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

[zooterkin]

More attack the messenger. Who said both words were used, I must have missed that?

There you go again.

To remind you:

Hey, I recognize that name! That's the same scholar who said that Luke invented stories about jesus to fit with a prophetic narrative.

Actually his wording was that Luke guessed wrong. other scholars disagree. And as far as I know he is still a priest who believes in a divine Jesus.

You appear to be correcting joobz about whether the word used was invented. You say, "Actually his wording was that Luke guessed wrong".

joobz was correct, because O'Connor did say that Luke invented the census.

When this was pointed out, did you accept it? No, you evaded again:

I wasn't being dishonest, O'Connor did say Luke guessed wrong:

Part of O'Connor's opinion:

"He {Luke} made a guess and he got it wrong."

Missing the point, once again. The point is that you tried to make it look as though joobz was wrong. He was not. You were wrong. You owe joobz yet another apology.

Let me try that again.

You were wrong. You owe joobz yet another apology.

 

[Simon39759]

Is this something you just assumed or do you have a source.

Seems like a logical conclusion.
Also, ironymeter-splosion coming from you...

No source or what prophet or explanation of whatever Rodeo Jesus is! People on here aren't mind readers.

No, but they should be familiar enough with the subject (or at least the thread, both have been alluded too here previously).

Matthew attribute to Jeremiah a "prophecy" (which actually has nothing to do with Jesus), that was, in reality, written by Zechariah.

He also describes Jesus as entering Jerusalem on both a colt and a donkey at the same time, all based on his mistaken reading of Zechariah 9 which, once again, has nothing to do with Jesus but his a promise to unity Israel once again and defeat militarly its Pagan enemies.


Here is the thing Doc, if you come here and pretend to give people lessons about the historicity of the NT, you should be among the most knowledgeable posters on the subject,, at the very least, you should have a solid level of knowledge on the subject, which you do not strike me as having, not by a long range.

 

[DOC]

I find DOC's regurgitation of his long debunked spam amusing.

For DOC's arguments to work, DOC has to assume that the lurkers reading this thread to be mentally retarded. I find his arrogant condescension of the lurkers and posters here to be insulting...in a very sad pathetic way.

More wasting space attacking the messenger, it must be because of my post 11054. And that post was a response to a newbie who implied there was no evidence in this thread. I don't always assume people have read all 11,000 posts when they are new -- in fact it is probably highly unlikely.

And you (and some others) are the ones insulting lurkers by not simply letting the posts stand for themselves without many times making personal attacking posts that offer Zero information, and rudely create wasted non-informative space. You're basically saying hey lurkers you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind about this thread you need my no information opinion to do it for you.

And I recently brought in the very important "new" info about the importance of Oral Tradition during the new Testament times, and this info was given not by a Christian but by a Rabbi who can't be called biased.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

and here is why the above post is important

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682528#post5682528

So even though this thread occasionally has repeated info (which can be expected in a thread this long) every once in awhile some very important "new" information comes out.

 

[carlitos]

More wasting space

 

[DOC]

Seems like a logical conclusion

Then you should say it can be inferred rather than falsely giving the impression it is fact.

 

[Lothian]

And I recently brought in the very important "new" info about the importance of Oral Tradition during the new Testament times, and this info was given not by a Christian but by a Rabbi who can't be called biased.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

and here is why the above post is important

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682528#post5682528

So even though this thread occasionally has repeated info (which can be expected in a thread this long) every once in awhile some very important new information comes out.

What did you bring that was important? Giving a reason why there is no evidence that the NT writers told the truth can not be taken as evidence that they did.

The only importance is that it debunks your claim that the apostles wrote the gospels.

 

[Lothian]

And you (and some others) are the ones insulting lurkers by not simply letting the posts stand for themselves without many times making personal attacking posts that offer Zero information, and rudely create wasted non-informative space. You're basically saying hey lurkers you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind about this thread you need my no information opinion to do it for you.

Doc we will not let your posts stand for themselves. They have been debunked many times. You then bring them up again pretending they are somehow valid.

We are just telling lurkers that it is old ground.

 

[Simon39759]

More wasting space attacking the messenger, it must be because of my post 11054. And that post was a response to a newbie who implied there was no evidence in this thread. I don't always assume people have read all 11,000 posts when they are new -- in fact it is probably highly unlikely.[/url]

You could achieve that by simply posting a ling to the post in question.
And, if you are going to post the same thing again, at the very least, you should acknowledge that the points you make were immediately contested (or sunk to the abyss by a precise and merciless volley of rhetoric).

