove a negative people leave record for event that did happen, they do not record the absence of one.
For example, we can not actually disprove that the census story is bogus, we do not have writings saying: 'And on this year we definitively did not conduct a census', that would be silly.
We do not have Josephus recording, 'And Herod did not actually have all the male babies murdered as it will be claimed in the future'.
In this case, we have, at best, the absence of the evidence that we would expect, we did not find record of the census, we did not find any comment about it and the method proposed in the Biblical account does not make sense and is totally different from any other recorded census practices. Also, we actually have actual record of a census in the region later on, one that makes sense and that we can be confident happened, what would be the need to conduct such a costly endeavour once more, if they had just gone through one? Even the modern US don't go through the troubles of organizing census so often? And wouldn't have people commented on such a waste of efforts?
Similarly, we don't have mass graves in Bethlehem, we don't have record of people being shocked at the barbaric display and the Romans, even after deposing Herod, never thought that story could be useful propaganda material "look at what the previous leaders did, aren't you better under a civilized Roman rule?".
Nonetheless, we do have, in some cases, events that are related in the Bible that we have evidences did not happen.
The rapid conquest of Canaan is disproved by the continuous occupations of cities at the time. Similarly, the idea of one big unified kingdom in David's time has been, in my understanding, pretty much rejected (by the way, if somebody more knowledgeable could go and fix the Wiki entry, it'd be nice).
But you won't hear about that from Geisler and Ross, at best, they are avoiding the subject, at worst they are lying and cherry-picking the evidences to reach their dearly held positions. It is, once again, argument from (willing and hotly defended) ignorance.
This and this links do evoque the subject.
Yeah... That doesn't work like that in research and academia.
If you results are good, people will use them and cite them, not only it will constitute an independent confirmation but it will most often allow to clarify and improve on them.
It's always good practice, when you are quoting an article to go back and read it yourself, but, for the reader, it is not necessary as each academic research is supposed to contain a thorough and honest review of every relevant piece of information published on the subject. Sure, some bad apple always manage to squeeze through but, believe me, academia is pretty unforgiving.
Case in point, this can demonstrably be proven to be ********e of the infamousest degree.
Alexander the great lived before Jesus. We have contemporary accounts of him. We may have lost the writings of the actual witnesses but we have documented that unambiguously refer directly to them (arguably first hand accounts if the quote is direct enough, second hand at best). The gospels are said by you to be first and second hand accounts but this is, at best, very ambiguous, in fact, serious scholar consider it hearsay and oral traditions.
We also have coins and statue produced during the lifetime of Alexander and representing him. We have archaeological evidences of his battles and of the cities he founded. We have the arrival of Greek cultural elements, the establishment of two Greek dynasties and historical accounts surrounding these dynasties (including in the Bible, ironically enough) we even have the acquisition of geographical knowledge as cartographers followed Alexander's expedition beyond the boundaries of the known world...
If the Arnold could say something some monumentally wrong, he has the credibility of a Fox news anchor.
Nonetheless, if it was even remotely true and it absolutely is not, it would only mean that we'd have a case for Jesus' existence.
It wouldn't mean all the mythic bits were true. After all, myths accumulate around real figures all the times (Brian Dunning had a funny Skeptoid episode-quizz about that, I might have to link it later on)
After all, we know Alexander did exist, we do reject accounts of him visiting the Amazons or being the first person able to ride Bucephalos... (and I find the Gordian knot a bit suspicious myself).
If taken by the same rule (as we have said, it'd be very generous as the evidence for Jesus can never come even close to comparing to that for Alexander) it would mean accepting that Jesus might very well have been a historical person but all the miracle accounts and that for his resurrection were myths... which is pretty much the position of most modern scholars already, and that of one dead former-president you Doc are quite fond of quoting.
Well, good thing the judicial process has progressed then.
In reality, jut the fact that the Gospels account are unsigned would suffice to make it hearsay.
Even if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses (once again, serious scholars say they almost certainly were not) you can't prove it.
"Bob was a eyewitness. He is not testifying but I heard on a bar he once said that Richard was the murderer." would be laughed out of court.
Regular eyewitnesses accounts may differ but the Bible is not supposed to be a regular eyewitnesses.
If it such an account, subject to mistakes and false memories, it would have the reliability of any documents transmitted through decades of oral transmission... not very high.
But Christian apologetist don't want that, they want the Bible to be the literal, inherent, inpired word of God. They want to have it both ways (hurm, Ted Hagar joke) and that simply does not work.
As for the gymnastic, 'there were two angels in all accounts it's just that one account just mentioned one and another said "boy" because the angel was male'... yeah, it's ridiculous apologetics (from apology: making-up excuses)
- Status