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

[Hokulele]

Die, zombie thread. Die!

 

[Lothian]

Lets start again with a cup off tea number 3; 33 Dirty Knee; 32 buckle my shoe.

xx | xx | xx |xx | 5 | xx | xx | xx | 9 | 10
11 | xx | 13 | 14 | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx
xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | 29 | 30
xx | 32 | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | 40
41 | xx | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50

 

[laca]

ETA3: More reason to kill this thread? This thread has 10k+ replies. The next most replied to thread has 3.3k. Granted, since it's a holocaust denial thread, both have about as much evidenciary support....

Pardon me, but the doronshadmi thread has 8,800+ replies and still going strong

 

[Waterman]

What is your source that the 4 Gospels were assembled, and that it was with the express idea to be the foundation of the Church?

I thought that this was a given, while I knew nothing of it before while reading this thread I learned that the Council of Nicea (sp) was convened sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century and collected individual early Christian writings that were floating around at the time and decided which writings were to be incorporated into the new testament. Not everything that the people of the time considered ‘gospel’ made the cut. There was no such thing at the New Testament in the general form it exists today until the Council of Nicea (CoN). My claim was regarding the New Testament not the individual books.

With regard to your second point above, I do not understand your question. If the New Testament is not intended to be the foundation of the church and it’s teaching what is it’s purpose? Please educate me on the matter.

For one we know that the Gospel of Luke was a letter written to a friend of his in order to inform him of his research into this Jesus phenomenon that was going on.

For the sake of argument lets say that we accept this basic premise, Luke as reporter of what is happening around him and what he is told regarding Jesus by others. That stand alone document is a collection of letters. It was incorporated into the bible at the CoN.

The opinion of a man {Simon Greenleaf} who has wrote what some call the definitive book on evidence and a founder of Harvard Law school should be considered when you talk about evidence.

I make no claims about his other findings or his quality as a legal scholar in general. Filling out his resume does not tell me where I erred in my reasoning. This is continuing in the argument from authority and is a logical fallacy. As such it is irrelevant to your OP.

And you talk about the advancement of legal thinking but don't explain what that advancement is. This is similar to Pax and Hoku who often talk about recent findings of modern scholars but rarely say what those new findings are.

I most certainly did. Per the information I found Greenleaf use the Ancient Document Rule as the foundation of his arguments leading to his conclusion that you cite. I read a modern interpretation of the Ancient Document Rule and they would exclude the bible on a number of points. They are different. I also couched my statement in non-specific terms I am not a legal scholar and did not cite case law in this matter. I can see several possibilities for there to be a difference.

1. The application of the Ancient Document Rule was more lenient in treating the overall veracity of the document that it appears to be now. Ancient Document are considered True because they are ancient, but that would open the doors for any ancient document of myths and fable to be considered true.
2. The origin and integrity of the Documents as discussed in the wiki entry was either ignored or is a modern adaptation. If it was ignored then that is special pleading, if is a modern adaptation it is a advancement in legal thinking.
3. Greenleaf used special pleading in his argument that because it is ‘The Bible’ it is not subject to the same considerations as other ancient documents. That is also a logical fallacy.

If he did not use the Ancient Document Rule as his foundation for this then that would undermine my whole. There is a great opening for you to undermine it, show me where I erred in my reasoning.

And rather than mainly relying on Wiki we should look at the words of Greenleaf himself.

More quotes on the matter don’t count as evidence nor do they refute my point. This appears to be a variant of poisoning the well by disparaging wiki as the source. While I recognize that wiki has it’s issues you don’t provide any information to tell me that the wiki has bad information nor where I am in error.

In the following article there might be a few things outdated but the article gives important information to consider with regard to the topic of this thread.

Nothing you have provided here actually addressed my point that per the information I found. OK I’ll bite and visit your website. But be warned I will treat it with the same critical eye I have applied to your posts. It may not be pretty and I know I will have to keep an eye on the rule from over posting from other sources.

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm[/QUOTE]

Good googly moogly wall of text. I cut and pasted that information to a word document it is 24 pages and 14,600 words. As we both have real lives to attend to and since you are much more familiar with the material than I am if you could perhaps point me to the relevant part that you feel points out my error in reasoning or shows that Greenleaf was not using the Ancient Documents Rule to support his case.

