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

[babbits]

Sometime in late Pleistocene, Doc wrote:

"If you wrote 13 chapters (Paul wrote 13 biblical books) in the greatest selling book of all time and were called a spiritual genius in a religious encyclopedia like Paul was, I might take a closer look at your claim. "

In 1857, Karl Marx had produced a gigantic 800 page manuscript on capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade and the world market.

There is no doubt that Karl Marx lived. There are many documents that prove that he did.

The following eminent economists, historians, and social analysts attest to the undoubted fat that Marx was a supreme genius, a superb researcher, a clear-minded reasoner, and a massively learned scholar. No single person has ever matched his breadth of knowledge of economic and social issues of his time, and of the previous centuries.

Abimael Guzmán
Agostinho Neto
Aleksandr Luria (Александр Лурия)
Aleksandr Shlyapnikov (Александр Шляпников)
Aleksandra Kollontay (Александра Коллонтай)
Aleksey Leontev (Алексей Леонтьев)
Álvaro Cunhal
Amadeo Bordiga
Amiri Baraka
Anatoly Lunacharsky (Анатолий Луначарский)
Andreu Nin
Angela Davis
Anton Pannekoek
Antonio Gramsci
Antonio Labriola
Arrigo Cervetto
August Bebel
August Palm
August Thalheimer
Bob Avakian
Carlos Marighella
Che Guevara
Khristian Rakovsky (Христиан Раковский)
Chris Hani
Christopher Caudwell
Christopher Hill
Clara Zetkin
Claud Cockburn
C.L.R. James
Daniel De Leon
Daniil Elkonin (Даниил Эльконин)
David Korner ("Barta")
David Ryazanov (Давид Рязанов)
David Widgery
Dolores Ibárruri
Duncan Hallas
Earl Browder
E. Belfort Bax
Edvard Kardelj
Eleanor Marx
Erich Fromm
Eric Hobsbawm
Ernest Mandel
Eugene V. Debs
Eugene Kamenka
Evald Ilyenkov (Эвальд Ильенков)
Yevgeny Pashukanis (Евгений Пашуканис)
Felix Morrow
Félix Moumié
Filemon Lagman
Franz Mehring
Friedrich Engels
Geoff Pilling
Georg Lukács
George Novack
Georges Politzer
Gladys Marín
Govan Mbeki
Grigory Zinoviev (Григорий Зиновьев)
Gus Hall
Hal Draper
Harry Haywood
Harry Pollitt
Henk Sneevliet
Henri Wallon
Herbert Aptheker
Herman Gorter
Hồ Chí Minh
Hugh MacDiarmid
Hugo Blanco
J.D. Bernal
James P. Cannon
James Connolly
J.B.S. Haldane
Jenny Marx Longuet
Jim Higgins
Joe Slovo
John MacLean
John Reed
José Antonio Arze
José Carlos Mariátegui
Joseph Dietzgen
Josip Broz Tito
Juan Posadas
Jules Guesde
Julius Martov (Юлий Мартов)
Karl Kautsky
Karl Korsch
Karl Liebknecht
Karl Radek
Lê Duẩn
Lev Kamenev (Лев Каменев)
Leon Trotsky (Лев Троцкий)
Lev Vygotsky (Лев Выготский)
Louise Bryant
Luís Carlos Prestes
Luis Emilio Recabarren
Malcolm Caldwell
Mansoor Hekmat
Marien Ngouabi
Martin Glaberman
Max Eastman
Max Shachtman
Maksim Gorky (Максим Горький)
Mathieu Kérékou
Michael Kidron
Michael Parenti
Michel Pablo
Milovan Đilas
Nadezhda Krupskaya (Надежда Крупская)
Nahuel Moreno
Natalia Sedova (Наталия Седова)
Nikolay Bukharin (Николай Бухарин)
Octávio Pato
Otto Rühle
Pablo Iglesias
Pablo Neruda
Pandelis Pouliopoulos
Paul Foot
Paul Lafargue
Paul Mattick
Paul Robeson
Paul Sweezy
Peter Sedgwick
Phạm Văn Đồng
Raya Dunayevskaya (Рая Дунаевская)
Rosa Luxemburg
Ruben Um Nyobé
Ruth First
Sam Marcy
Samora Machel
Santiago Carrillo
Seamus Costello
Sylvia Pankhurst
Tavio Amorin
Ted Grant
Thomas Sankara
Tony Cliff
Trường Chinh
Vera Zasulich (Вера Засулич)
Victor Serge
Vladimir Bakarić
Vladimir Lenin (Владимир Ленин)
Võ Nguyên Giáp
Walter Held
Wilhelm Liebknecht
William Morris
William Z. Foster
Charles S. Zimmerman

So it is clear from the above evidence that Marxism is true.

