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

[laca]

How much more by leaving out the killing and rapes?

A lot of killings and at least one rape were also miracles, so it's hard to say.

 

[amb]

.
It would be.
Leaving out the miracles reduces the content 85%, I've read.

Why can't the rest of the 15% also be safely discarded?

 

[Akhenaten]

Comedic Value.

Evidence:

This thread

 

[DOC]

my bolding


You have no idea what evidence means, do you, Doc?

I'll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with your speculations.

In other words, you have created yet another no information post.

Why?

You must not have read a lot of modern history books, because many authors do speculate based on the facts available.

 

[dafydd]

You must not have read a lot of modern history books, because many authors do speculate based on the facts available.

They speculate about events that actually occured,or are surmised to have ocurred.They do not speculate about fairy stories based on a guy coming back from the dead.

 

[paximperium]

You must not have read a lot of modern history books, because many authors do speculate based on the facts available.

Hello DOC. Glad to see you have returned.

Would you care to take up Kapyong's post concerning the naming of the gospels and Waterman's multiple posts concerning Greenleaf?

Have you conceded that the gospels were not named until 180CE and that Greenleaf's opinions are wrong?

 

[DOC]

Even Nimrod, my pet fish, understood it.

So did Ember, my ditzy dog.

Are you saying that Scoth Adams is wrong in the Dilbert strip about analysis, where ysis is greek for "pulling from"?

ETA: I don't recall if it involved theology or business forecasts.

Mauser is pretty slow and he understood it.

Well, no, Scott Adams is never wrong.

Except when he did his little "The Secret" number. That was weird.

I found his blog, it does not work, except when it does????
Nobody is perfect.

Not too sure if the UFO/alien thread is around the same size. Rramjet, [appropriate name] is like DOC bucking the odds almost by themselves.

Isn't that strange; the longest threads. The ones in humor aren't funny and this has no evidence.

Stop being so OT guys, this is about the NT!

ETA: Akhenaten, you cracked me up

Class clown since 1351 BCE

You my esteemed friend, have not been to the Jokes thread and seen my artistry in action.

How's your foot? Is that self-inflicted bullet hole any better?

ETA: X put it better than I did

How come posts like these usually happen when I leave for two or more days. Isn't there any other threads you could be in?

 

[paximperium]

How come posts like these usually happen when I leave for two or more days. Isn't there any other threads you could be in?

Hello DOC. Thanks for taking such a long time quoting everyone.
I noticed you missed the really important posts that.

Would you care to answer those posts?

Hello DOC. Glad to see you have returned.

Would you care to take up Kapyong's post concerning the naming of the gospels and Waterman's multiple posts concerning Greenleaf?

Have you conceded that the gospels were not named until 180CE and that Greenleaf's opinions are wrong?

 

[DOC]

Have you conceded that the gospels were not named until 180CE...

Of course I haven't because it is not true. Several of the people mentioned in the site I brought in stated they learned the name of the gospel from "tradition" (they never say they named them just out of the blue). (Oral)Tradition was a very important method of knowledge in the non literary paperless society back then when the great majority of the people couldn't read or write. Tradition is not the same thing as legend. Geisler or Muncaster discuss that. Once again people are trying to transport our modern ultra media society into that primitive non literary society. Even the great majority of the Talmud was written from oral traditions of at least 100 years and possibly 200 years.

 

[paximperium]

Of course I haven't because it is not true. Several of the people mentioned in the site I brought in stated they learned the name of the gospel from "tradition" (they never say they named them just out of the blue). Tradition was a very important method of knowledge in the non literary paperless society back then when the great majority of the people couldn't read or write. Tradition is not the same thing as legend. Geisler or Muncaster discuss that. Once again people are trying to transport our modern ultra media society into that primitive non literary society. Even the great majority of the Talmud was written from oral tradition of at least 100 year and possibly 200 years.

I'm sorry. The facts presented by Kapyong trumps your poorly educated and biased opinion.

Would you care to try again? With some evidence this time?

 

[paximperium]

I noticed you left Greenleaf out of your lame rebuttal attempt. I'm assuming you concede Greenleaf was wrong.

Waterman is still waiting for you assessment of his MULTIPLE posts concerning Greenleaf.

 

[joobz]

Of course I haven't because it is not true. Several of the people mentioned in the site I brought in stated they learned the name of the gospel from "tradition" (they never say they named them just out of the blue). Tradition was a very important method of knowledge in the non literary paperless society back then when the great majority of the people couldn't read or write.

And it is highly unreliable.