Never Mind I found it myself, it is going to take some time to parse so that will have to be for later.

 

[kmortis]

Pardon me, but the doronshadmi thread has 8,800+ replies and still going strong

1) I now feel dirty for entering that thread. You will live in my eternal DOOM!, laca. Or a least until I shower.
b) That thread is in R&P, I was refering to H,L&A...even if I didn't say so. So there, take that..you...you...you deeper-than-primer!

 

[joobz]

Good googly moogly wall of text. I cut and pasted that information to a word document it is 24 pages and 14,600 words. As we both have real lives to attend to and since you are much more familiar with the material than I am if you could perhaps point me to the relevant part that you feel points out my error in reasoning or shows that Greenleaf was not using the Ancient Documents Rule to support his case.

I would not make that bolded assumption. DOC has presented plenty of evidence that he often doesn't fully read (or read at all) his sources. Indeed, he has often used variants of the "too long/didn't read" response when dealing with posters. So, I highly doubt he read any wall of text.

Unless that wall was in a bathroom and contained various suggestions on how one may aquire a "good time".

 

[paximperium]

More quotes on the matter don’t count as evidence nor do they refute my point. This appears to be a variant of poisoning the well by disparaging wiki as the source. While I recognize that wiki has it’s issues you don’t provide any information to tell me that the wiki has bad information nor where I am in error.

DOC apparently believes that wiki is biased against fundy-ness because the founder of wikipedia is an atheist...but then he turns around and use wiki when it suits his purpose.

 

[I Ratant]

Pardon me, but the doronshadmi thread has 8,800+ replies and still going strong

.
221 pages of semantic gibberish.
Hm.... that's quite familiar.

 

[paximperium]

I would not make that bolded assumption. DOC has presented plenty of evidence that he often doesn't fully read (or read at all) his sources. Indeed, he has often used variants of the "too long/didn't read" response when dealing with posters. So, I highly doubt he read any wall of text.

The Bible being the prime example.

 

[Simon39759]

And rather than mainly relying on Wiki we should look at the words of Greenleaf himself.
In the following article there might be a few things outdated but the article gives important information to consider with regard to the topic of this thread.
http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

As you probably never actually read the link, allow me to do so:

In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.

Big if, of course.
Here Greenleaf says that we should follow the truth, regardless of where it leads us... Good advice that some posters should take to heart.

The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.

So, here, Greenleaf concedes that he is not going what he said was the vital first point, and what happen to be the subject of the thread.

That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being.

Hurm, it certainly wasn't universally true at the time of Greenleaf's writing, it certainly is even less now, so that point is disproven...

Indeed it is evident that nothing but a revelation from God could raise men from the degradation of pagan idolatry, because nothing else has ever had that effect. If man could achieve his own freedom from this bondage, he would long since have been free.

That's silly: "if man was able to discover monotheism by himself, he would have done it by now. And because he did discover monotheism, somebody must have given it to him..." (or, maybe, he actually was able to discover it by himself, finally?)

Also, what does it mean by 'Pagan' does he just mean non-JudeoChristian? 'cause that's a severe attack of special pleading, then. "The pagan religion has nothing but superstition, but JudeoChristianism is divinely inspired and hence, the proof of God's existence..."
And what about the other, non JudeoChristian monotheism? Zoroaster, Aton and such?

That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

Once again, less assume we are right because it make my job of demonstrating I am right easier (aka, possible).



He then introduce the ancient document rule that Waterman already brillantly dealt with:

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

Of course, the second and third point are lacking: we don't know that the Gospels came to us from a proper repository or custody, furthermore, the fact that different copies of the same Gospels are not identical between each others prove that at least some versions were modified, and hence, act as 'marks of forger'.

At any rate, even if we were to concede that rule for the sake of conceding, that'd only means that the Gospels are authentical: aka that the authors really wrote them down. It doesn't say anything about the writer not being mistaken or even lying...

And, of course, we are talking about a legal decision, where the system is purposely skewed toward protecting the accused (innocent until proven guilty) and not an academic decision where the system is only aiming at getting the closer possible of the truth.