 

[Akhenaten]

Late Pleistocene.



'Lists' is shaping up to be the new DOC Bingo.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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.

Really interesting - thanks!

 

[tsig]

Correction: we do NOT know he studied all the major philosophers. Graduate schools may have different emphases on different scholarly career paths. He may not have studied any more philosphers than the ones that were in favor at Loyola when he was getting his degree.



And there's the crux of the matter.

Yes, that's what raises the tempest.

 

[tsig]

Josephus is corrupt.


K.

Been dead long enough.

 

[amb]

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."

Obviously you never read Unearthing The Bible where two respected archaeologists disprove practically the whole O/T as nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the ancient Hebrews. The N/T fares little better.

 

[AdinDraco]

Simon Greenleaf has surfaced (resurfaced) in the discussion and I thought I would look into what I could learn.
<snip>

Let me add my voice in saying, impressive scholarship there sir! (or madam). Just thought of another of those stupid little questions that I'm personally sticking to - how many wise men were there? If you can actually give me a exact number, please supply the source... I'm trying to confirm something I've read.

 

[amb]

Let me add my voice in saying, impressive scholarship there sir! (or madam). Just thought of another of those stupid little questions that I'm personally sticking to - how many wise men were there? If you can actually give me a exact number, please supply the source... I'm trying to confirm something I've read.

Next time you see a nativity scene in a store front, go and count the number of wise men, the answer is as close as you'll ever get.

 

[AdinDraco]

Next time you see a nativity scene in a store front, go and count the number of wise men, the answer is as close as you'll ever get.

I agree, the book I'm reading points out that the stories support numbers from 2 to 20, and that some or all of them may have been women. It makes the assertion (because I don't have references - I'll give the book details if anyone asks) that the "3" number wasn't pinned down until the 6th century.

Not that any other detail can be trusted. I've heard a deconstruction on the nativity scene that suggests that, according to the theist's own myths, that it's almost entirely inaccurate. I'll try to find the reference but from memory the hosts joke and swear a lot so I expect the standard ad-hominem dismissal of the actual points.

 

[John Jones]

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.

Too darned bad he wasn't a New Testament writer and an eye witness, Doc.

 

[Akhenaten]

.

 

[Akhenaten]

Or . . .

 

[Akhenaten]

Or maybe . . .

 

[amb]

Imagine that. All this knowledge about his birth day, birth place, all this knowledge of the place he was crucified, his tomb etc, yet today in reality no one has a clue where all this actually took place. There's no place where pilgrims can go to worship, like the tomb especially because apart from the wife of Constantine who claimed to have found them all, including a piece of the cross, no one has a clue which places another piece of the puzzle out of reach of the historicist.

 

[Mojo]

Sometime in late Pleistocene, Doc wrote:

"If you wrote 13 chapters (Paul wrote 13 biblical books) in the greatest selling book of all time and were called a spiritual genius in a religious encyclopedia like Paul was, I might take a closer look at your claim. "

In 1857, Karl Marx had produced a gigantic 800 page manuscript on capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade and the world market.

There is no doubt that Karl Marx lived. There are many documents that prove that he did.

The following eminent economists, historians, and social analysts attest to the undoubted fat that Marx was a supreme genius, a superb researcher, a clear-minded reasoner, and a massively learned scholar. No single person has ever matched his breadth of knowledge of economic and social issues of his time, and of the previous centuries.

