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

[tsig]

I do believe that since I started posting the long list of his threads where he talks about his post count he has been reluctant to add to the list.

Give it time. He's been known to repeat.

 

[Dave_46]

Just to be clear, this was the film of the performance at the Albert Hall, which was put on to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Monty Python; so, it should be out on DVD before too long. <snip>

That was probably the performance that was broadcast on Radio 3 (Xmas/new year).

I recorded it off air (I shouldn't have said that should I).

Dave

(end of derail)

 

[Simon39759]

Well this thread's title talks about "evidence" the NT writers told the truth, not proof they did.

Well, at least, you heard a tiny little bit. Too bad it just was an excuse for you habitual intellectual dishonesty.
At any rate, quoting somebody else's opinion would be rejected in court under the cry: "Objection your honor; speculation!".

And for argument sake let's say that God really exists and that Jesus is really part of the Godhead/Trinity and thus he is God in the flesh. Do the below verses Thomas Jefferson put in his book sound like something a perfect person who is God in the flesh might say?

(Snipped the sermon of the mount).

First of all, that argument is self defeating. Obviously, Jefferson, that supported the American revolutions, certainly did not believe that whole 'turn the other cheek'; 'blessed the cheese-makers peace-makers' was a realistic way to conduct society or achieve justice...

More importantly, as many people, including me, have mentioned before, this philosophy, nice as it might be, is certainly not particularly profound, nor original. Similar statements have been made since and before by a variety of people; it is but an expanded version of the Golden rule which is nothing new, Epicurus had a version of the rule (in my opinion, superior to Jesus's) 300 years before him.

Really, the whole sermon, the whole Gospels, really, is but human platitude none of it show any particular type of really deep insights.
Nothing that could not be ascribed to a human teacher. One would expect the manifestation of a infinitely wise omniscient being to be a bit more ground breaking....

 

[six7s]

Well I'm sure Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, probably never read post 11054 but something convinced them.

Convinced them of what?

Please DOC, do at least try to answer

I'm still waiting, DOC

 

[Hokulele]

Well this thread's title talks about "evidence" the NT writers told the truth, not proof they did.

And for argument sake let's say that God really exists and that Jesus is really part of the Godhead/Trinity and thus he is God in the flesh. Do the below verses Thomas Jefferson put in his book sound like something a perfect person who is God in the flesh might say?

Actually, that sounds like something Lao Tzu said 600 years earlier.

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;
The needs of other people are as his own.

He is good to those who are good;
He is also good to those who are not good,
Thereby he is good.
He trusts those who are trustworthy;
He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,
Thereby he is trustworthy.

So, Lao Tzu was a perfect person who was God in the flesh? That would have come as a surprise to him.

 

[Hokulele]

The reason so many people have read this thread and kept it going so long is that the people who respond to your many fallacies are extremely informative. Hokulele in particular has taught me quite a bit. There is also a Christian named CW (or something similar) that knows his stuff, though I disagree with his conclusions regarding the divinity of Jesus.

Thanks.

Are you thinking of cj.23? If so, he really does know his stuff and I have learned quite a bit from him as well.

 

[Waterman]

While some skeptics are wasting time talking about me, I'm finding new information. Below is an example.

Better still. The whole tale is myth. It never happened. The Jesus of history is just a myth...

Then who created the most moral and sublime teachings ever preached to man (at least according to Thomas Jefferson) -- lying fisherman?

We don’t know what exactly he was referring to. As you are aware, apart from the support of slavery, Jefferson found little in the bible credible.

This is not ‘new’ information you have posted this before and no I am not going to look it up. Many of us are aware of the Jefferson Bible with is abbreviated text. No has said that there is NOTHING good in the bible, it has a lot of good ideas and pretty phrases. However, mixed with that is a bunch of rather unpleasant mess as well and things that may have seen to be reasonable 2000 years ago but are unnecessary and even abhorrent to modern day moral thinking You fail to see what is so blatantly obvious to most of the posters here. The existence of the Jefferson Bible does not support you position as you seem to claim it does. The bible is a very large book with a gazillion words. As an Atheist I could do the same, read through the bible and the good ideas that are applicable to modern day life, snip them out and make my own annotated bible (gotta cut out the prohibition on shellfish). However that doesn’t mean that I believe that there is any truth or validity to the parts I cut out. Nor does it mean that I would believe that they come form a super natural source and that god exists.