Now, more specifically about the gospel of Matthew:

The precise time when he wrote is also uncertain, the several dates given to it among learned men, varying from A.D. 37 to A.D. 64. The earlier date, however, is argued with greater force, from the improbability that the Christians would be left for several years without a general and authentic history of our Savior's ministry; from the evident allusions which it contains to a state of persecution in the church at the time it was written; from the titles of sanctity ascribed to Jerusalem, and a higher veneration testified for the temple than the comparative gentleness with which Herod's character and conduct are dealt with, that bad prince probably being still in power

Objection, your honor, pure conjecture.
Also, we actually know that the persecution didn't start until much later, so the allusions to persecutions you refer to are actually arguing AGAINST your point, then again, you have been dead quite a while, so maybe you did not have access to the actual dates of the persecutions...

Matthew must have been familiar with a great variety of forms of fraud, imposture, cunning, and deception, and must have become habitually distrustful, scrutinizing, and cautious; and, of course, much less likely to have been deceived in regard to may of the facts in our Lord's ministry, extraordinary as they were, which fell under his observation.

More conjecture, also, it really rely on the NT accounts of Luke (our unique source) being true, which is circular reasoning.


The Gospel of Mark:

To these proofs we may add, that in several places there are discrepancies between the accounts of Matthew and Mark, no, indeed, irreconcilable, but sufficient to destroy the probability that the latter copied from the former

Yet, Mark does, at time, uses sentences that are word for word lifted from Matthew, care to address that Greenie?
Also, at which point would you consider the two account irreconcilable? Seems pretty subjective to me.

The striking coincidences between them, in style, words, and things, in other places, may be accounted for by considering Peter, who is supposed to have dictated this Gospel to Mark, was quite as intimately acquainted as Matthew with the miracles and discourses of our Lord; which, therefore, he would naturally recite in his preaching

Except that the similarities are not only when quoting the J-man, many are about the narrative portion.


The gospel of Luke:

That he wrote his Gospel for the benefit of the Gentile converts is affirmed by the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity

Objection your honor, hearsay.




Ok, I have to stop here. I too, have a life and, after all, I am pretty certain that Doc did not bother reading the document he linked too, so I am not sure why I should give myself the trouble especially considering that Doc is so unlikely to actually read my post, he is going to be way to busy complaining about people accurately describing his dishonesty and the uselessness of this whole thread. Probably claiming victory out of people's desire to put this equipage of dead-horses of a thread out of its misery...

 

[Ducky]

So 266 pages and still no evidence for why we know the New Testament Writers told the truth?


Thought so.

 

[DOC]

But that is what WE are talking about.
Removing text which changes the context is misquoting. That's dishonest. That is what you did with Waterman's post.

Red Herring Alert: Anything to get off the important message of Simon Greenleaf, the man who was an expert on EVIDENCE and a founder of Harvard Law School and to get onto the messenger DOC.

And I will continue to talk about portions of people quotes in the future for the reasons I have already mentioned, just as I have done probably hundreds of times in the past 3 years.
If you or anyone else doesn't like it stay out of my threads.

And I find this all ironic coming from a man like yourself who conveniently omitted 9 translations and concentrated on 2.

 

[DOC]

...Furthermore--and I can't emphasize this enough--anything these men might have thought about the Bible is irrelevant because they weren't biblical scholars, theologians or archeologists. Similarly, a legal historian is not an expert on theology or the bible, and, although legal history is not my field, I feel confident in saying that that field has progressed since Greenfield's time. All fields of study do, however much we build on what came before us.

The first word in the title of this thread is Evidence. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard Law School founder) was and expert on legal evidence and has been said to have written the definitive book on evidence. I believe his opinion on Legal evidence is relevant; if you and others don't you have the right to your opinion.

And like others in this thread you talk about modern advances but don't tell us what those modern advances are regarding the law. You did tell us about some of the modern advances in Medieval Studies but not any advances in legal evidence that you say you are confident have occurred.

 

[joobz]

Red Herring Alert: Anything to get off the important message of Simon Greenleaf, the man who was an expert on EVIDENCE and a founder of Harvard Law School and to get onto the messenger DOC.