Abimael Guzmán
Agostinho Neto
Aleksandr Luria (Александр Лурия)
Aleksandr Shlyapnikov (Александр Шляпников)
Aleksandra Kollontay (Александра Коллонтай)
Aleksey Leontev (Алексей Леонтьев)
Álvaro Cunhal
Amadeo Bordiga
Amiri Baraka
Anatoly Lunacharsky (Анатолий Луначарский)
Andreu Nin
Angela Davis
Anton Pannekoek
Antonio Gramsci
Antonio Labriola
Arrigo Cervetto
August Bebel
August Palm
August Thalheimer
Bob Avakian
Carlos Marighella
Che Guevara
Khristian Rakovsky (Христиан Раковский)
Chris Hani
Christopher Caudwell
Christopher Hill
Clara Zetkin
Claud Cockburn
C.L.R. James
Daniel De Leon
Daniil Elkonin (Даниил Эльконин)
David Korner ("Barta")
David Ryazanov (Давид Рязанов)
David Widgery
Dolores Ibárruri
Duncan Hallas
Earl Browder
E. Belfort Bax
Edvard Kardelj
Eleanor Marx
Erich Fromm
Eric Hobsbawm
Ernest Mandel
Eugene V. Debs
Eugene Kamenka
Evald Ilyenkov (Эвальд Ильенков)
Yevgeny Pashukanis (Евгений Пашуканис)
Felix Morrow
Félix Moumié
Filemon Lagman
Franz Mehring
Friedrich Engels
Geoff Pilling
Georg Lukács
George Novack
Georges Politzer
Gladys Marín
Govan Mbeki
Grigory Zinoviev (Григорий Зиновьев)
Gus Hall
Hal Draper
Harry Haywood
Harry Pollitt
Henk Sneevliet
Henri Wallon
Herbert Aptheker
Herman Gorter
Hồ Chí Minh
Hugh MacDiarmid
Hugo Blanco
J.D. Bernal
James P. Cannon
James Connolly
J.B.S. Haldane
Jenny Marx Longuet
Jim Higgins
Joe Slovo
John MacLean
John Reed
José Antonio Arze
José Carlos Mariátegui
Joseph Dietzgen
Josip Broz Tito
Juan Posadas
Jules Guesde
Julius Martov (Юлий Мартов)
Karl Kautsky
Karl Korsch
Karl Liebknecht
Karl Radek
Lê Duẩn
Lev Kamenev (Лев Каменев)
Leon Trotsky (Лев Троцкий)
Lev Vygotsky (Лев Выготский)
Louise Bryant
Luís Carlos Prestes
Luis Emilio Recabarren
Malcolm Caldwell
Mansoor Hekmat
Marien Ngouabi
Martin Glaberman
Max Eastman
Max Shachtman
Maksim Gorky (Максим Горький)
Mathieu Kérékou
Michael Kidron
Michael Parenti
Michel Pablo
Milovan Đilas
Nadezhda Krupskaya (Надежда Крупская)
Nahuel Moreno
Natalia Sedova (Наталия Седова)
Nikolay Bukharin (Николай Бухарин)
Octávio Pato
Otto Rühle
Pablo Iglesias
Pablo Neruda
Pandelis Pouliopoulos
Paul Foot
Paul Lafargue
Paul Mattick
Paul Robeson
Paul Sweezy
Peter Sedgwick
Phạm Văn Đồng
Raya Dunayevskaya (Рая Дунаевская)
Rosa Luxemburg
Ruben Um Nyobé
Ruth First
Sam Marcy
Samora Machel
Santiago Carrillo
Seamus Costello
Sylvia Pankhurst
Tavio Amorin
Ted Grant
Thomas Sankara
Tony Cliff
Trường Chinh
Vera Zasulich (Вера Засулич)
Victor Serge
Vladimir Bakarić
Vladimir Lenin (Владимир Ленин)
Võ Nguyên Giáp
Walter Held
Wilhelm Liebknecht
William Morris
William Z. Foster
Charles S. Zimmerman

So it is clear from the above evidence that Marxism is true.

Ah, but none of them is called Steve.

 

[DOC]

That's not a sentence, and that's the only thing saving it from being a logical fallacy.

Well here is a complete sentence by Thomas Arnold and also Simon Greenleaf.

From the website: "The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction" by Dr. Terry Watkins

"Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts. Professor Arnold, stated:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29)."

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html

 

[zooterkin]

Well here is a complete sentence by Thomas Arnold and also Simon Greenleaf.

From the website: "The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact or Fiction" by Dr. Terry Watkins

"Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts. Professor Arnold,

Do you truly believe there have been no advances in the study of history since the time of Thomas Arnold?

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University,

Have you deliberately ignored this post by Waterman?

 

[Akhenaten]

<appeal to dubious authority>

Never mind wasting your time answering a lightweight like me with your rubbish.

Respond to this, another fine Waterman post which you appear to be studiously avoiding.

Cat got your tongue, has it?

 

[Fitter]

<snip>

"Professor Thomas Arnold, former chair of history at Oxford, and author of the famous volumes, History of Rome, was skillfully educated in the study of historical facts. Professor Arnold, stated:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

<snip>

Do you believe this also DOC? Do you honestly believe that from the start of history being recorded through until Arnold made this statement that not a single event has more evidence than the resurrection? Not the American Revolution, the coronation of Queen Victoria or the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon. Do you believe that none of these have as much evidence as the resurrection?

 

[zooterkin]

If I may be permitted to quote myself:

Professor Thomas Arnold

<sigh> You think it's been long enough since you last appealed to this authority that you think we've forgotten about what was said last time?

Interesting you should mention him, though, since he is an example of someone who existed, and who also appears as a character in a work of fiction. By your logic, though, everything written about him in Tom Brown's Schooldays really happened.

The staggering thing (well, perhaps not to those who've followed this thread) is that my reply is from over a year ago. It wasn't the first time DOC had referenced Thomas Arnold or Simon Greenleaf, and it wasn't the last (October and November, last year). And yet he keeps coming back with discredited arguments. It's as if he can't actually read anything that disagrees with his worldview.