And you (and some others) are the ones insulting lurkers by not simply letting the posts stand for themselves without many times making personal attacking posts that offer Zero information, and rudely take up empty non-informative space. You're basically saying hey lurkers you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind about this thread you need my no information opinion to do it for you.

Like, whatever, if you worry about wasted place, start by stopping making your pointless references to you post counts, the number of posts in the thread or similar subjects...

And I recently brought some very important "new" information about the importance of Oral Tradition during the New Testament period in this post

It was not important and it was not "information", it was you stating something groundless and silly (the Roman empire, as its apogee mind you, was "primitive" and record keeping was rare).
You were wrong, we know that they kept good record, Tacitus used them extensively.
You then tried to avoid the subject by asking for a signature of Cesar which was stupid beyond stupid, Roman did not use signatures as a mean of identification...

Also, the good rabbi was not referring to the general writing practices of the Roman empire as you do, he was considering the highly specific subject of the early Torah...

and here is why the above post is important

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682528#post5682528

Here is the content of the original post:

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.

And we know its pure drivel. The Empire was keeping good records (Tacitus used them); Cesar in his Gaulish campaign was writing back to Rome regularly and even had his book, the war of the Gauls, distributed there in an episodic format as he was writing it.

Also, I can't help to notice how you put Matthew's gospel as being written in 70CE while Matthew, according to Eusebius and the Christian tradition, he is supposed to have died in 48^ishCE.
So... When were Ouija boards invented?

So even though this thread occasionally has repeated info (which can be expected in a thread this long) every once in awhile some very important new information comes out.

The ratio between repeated and new information is surprisingly low, however, especially considering the (zero) quality of the "new information" ("them Romans not wrote good" *snicker*).

 

[paximperium]

More wasting space attacking the messenger, it must be because of my post 11054. And that post was a response to a newbie who implied there was no evidence in this thread. I don't always assume people have read all 11,000 posts when they are new -- in fact it is probably highly unlikely.

And you (and some others) are the ones insulting lurkers by not simply letting the posts stand for themselves without many times making personal attacking posts that offer Zero information, and rudely create wasted non-informative space. You're basically saying hey lurkers you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind about this thread you need my no information opinion to do it for you.

And I recently brought in the very important "new" info about the importance of Oral Tradition during the new Testament times, and this info was given not by a Christian but by a Rabbi who can't be called biased.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

and here is why the above post is important

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682528#post5682528

So even though this thread occasionally has repeated info (which can be expected in a thread this long) every once in awhile some very important "new" information comes out.

Yawn...no.
I do remember great information provided:

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.

So DOC. Do you think the lurkers here and the posters here are mentally retarded? Do you think we would suddenly forget your nonsense?


Oh yes, since you keep forgetting. Still no answers?

Gday,




The GOSPELS themselves were completely unknown in the 1st century.

But, in the 2nd century we start to see some references to written Gospels - WITHOUT author's names. The names were only attached in late 2nd C., probably by Irenaeus.



Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this SINGULAR un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels, and the lateness of late naming.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given, even though Justin explicitly tells us what they were named ("which are called Gospels".) If Justin knew of any author's names he would CERTAINLY have given them.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.


It's clear that the Gospels were UN-NAMED until late 2nd century.



K.

Can you please read your own post?
Ireneus: 130-200 CE (in Adversus Haereses, written in 180 CE)
Origen: 185-254 CE
Eusebius: 263–339 CE
Pantaenus : died 200CE (apparently "originated the tradition" but we don't have any actual writings of his. Also; the tradition describe him as travelling to India and discovering Christians already established there and using the Gospel of Matthew... It all seem rather unlikely).


It's all perfectly in line with the timeline advanced by Joobs: there is no tradition anterior to about 180 CE (I guess Joobs was probably referring to Ireneus). In all reference prior to that, the Gospels were unattributed.

It is also worth mentioning that the first allusion, that of Ireneus, was not a work of history. It was designed as a work of propaganda in the theological fight against the gnostic sects. While one can not argue one way or the other, there was a definite political interest in the part of Ireneus in making his own traditions appear more legitimate by harking back to the original apostles...

In my first post re: Greenleaf, I had identified him and what appeared to be his argument from the Ancient DOcuments Rule (per wikipedia) and speculated where he may have erred.

You then challenged me to accrualy read his words and see if I still held that position (you however did not provide any logical counter argument).

I did read his words as did Simon. We pointed out numerous areas were he made a number of logical fallacies as well as pointed out that the same arguement could be made to validate ANY religion that has a long standing written tradition.