Then why did he spend the time cutting out bible verses with a razor and pasting them in a 82 page book. With each page averaging about 11 verses per page. So that is a least 880 biblical verses he spent time cutting out. …snip…

Lets do a little math here your ‘hero’ Jefferson went through the bible and decided that approximately 880 bible verses were worth saving an including in his little book. With a total of 31,000 verses to choose form he deemed <3% worthy of including in his abridged version. Lets put it another way, he considered 97% of the bible unworthy when it came to moral teachings. I think that I might be able to take just about any collection of mythology and find 3% that I could consider a good moral compass if I tossed out the other 97%. Does that mean that that particular mythology is true. Heck if I looked at The Lord of the Rings books I could probably find a lot more than 3% that is a good way to live. Does that mean that Hobbits live in the Shire?

 

[Simon39759]

To be honest; I believe that Jefferson's Bible was based only on the gospels which only represent a small portion of the whole Bible, so the 800 verses probably represent significantly more than 3% if them.

On the other hand, while his work on the Bible is famous, we know that Jefferson initially planned to do the same work from many ancient philosophers (especially the Greeks) and just didn't have the time. So arguing that it proves Jefferson's view Jesus' teaching as uniquely deserving of his attention is quite inaccurate...

 

[Hokulele]

To be honest; I believe that Jefferson's Bible was based only on the gospels which only represent a small portion of the whole Bible, so the 800 verses probably represent significantly more than 3% if them.

On the other hand, while his work on the Bible is famous, we know that Jefferson initially planned to do the same work from many ancient philosophers (especially the Greeks) and just didn't have the time. So arguing that it proves Jefferson's view Jesus' teaching as uniquely deserving of his attention is quite inaccurate...

To be fair, Jefferson had planned a sort of compare and contrast, not necessarily a compilation of "the best of the best". Jefferson, like many of his generation, believed that knowledge was increasing, so newer thoughts and philosophies were necessarily "better" than those that preceded them. This mindset is part of what led to the development of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

However, I like what Jefferson had to say about atheists and morality.

Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

 

[Simon39759]

Really? My understanding was that he was more interested in creating an encyclopedia reviewing the major philosophical thoughts and that his statements on the superiority of Jesus's teachings were about on Jesus superiority over previous biblical philosophies.

 

[Hokulele]

Really? My understanding was that he was more interested in creating an encyclopedia reviewing the major philosophical thoughts and that his statements on the superiority of Jesus's teachings were about on Jesus superiority over previous biblical philosophies.

The way I understood it, he planned to show what the ancient Greeks wrote on morality and discusses their strengths and weaknesses, do the same for Jewish thought, then show how core Christian teachings improved on each. Mind you, he did not believe that this was due to any influence of God (being a Deist and all). Judging by his descriptions, it sounds like Jefferson saw Jesus as fully human, just a better philosopher than most.

This web page explains it as well as any.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html

I wonder what would have happened if he had been exposed to Buddhism...

 

[Paulhoff]

I wonder what would have happened if he had been exposed to Buddhism...

Hinduism?

Brahman, which I understand is the top so-called god, has no temple, it is everything, to say what it is, is to make it less. Some idea there, I don't care for the soul stuff of Hinduism, the caste system . But it does account for the time scales of the universe .

Paul

 

[Moss]

Jefferson as tantrika? Now that would have been interesting... But only if he went Vajrayana.

 

[Waterman]

To be honest; I believe that Jefferson's Bible was based only on the gospels which only represent a small portion of the whole Bible, so the 800 verses probably represent significantly more than 3% if them.

Well, I had that thought too and ran the numbers for the NT alone this is like 11% of the verses, I didn't break it down further than that. I did think that he was primairly referring to the Gospels. However recently DOC ias been very critical of others using less than precise language, so I was assuming that he was using equally precise refernces, the 880 verses from the Bible, not the gospels.

However it does beg the question a little bit, why didn't Jefferson snip parts from the rest of the bible to include in what he consideres the most sub... well you get the rest.

I admit I was also trying to solicit a response, I seem to be ignored most of the time when I post a intellectually rigorous idea, but in a polite thoughtful manner without any exaggeration or hyperbole.

 

[zooterkin]

However it does beg the question a little bit, why didn't Jefferson snip parts from the rest of the bible to include in what he consideres the most sub... well you get the rest.

Are you sure he didn't?

 

[Simon39759]

Well, I had that thought too and ran the numbers for the NT alone this is like 11% of the verses, I didn't break it down further than that. I did think that he was primairly referring to the Gospels. However recently DOC ias been very critical of others using less than precise language, so I was assuming that he was using equally precise refernces, the 880 verses from the Bible, not the gospels.

Nah; in my opinion; argumentation ad minutiam is but one red herring in Doc's vast and well traveled bag of intellectual dishonesty it, in no way, implies that he makes any effort to apply to his own reasoning the absolute rigor he shamelessly ask from his opponents...