Tradition also claims that Achilles was Dipped into the river styx and imbued him with invulnerability (except his ankle).
Tradition claimed that slavery was morally acceptable.
Tradition claimed that Kings were given their kingship by god.
Tradition claimed that blacks are inferior to whites.
Tradition claimed that the second coming will come soon....

You see, tradition is highly unreliable.

Tradition is not the same thing as legend.

It's indistinguishable. Unless, of course, you are willing to claim that the early christian traditions are somehow different from greek traditions?

Geisler or Muncaster discuss that. Once again people are trying to transport our modern ultra media society into that primitive non literary society. Even the great majority of the Talmud was written from oral traditions of at least 100 years and possibly 200 years.

They discuss many things. They are nearly always wrong.

 

[DOC]

I noticed you left Greenleaf out of your lame rebuttal attempt. I'm assuming you concede Greenleaf was wrong.

Waterman is still waiting for you assessment of his MULTIPLE posts concerning Greenleaf.

I"ve already responded to Waterman on Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School). If someone wants to learn about Simon Greenleaf, the long article written by him I brought in should satisfy them. Or read his book about the New Testament authors and the subject of evidence.

 

[Think_Tank]

How come posts like these usually happen when I leave for two or more days. Isn't there any other threads you could be in?

Frankly, I consider myself well within my rights to point out that, in answering my original post, you shot down your own argument (my lame attempt at humour notwithstanding). I also notice that in the wall of quotes you provided, X is curiously absent. Here is his post again, for those of you with selective memories.

Of course I haven't because it is not true. Several of the people mentioned in the site I brought in stated they learned the name of the gospel from "tradition" (they never say they named them just out of the blue). Tradition was a very important method of knowledge in the non literary paperless society back then when the great majority of the people couldn't read or write. Tradition is not the same thing as legend. Geisler or Muncaster discuss that. Once again people are trying to transport our modern ultra media society into that primitive non literary society. Even the great majority of the Talmud was written from oral traditions of at least 100 years and possibly 200 years.

Bolding mine.

And what is going to happen to a 'tradition' over the course of several generations? With no written media, you are relying on memory and word of mouth - fallible at the best of times, and tremendously prone to embellishment. You are partly correct in that tradition and legend are not synonymous, but traditions passed on verbally with no accompanying evidence are no more reliable than legends.

For instance, in England there is a traditional story of a village idiot* who sees the moon's reflection in a pond, and tries to fish it out with a rod and line. Unfortunately, around a dozen villages claim this as their own, to the point where no-one knows if it ever took place, much less where.

*In some versions, it's several people who are actually perfectly sane, but acting mad to fool a tax collector. I don't think Revenue & Customs would fall for it

 

[Elizabeth I]

How come posts like these usually happen when I leave for two or more days. Isn't there any other threads you could be in?

Yes, you're right. We do nothing but haunt this thread, hoping against hope that you will return, cracking jokes to hide the fact that our hearts break a little more at your every absence.

 

[zooterkin]

If someone wants to learn about Simon Greenleaf, the long article written by him I brought in should satisfy them.

I see you still haven't got the hang of independent evidence...

 

[Elizabeth I]

For instance, in England there is a traditional story of a village idiot who sees the moon's reflection in a pond, and tries to fish it out with a rod and line. Unfortunately, around a dozen villages claim this as their own, to the point where no-one knows if it ever took place, much less where.

Cool - that's also a Japanese story (at least it was in a book of Japanese stories I had as a child.)

 

[paximperium]

I"ve already responded to Waterman on Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School).

That is an easily proven lie.

If someone wants to learn about Simon Greenleaf, the long article written by him I brought in should satisfy them. Or read his book about the New Testament authors and the subject of evidence.

Waterman did so and showed his opinion to be WRONG. This is evidence that you did not read Waterman's post or what you yourself posted.

Care to try again?

 

[joobz]

I"ve already responded to Waterman on Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School). If someone wants to learn about Simon Greenleaf, the long article written by him I brought in should satisfy them. Or read his book about the New Testament authors and the subject of evidence.

Actually, you didn't RESPOND to him. He gave an extremely detailed analysis of ancient document rules and why it doesn't apply to understanding of the bible. first and foremost, the rule only applies to authenticity of an ACTUAL document. IT doesn't apply to the truthfulness of the statements written in that document.

So you would be able to use that rule to claim the Codex Sinactinus is authentic, but you couldn't use it to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

It is an extemely clear and logical argument and one that fits with modern law. Simon Greenleaf was wrong.

 

[Toke]

Cool - that's also a Japanese story (at least it was in a book of Japanese stories I had as a child.)

Wilhelm Tell is just a ripoff of a 500 years older incident involving the archer Toke, king Harald I of Denmark, an apple, and Toke's son.
(except for how Toke at a later occasion get to kill Harald)