You have yet to respond to this second set of posts by myself (who focused on the Ancient Document Rule) and Simon (who gave an overview of the most glaring issues he observed). Greenleafs argument goes undefended. As always for you to defend his argument you need to counter the argument made by Simon and myself not post additional quotes by Greenleaf, academic or legal credential or support of others.

A truely logical argument stands on its own. It is not need the props of famous people, quotations, degrees or ancient traditions.

 

[Simon39759]

Holy smurf!
They did have Ouija boards! At least, they had already been invented!

I had no idea it was that old! Holy mother-smurfing smurf on a stick, that smurf blows my smurf!



ETA: Yeah; ok I hadn't read far enough; we don't have reliable records of Ouija boards at the time, it seem more like it was invented in the XIX^th century (which would have been my guess) and that earlier accounts of something vaguely similar were twisted to appear to give support to the tradition and give it a varnish of ancient respectability.
A bit like some unscholarly Gospel writer could take passage of the Old Testament and then twist them (and or twist the events he's reporting) to make them appear like a prophecy of the live of some first century prophet he'd like to support...

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Looks like there's a direct correlation between the level of injustice in these personal attacks against DOC and the number of people leaping to his defence.

 

[Waterman]

Since you're new to the thread you might have missed this information I brought into the thread:

I note that you are now calling this information not evidence. I can accept that this is information and much of it is actually factual (though some seems to be in question). However as Evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth as posited in the OP it falls way short of that mark. I will not attempt address all these point as others are responding to those but will look briefly at a few.

Respected archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian with regard to facts that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

He did make this statement and you have modified you statement it to limit his reference as it appears he intended. However with these limitations it does not support the OP and your contention that ALL of the NT is true. If you are contending that his accuracy in one area should add validity to what he recorded as he was told by others is speculation. At best you could imply that he recorded what he was told accurately not that the information it self was accurate. Others have noted that Luke was not a first hand witness of any of the Jesus phenomenon.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Others have debated the facts presented here, however even if true this is evidence of the existence of Christians not that the NT is true.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Speculation / opinion is not equal to evidence.

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection and how he considered them to have more historical evidence then any other fact in history up to that point.

This is obviously hyperbole and should be treated as such not evidence or even a true opinion. Flowery language is sometimes used to make a point in a speech even in writing if it is obviously hyperbole it should not be considered factual. (I have seen this used in evolutionary debates where the hyperbole is trucked out as the core of the argument, this is evidence of quote mining at it’s worst). The revolutionary war occurred prior to his statement and has TONs more evidence and hundreds of first hand accounts and we have the original documents (including signatures). How does the Bible stack up there. Remember the point is historical evidence of the events.

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

You continue to trot this out even though it implies that Jesus himself was a poor motivational speaker and despite all his other miracles and could not convince his ‘devout’ followers of the ‘truth’ until after the resurrection..

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.

It has been shown to you in great detail why Greenleaf’s reasoning was flawed. As you continue to post this you have not changed your opinion on the matter. Please show us where my reasoning in my analysis of his application of the Ancient Document Rule to the bible in is error. <thanks Pax for deeming my material worthy of repeating>

A Jewish Rabbi stated that the Oral Torah {and thus oral tradition evidence} is more important than written the Written Torah.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

Does this mean that the fluidity and mutability of oral traditions is preferable to fixed text. That we need to adapt and change the substance of the text to fit changing times? Really? That seems to go against everything you have stood for so far particularly as it applies to the Jesus story. What is your position? You seem to be presenting information that undermine some of your own points.

 

[Waterman]

I am wondering if the response to my post (if there is any) will focus on my reference to hyperbole and ignore any of the other substantive points. <if this proves true can I apply for the MDC>

 

[joobz]

And you (and some others) are the ones insulting lurkers by not simply letting the posts stand for themselves without many times making personal attacking posts that offer Zero information, and rudely create wasted non-informative space.

Translation, "Shut up and let me preach."

You're basically saying hey lurkers you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind about this thread you need my no information opinion to do it for you.

No, We are basically saying,
"Hey Lurkers, DOC is a liar. His arguments have already been debunked Check post numbers X, Y and Z. Notice that DOC never addressed these counterarguments. Why? Because he can't."

And I recently brought in the very important "new" info about the importance of Oral Tradition during the new Testament times, and this info was given not by a Christian but by a Rabbi who can't be called biased.

Oral tradition = story telling.

 

[joobz]

You were wrong. You owe joobz yet another apology.

Thank you for that, but I'm not foolish enough to actually think DOC will do this.
I once apologized to DOC for claiming he was here attempting to "prove" Christianity real through irrelevant fact attrition. Later on, he admitted he was doing just that and has still to apologize for lying. Of course, his argument was that he wasn't "proving" Christianity true, merely providing evidence that Christianity is true. Which is like saying, "I'm not stabbing you, I'm merely applying excessive pressure to your abdomen with this sharp pointing thing."

