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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
What looks to be fulfilled prophecy is evidence but I don't say certain prophecies are proof.
Click to expand...

Because proof do not exist outside of math, as it has been explained to you many times, with words as small as possible. I wish I could draw...

A fulfilled prophecy would actually be a great bit of evidence for something supernatural going on but, then again, you'd have to get some MDC like conditions...

We would need to make sure that the prophecy existed before. In this case, it seems easy. Is it in the Old Testament? But, in reality, we have several instance where the Christians seem to have added stuff to the original text or (purposely or not) mistranslated it.

Ideally, the prophecy should be clearly be a messianic prophecy. The Jeremiah verse you write, when read in context, is NOT about Jesus at all. The whole apologetic really rely on THREE WORDS out of the whole page, the use of the term "jar", "potter" and "field"... Not very rare words either...

The prophecy should match perfectly, or at least really well. As mentioned before (and you did not apparently felt compelled to read this answer, illustrating your total dishonesty), none of the prophecy you brought up match the Jesus mythos to any significant level. One word here, one word there, one word that could kinda fit if you mistranslate it enough "if we just pretend this word means "pierced" and that "hands" actually mean "forearms"; then it matches. Sort off...

Really, none of the prophecies are impressive to any extend. You can stick your fingers in your hears and go "lalalala" all you want, they just don't fit very well and easily get dismembered in minutes...




When Hoku says this:

"Matthew, however, reads the original prophecy literally and invents rodeo Jesus where he is supposedly riding both animals (although I doubt at the same time)."

which I reply to in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5717014#post5717014
she is implying she has proof to state this as a fact, which is not the case as I show in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4618777#post4618777

Her statement is just a skeptic theory but not a proof (that discounts all other possibilities) as she implies.
Click to expand...

And there you prove one more time you know nothing of the scientific method.
Let me ask, how do you know that the proof you'd have provided "discount all other possibilities"? How do you know that some smarty-pants is not going to come up with a new "possibility", that your proof not addressed by your proof?

This is the reason why science and method relying on the scientific method reject the term proof. And that's the reason, one can, at least provisionally, until proven otherwise, settle on the most likely conclusion and treat it as truth.
Sure, there might still be competitive hypothesis, some people still believe the earth is flat after all, but the most logical conclusion, that it is a spheroid is still treated as 'true'.
Similarly, one can jump through hoops and make up excuses for Matthew's error but, as shown earlier. The circumvoluted explanation is dumb and hypocritical and unconvincing. That Matthew was referring to Jeremiah and made a mistake is the simplest, best fitting, most logical hypothesis and should, and is, regarded as "truth" until proven otherwise (and good luck with that).

Too bad you don't read, or at least don't answer to, the longer posts, as there are the ones you might actually learn something from. Then again, learning something seems quite antithetical of your whole objective...
 
Last edited:
This throws a whole new ball game up as well. God, been what he/she is supposed to be, powerful, all seeing etc. would have known this book would be used as his/hers word by mankind for thousands of generations to come. Surely, with such hindsight as ''God'' would have, would have made the reading of his/her book more legible, more straightforward and been able to be understood by nearly everyone. Prophecies would be able to be seen by the staunchest of atheists with no chance of been discarded. In the book of Daniel for example, there would be a prophecy that in the year 4bc there would be a baby boy born who would then be crucified in the year 30Ce after teaching or founding a new religion called christianity. Would all this be so hard to create from a being who is claimed created all that we see?
 
The bible is a mish mash of B/S just as it would be had it been written by mortal men and women. The gospelers couldn't even get the crucifixion right. There are four different versions of it, it's almost like they are referring to four messiahs.

Then there is the resurrection on the second-third day. There are five versions of that if you include Paul.
 
amb said:
The bible is a mish mash of B/S just as it would be had it been written by mortal men and women. The gospelers couldn't even get the crucifixion right. There are four different versions of it, it's almost like they are referring to four messiahs.

Then there is the resurrection on the second-third day. There are five versions of that if you include Paul.
Click to expand...

Back in highschool I spoke with some "missionary" comming to the school, I wondered how christianity was different from moon (he drew headlines at the time, and were used as posterboy for the danger of religius cults).

The answer was that the bible was way too incoherent to have been dreamed up as a simple hoax/construct. "If somebody had just made it up it would have had more internal consistancy, right"
I did not find that answer too impressive.
 
I have the sneaky suspicion that the church fathers came to exclude the other accounts on exactly the basis that those they finally put together were the least contradictory and not much more. And even that went not that far. (The whole Arianism issue, the schism between Rome and Constantinople...)
Or should we take the stance that God is an exceedingly bad ghostwriter and the whole choirs of angels and saints are bad literary editors?
 
amb said:
The bible is a mish mash of B/S just as it would be had it been written by mortal men and women. The gospelers couldn't even get the crucifixion right. There are four different versions of it, it's almost like they are referring to four messiahs.

Then there is the resurrection on the second-third day. There are five versions of that if you include Paul.
Click to expand...

Toke said:
Back in highschool I spoke with some "missionary" comming to the school, I wondered how christianity was different from moon (he drew headlines at the time, and were used as posterboy for the danger of religius cults).

The answer was that the bible was way too incoherent to have been dreamed up as a simple hoax/construct. "If somebody had just made it up it would have had more internal consistancy, right"
I did not find that answer too impressive.
Click to expand...
I think Doc’s standard reply is that a lack of consistency in accounts is expected and therefore evidence that the writers are telling the truth. See Geisliar

However when pressed he will not admit to any inconsistency. He claims the 5 resurrection fables are totally consistent with each other. This consistency is evidence that the writers are telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
-''Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.''-

-Issac Asimov.-
 
Lothian said:
I think Doc’s standard reply is that a lack of consistency in accounts is expected and therefore evidence that the writers are telling the truth. See Geisliar

However when pressed he will not admit to any inconsistency. He claims the 5 resurrection fables are totally consistent with each other. This consistency is evidence that the writers are telling the truth.
Click to expand...


One of Bart Ehrman's recent books (Jesus Interrupted) had an interesting point about this. He stated that most Christians actually have 5 different gospels, the 4 that are in the NT and a personal gospel that is a mish mash of their favorite stories from those 4, plus any other personal beliefs. This is how you end up with a Christmas story that includes mangers and donkeys and shepherds and wise men (conflating the stories from Matthew and Luke with a few personal inclusions), or a Jesus who manages to be fully human (Mark), holy (Luke), and fully divine (John).
 
Lothian said:
I think Doc’s standard reply is that a lack of consistency in accounts is expected and therefore evidence that the writers are telling the truth. See Geisliar

However when pressed he will not admit to any inconsistency. He claims the 5 resurrection fables are totally consistent with each other. This consistency is evidence that the writers are telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, but DOC's inconsistency is evidence for why we know that DOC tells the truth. Oh, and also, he's not really inconsistent.
 
New thread! Limericks for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth!

The best historian's Luke.
We've heard it enough to puke.
Sir William is dead.
"No magic!", he said.
Cherry pick without rebuke!
 
A fellow named Paul
Had a terrible fall
On the road to Damascus one day.

With a mighty crash,
And a blinding flash,
Teh Lord told him just what to say.

"All men must now know,
That the Gay Rodeo
Is surely the light and the way."
 
A Randi board poster called DOC
Offered facts that he thought would shock
Now we're making up rhymes
To just pass the times
While we wait for his next bit of schlock
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom