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

[joobz]

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

Unfortunately, DOC will merely assert that oral tradition is different from Urban Legends.

Of course DOC will have a hard time explaining why Urban Legends, Fables and Myths are all classified as types of oral traditions.

 

[Toke]

Unfortunately, DOC will merely assert that oral tradition is different from Urban Legends.

Well, that one is obvious, how would you have urban legends without large urban areas?

 

[dafydd]

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

And a Belgian one.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

You may have a perception that I'm poorly read DOC, but that faulty perception is just one more reason that you are so outmatched here. I'd be inclined to think I know more about modern history than you could hope to if you started now and kept reading for the next thousand years.

If you'd ever bothered to broaden your incredibly limited horizon beyond your own pathetic little threads and overcome your obsession with creating lies to justify your obscene beliefs, you'd perhaps realise that you casting of aspersions about my erudition is akin to my pet herring, Nimrod, telling an Orcinus orca that he should learn to swim.

As to the ridiculous, half-formed idea expressed in your post, I would draw your attention to the observation that you yourself have made; that the authors of modern history have been known to speculate on available facts, whereas your own tripe is garnered solely from your own extremely limited understanding of an ancient fairytale and a narrow, biased view of history whose most notable feature is a complete dearth of factual information.

Also, you suck at insults.


Re-Horakty Akhenaten

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

Including this response, DOC, I have created 1,433 posts in the last 28 days.

Your own efforts are less than a pale shadow by comparison, and I find your pitiful attempt to denigrate your betters in this way to be far too laughable to even consider it remotely insulting.

You really have no idea who you're up against, do you? No wonder you're getting thrashed in this so-called debate.


Also, you need to study some grammar, so you don't keep making embarrassing mistakes like "Isn't there any other threads . . ."


Waenre

 

[zooterkin]

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

They generally make it clear when they are doing so, and they also make it clear what the facts are.

How are you getting on with your studies of the Revolutionary War?

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Of course I haven't because it is not true.

Guess what DOC.

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).

I learned the names of all the gospels of my religion from the traditions that your pitiful cult was based on, and which were begun thousands of years before your reedcutters and goatherders even existed.

Seth and Sobek, Horus and Hathor - and all of the old gods - predate your silly little Jeebus by millennia, and their names were carved in stone before the alleged founders of your cult had dragged themselves, kicking and screaming, from the twilight of the neolithic.

They must be more true, mustn't they?

(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.

Your cult may have been founded by illiterate goatherders, but my religion was most certainly not.

My religion was invented by the same people who invented the papyrus that your founders were too primitive to be able to utilise.

By the time your reedcutters learned to scratch out their names with a stick, my traditions had already been set in stone for thousands of years.

Tradition is not the same thing as legend.

Close enough for government work.

Geisler or Muncaster discuss that.

And their drivel has been debunked in this very thread so many times already that I choose on this occasion to simply acknowledge your dishonest attempt to use them as authoritative sources.

Once again people are trying to transport our modern ultra media society into that primitive non literary society.

lolwut?

Even the great majority of the Talmud was written from oral traditions of at least 100 years and possibly 200 years.

Get some time up, junior.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

​

Nimrod knows.

 

[Simon39759]

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

Yeah... That's bull.
Speculation should be clearly identified as such, first of all, also the ratio between pure speculation an the known fact should be as low as possible.

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).

But oral tradition is not qualitatively different from legend.
Also, you miss an important part, while it is known that the identity of the Gospels' authors come from the, very unreliable, oral traditions, starting around 180CE, our earlier sources, discussing the Gospels make no mention of their authors, strongly suggested the identity of their authors were not then available: aka the oral tradition had not started yet.
It might be a bit speculative, but it does rely on very solid grounds.

(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.

That's probably the first time that I hear the apogee of the Roman empire referred to as being "primitive"...

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.

Nah; you posted an article that was dismembered like by some chainsaw wielding Texan crazy-man. Among other, Waterman's demonstration on how Greenleaf misused the ancient document rule. You have carefully avoided mentioning that subject...