It's strange that as a Christian, he is extremely reluctant to ask for forgiveness.

 

[kmortis]

There you go again.

You queried whether O'Connor used the word, "invented", and suggested that instead he had said, "guessed". As the transcript shows, and as has been pointed out more than once before, both words were used. You were dishonestly trying to suggest that joobz and others were wrong, when in fact they were completely correct. I've yet to see you apologise for that.

More attack the messenger. Who said both words were used, I must have missed that?

Again, he's not attacking the messenger here. You neglected to apply the KMortis rule of Attacking the Messenger in DOC threads. If you're posting in a DOC thread (which, by definition if you DOC are posting in a thread, it is a DOC thread) and you think that you're being attacked, look at the poster's name, if it's not kmortis, then it's not an attack. Please re-read it slower, and more carefully. You may want to get an adult to help you with the big words (like "the" or "and") so you can more readily engage in the conversation.

Thank you for your continued entertainment value, moron.

See, THAT was an attack.

 

[Simon39759]

Again, he's not attacking the messenger here. You neglected to apply the KMortis rule of Attacking the Messenger in DOC threads. If you're posting in a DOC thread (which, by definition if you DOC are posting in a thread, it is a DOC thread) and you think that you're being attacked, look at the poster's name, if it's not kmortis, then it's not an attack. Please re-read it slower, and more carefully. You may want to get an adult to help you with the big words (like "the" or "and") so you can more readily engage in the conversation.

Thank you for your continued entertainment value, moron.

See, THAT was an attack.

And a nice one at that ol' chap!

 

[kmortis]

I find DOC's regurgitation of his long debunked spam amusing.

For DOC's arguments to work, DOC has to assume that the lurkers reading this thread to be mentally retarded. I find his arrogant condescension of the lurkers and posters here to be insulting...in a very sad pathetic way.

More wasting space attacking the messenger, it must be because of my post 11054. And that post was a response to a newbie who implied there was no evidence in this thread. I don't always assume people have read all 11,000 posts when they are new -- in fact it is probably highly unlikely.

And you (and some others) are the ones insulting lurkers by not simply letting the posts stand for themselves without many times making personal attacking posts that offer Zero information, and rudely create wasted non-informative space. You're basically saying hey lurkers you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind about this thread you need my no information opinion to do it for you.

And I recently brought in the very important "new" info about the importance of Oral Tradition during the new Testament times, and this info was given not by a Christian but by a Rabbi who can't be called biased.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

and here is why the above post is important

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682528#post5682528

So even though this thread occasionally has repeated info (which can be expected in a thread this long) every once in awhile some very important "new" information comes out.

Again, "paximperium" <> "kmortis". So, I'll take you through since you're having issues with the big words again.

I find DOC's regurgitation of his long debunked spam amusing.

Here, paximperium (I'll shorten this to "pax" so you don't have as many letters to keep track of) is expressing an opinion. He finds your writing style humorous. Entertaining is a good thing, really. It means that you add value in a amusing way, like a sitcom or clown. Not like the bad clowns that touch you in the naughty places then try to lead you to their basements and kill you, but in the good circus clown sort of way.

For DOC's arguments to work, DOC has to assume that the lurkers reading this thread to be mentally retarded.

Now here, pax is explaining under what circumstances your premises would be valid. Since, in the past, you have claimed that you're posting for all to read and make up their own minds, pax is just pointint out that, due to the quality of your arguments, you must be assuming a mentally deficient audience due to the poor nature of your declaritive statements.

I find his arrogant condescension of the lurkers and posters here to be insulting...in a very sad pathetic way

Here pax is clarifying his previous sentance, to help you and others to see why he believes you think your audience is a collective of drooling gibbons in human form. He points out that some of your repeated attempts to use discredited arguments is less than honest and not helping to further your cause; in fact, he seems to indicate that your very own words may be harming your case. It is, he says "insulting" to the audience to be continously exposed to such work.

Really, when you look at it, pax is trying to be helpful by letting you know how to better your arguments. How to shore them up, and make them stronger. He does this because he knows that to have an argument against an opponent who is at least two orders of magnitude poorer in skill is no way to hone the verbal jousting capabilities. you should be thankful that pax posted this. Thankful that it wasn't me.

I'd just call you a frelling moron and be done with it. Moron.

 

[paximperium]

Amen Brother kmortis. Amen. Hallelujah praise Sata...uh I mean Darwin.

 

[Simon39759]

May the Hitchens be with you.