Add Red Herring to the list of things you don't understand.

I simply corrected your poor characterization of Waterman's point and explained the difference of quoting and quotemining.

And I will continue to talk about portions of people quotes in the future for the reasons I have already mentioned, just as I have done probably hundreds of times in the past 3 years.

AS will I. But I will not intentionally omit information to change the meaning of the people I am debating. You can't say the same thing honestly.

And I find this all ironic coming from a man like yourself who conveniently omitted 9 translations and concentrated on 2.

OK: THIS is a red herring.

 

[DOC]

For what it is worth and if it matters to the mods (maybe they want the opinion from the thread regular posters), I agree that the thread has not progressed anywhere significant since it started.

It's clear now that it is not going anywhere. All possible proofs that the New Testament writers told the truth has probably long be lost to time. If such proofs ever surface, it will most likely be reported in its own thread by posters more knowledgeable than Doc and that, unlike him, have a genuine interest in the question.

Right now, all this thread promise (and delivers) is the same endless repetition of rejected and unoriginal arguments shimmering in a sauce of intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation by the OPer...
I agree with kmortis, let's close this dreg of a thread and focus our efforts on more constructive endeavours.


As I said, I posted that in case the mods would make their decision about this thread based on the opinions of regular posters, whereas we think it should be closed or not.
Maybe we should start a poll on the subject?

Once again another skeptic wants this thread to end. That encourages me, that tells me it is an effective thread for presenting the truths of the New Testament and some skeptics don't want it up. If this thread hurt the case for Christianity in any way I have to believe skeptics would want it to stay up as long as possible.

And nobody is forcing anybody to come into this thread. If you don't like it, block it and then you don't have to worry about it.

And this site below I just "recently" brought in has important information and things to consider regarding the authors of the New Testament. Since the article is older if you feel any info is not accurate you can always look it up. But it is not logical not to consider 30 new pieces of info because 2 or 3 might be outdated.

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

 

[I Ratant]

Once again some skeptics want this thread to end. That encourages me, that tells me it is an effective thread for presenting the truths of the New Testament and some skeptics don't want it up. If this thread hurt the case for Christianity in any way I have to believe skeptics would want it to stay up as long as possible.
...

.
Were it "effective" the thread would not be as contentious as it is, but accepted as a lucid explanation of the truth of the NT.
It obviously is a miserable failure at that.

 

[DOC]

AS will I. But I will not intentionally omit information to change the meaning of the people I am debating. You can't say the same thing honestly.

Yes, I can, and I do.

ETA And nothing is stopping people from looking up the original post if they want to.

 

[DOC]

.
Were it "effective" the thread would not be as contentious as it is, but accepted as a lucid explanation of the truth of the NT.
It obviously is a miserable failure at that.

That's like saying if the Declaration of Independence was more effective, England would have never gone to war.

 

[I Ratant]

That's like saying if the Declaration of Independence was more effective, England would have never gone to war.

.
???
Mighty odd electrical processes in the wet matter between your ears.
Were -your- explications on the NT effective....
Your.
These are as mentioned miserable failures from every view point of the many viewpoints all the posters here have put up for examination.
-Your- evasions and child-like repetitions of the same crap endlessly are -ineffective- in pushing your viewpoint.
It is a demonstration of the definition of insanity, innit?

 

[paximperium]

Once again another skeptic wants this thread to end. That encourages me, that tells me it is an effective thread for presenting the truths of the New Testament and some skeptics don't want it up. If this thread hurt the case for Christianity in any way I have to believe skeptics would want it to stay up as long as possible.

I don't want this thread to end. I want it go on. It's helped ensue doubt in at least 2 people I know and from what 1 lurker here has posted, has actually turn him away from theism. I'm a big fan of this thread.

And this site below I just "recently" brought in has important information and things to consider regarding the authors of the New Testament. Since the article is older if you feel any info is not accurate you can always look it up. But it is not logical not to consider 30 new pieces of info because 2 or 3 might be outdated.

http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

Yup. Simon and waterman has directly torn Greenleaf's opinion apart. I do notice how you continue to purposefully ignore those posts.

But please continue with your prime example of dishonest Christian apolegetics.