 

[I Ratant]

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

.
I'm thinking there are -some- good mentions about conduct and morality and ethical behavior in it.
Nothing original of course, but for some, it can be the only source of good/bad thinking.

 

[DOC]

Seems like the Jews started to take writing things down seriously just about the time Matthew (former Jew), Mark (former Jew), and Luke and did. So this is evidence that passing information along by writing in that non literary society was the exception rather than the rule.

Form Wiki on the Talmud:

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 CE and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Here is an interesting article by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in which the title pretty much says it all:

Title: "In many respects, the Oral Torah is more important than the Written Torah":


"The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.

Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…

The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation.

http://www.aish.com/jl/kc/48943186.html

 

[joobz]

Seems like the Jews started to take writing things down seriously just about the time Matthew (former Jew), Mark (former Jew), and Luke and did. So this is evidence that passing information along by writing in that non literary society was the exception rather than the rule.

Form Wiki on the Talmud:

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 CE and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Here is an interesting article by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in which the title pretty much says it all:

Title: "In many respects, the Oral Torah is more important than the Written Torah":


"The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.

Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…

The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation.

http://www.aish.com/jl/kc/48943186.html

The Story of Romulus and Remus is an oral tradition.

There is a reason why the written torah is clearly flawed. it is written. people can't adjust it to make it fit with society as society changes.

For instance, if the bible was still an oral tradition, the story of jesus condoning the beating of slaves would have been conveniently changed from slaves to servants and from beating to firing.

 

[Cleon]

Seems like the Jews started to take writing things down seriously just about the time Matthew (former Jew), Mark (former Jew), and Luke and did.

U, no. Jews were writing things down long before that. See, there's a reason your book is called the New Testament.

Don't post about Judaism, the Torah, or Talmud. It's clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about on that front, either.

 

[paximperium]

Hello DOC. Looks like you are not answering Kapyong or Waterman's post.
Please do so before running off on a tangent again or others may see you cowardly running away from facts that falsify your claims.

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?

 

[zooterkin]

Seems like the Jews started to take writing things down seriously just about the time Matthew (former Jew), Mark (former Jew), and Luke and did. So this is evidence that passing information along by writing in that non literary society was the exception rather than the rule.

Form Wiki on the Talmud:

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 CE and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Here is an interesting article by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in which the title pretty much says it all:

Title: "In many respects, the Oral Torah is more important than the Written Torah":


"The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.

Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…

The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation.

http://www.aish.com/jl/kc/48943186.html

Does this post have a point relevant to the subject of this thread?

 

[paximperium]

Does this post have a point relevant to the subject of this thread?

Yes. It's Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told a story.

 

[DOC]

Does this post have a point relevant to the subject of this thread?

I think very relevant, some people in here have complained that the gospels were not written contemporary to Christ's life. My last post has shown passing along information by writing was the exception rather than the rule before 70 ad. 70 ad, was right around the time scholars say Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels.

 

[paximperium]

I think very relevant, some people in here have complained that the gospels were not written contemporary to Christ's life. My last post has shown passing along information by writing was the exception rather than the rule before 70 ad. 70 ad, was right around the time scholars say Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels.

Thanks for providing more evidence that NONE of the so-called named authors of the gospels wrote the gospels.

Great job DOC.

 

[kmortis]

The Story of Romulus and Remus is an oral tradition.

So, you're trying to tell me that Rome WASN'T founded when one wolf-raised brother killed the other wolf-raised brother over which hill the city was to be founded upon? Pshaw! Next you'll tell me that Fenris was never chained to a rock when Tyr stuck his arm in Fenris's mouth. That's just CRAZY talk.

 

[laca]

I think very relevant, some people in here have complained that the gospels were not written contemporary to Christ's life. My last post has shown passing along information by writing was the exception rather than the rule before 70 ad. 70 ad, was right around the time scholars say Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels.

70AD? I thought you believe Jeebus died at thirty-something...

Seriously, DOC. All this does is make you look retarded.