11% still means that 90% of the Gospels were not considered worthy of inclusion by dear old Thomas.
But, yes, rising the ratio from 3 to 11% brings it above the 5% threshold, so, statistically speaking, Thomas Jefferson did not consider the NT to be no different from worthless...

However it does beg the question a little bit, why didn't Jefferson snip parts from the rest of the bible to include in what he consideres the most sub... well you get the rest.

Because he did not consider any redeeming qualities in it? Or not enough to warrant the effort?
It's not pure conjecture, he actually states how deficient he considered the traditional moral Jewish teachings to be and how dire was the need for them to be reformed by Jesus...

I admit I was also trying to solicit a response, I seem to be ignored most of the time when I post a intellectually rigorous idea, but in a polite thoughtful manner without any exaggeration or hyperbole.

Well, yes, such arguments would require thoughtful, rational, facts-supported arguments to be refuted...
Doc has to play the cards he's been dealt... and facts just ain't in his favor (without some extreme happy-ending deep skin apologetic massaging)...

 

[Waterman]

Are you sure he didn't?

I personally don't know, my knowledge of the Jefferson Bible is limited to what has been posted here. However Simon pointed out that I was over stating the math beyiond what might have been fair. From his scholarly posts in the past I am inclined to accept his assessment and being more correct. However unlike some, I accept the criticism recognize my error and adjust my position accordingly.

11% of the NT
24% of Gospels

 

[Hokulele]

Well, yes, such arguments would require thoughtful, rational, facts-supported arguments to be refuted...
Doc has to play the cards he's been dealt... and facts just ain't in his favor (without some extreme happy-ending deep skin apologetic massaging)...

It would also require that DOC actually know something about the topics being discussed. Judging by his arguments, it is pretty clear that all he knows is what has been told to him by a very few sources (and none of those are primary sources). Whenever a question or issue comes up that hasn't been addressed by one of his chosen few, off to Google he goes! The problem is, since he doesn't know any of the stuff himself, his googling is as likely to bring up nonsense (John Boatwright) or disturbing propaganda (the neo-Nazi hate site that came up in another thread) as valid information. Since DOC is apparently unused to research and critical thinking, he cannot, or will not, distinguish between reliable scholarship and any old blurge that he thinks supports his points.

Sad, really.

 

[Hokulele]

I personally don't know, my knowledge of the Jefferson Bible is limited to what has been posted here. However Simon pointed out that I was over stating the math beyiond what might have been fair. From his scholarly posts in the past I am inclined to accept his assessment and being more correct. However unlike some, I accept the criticism recognize my error and adjust my position accordingly.

11% of the NT
24% of Gospels

Zooterkin was making a funny. His statement implies that there isn't anything worth keeping from the rest of the bible.


(Sorry, zooter, if I ruined your funny.)

 

[Simon39759]

I personally don't know, my knowledge of the Jefferson Bible is limited to what has been posted here. However Simon pointed out that I was over stating the math beyiond what might have been fair. From his scholarly posts in the past I am inclined to accept his assessment and being more correct. However unlike some, I accept the criticism recognize my error and adjust my position accordingly.

11% of the NT
24% of Gospels

Wait a minute; are you calling me scholarly? 'hem are fighting words 'round these parts (Mississippi)!

It would also require that DOC actually know something about the topics being discussed. Judging by his arguments, it is pretty clear that all he knows is what has been told to him by a very few sources (and none of those are primary sources). Whenever a question or issue comes up that hasn't been addressed by one of his chosen few, off to Google he goes! The problem is, since he doesn't know any of the stuff himself, his googling is as likely to bring up nonsense (John Boatwright) or disturbing propaganda (the neo-Nazi hate site that came up in another thread) as valid information. Since DOC is apparently unused to research and critical thinking, he cannot, or will not, distinguish between reliable scholarship and any old blurge that he thinks supports his points.

Sad, really.

I chalk it up to Doc being very poorly read and quite desperate.
I agree that, when confronted to an issue is mentors haven't already answered too, he tries to support his knee-jerk statements (rather than, you know, basing this initial opinion on something or even, FSM forbids, admit that it was unsupported and that he might have been wrong) he desperately turns to Google and repost the first thing he can find that somewhat seems to support his views. He then repost it without bothering beyond a very superficial reading, because he is as lazy as he is uneducated on the subjects he pretend to be lecturing people about...

Because his views are invariably pro-Christian and because some of the "theories" he attempt to support are clearly on the crackpot side; he it almost unavoidable that he would end up promoting the view of Christianese nutters, a group that constitute a large section of the extreme right wing.

So, yeah, I pretty much agree with Hoku on the subject, although I'd think Doc being too lazy to check his sources to any degree of depth have more to do with some of his "choice" source than pure uneducation...