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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
You must have misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying it is my opinion that post 11054 presents evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth. There are plenty of cold facts in that post.
Click to expand...
Your opinion about the "facts" you claimed to have presented is pretty much discredited and irrelevant.

Your failure is your problem. Like I've said, you're a great resource in decoverting people. Keep up the good work.
 
[as sung by Geddy Lee] And the meeeeeekrats in-herrrrr-it the earth [/as sung by Geddy Lee]

DOC, if you go back a few pages there are many, many substantive posts that you are ignoring, preferring to engage in your logical fallacies and thin-skinned sniping. While it worked on me (the de-conversion bit), is that really your goal? If not, why not answer a question or two?

Here's one to get you started:
Moss said:
Which ending of Mark do you think is the original DOC? And why?
Click to expand...

ETA - Here are a few more, if you are feeling ambitious. Really, you ignoring this stuff in your own thread is really odd to me.
Kapyong said:
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.
Click to expand...
Simon39759 said:
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...
Click to expand...
Waterman said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
This supports what I've always said, it seems every time I bring in important info, the attack the messenger modes really heats up.

Your statement is laughable, this thread and most of my others wouldn't even be in existence if I wasn't a voracious reader of books.
Click to expand...
You've just helped prove that Jesus supported the beating of slaves.
 
DOC said:
It seems to me some skeptics are scared to death to let the posts stand on their own without having to add personal attacks to the mix.
Click to expand...
IT seems you are unwilling or unable to defend your arguments.
People ridicule you as a result.
 
joobz said:
It seems you are unwilling or unable to defend your arguments.
People ridicule you as a result.
Click to expand...


Succinctly put.

Although I might have elaborated:

It seems you are unwilling or unable to defend your arguments.
Yet you trot them out again and again, ignoring the criticisms.
People ridicule you as a result.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
It seems to me some skeptics are scared to death to let the posts stand on their own without having to add personal attacks to the mix.
Click to expand...

Ahem... First of all this is a discussion board where people meet to discuss topics. If you want to post your opinion on matters and have the go unchallenged (ie 'stand on thier own') either post in venue that is friendlier to the topic (you knew what you were getting into when you posed on a skeptical site) or get your own website. The purpose here to to discuss and exchange ideas.

I have posted numerous polite counter arguments to your posts and they are largely ignored. Why are you here? To engage in discussion or to preach? If it is the former lets go ignore the sniping and post responses to those that have challenged the validity of your evidence with well reasoned arguments. Where did I err in my reasoing re: Greenleaf. More quotes or citations are not counter arguments. Where did I err in my reasoning?
 
DOC said:
And any troll can come in here and say the exact same thing you did without having read 2 posts in this thread. [/url]

Considering how many hours I spend answering writing substantive posts in this thread; considering how you systematically ignore such posts from me or anybody else; I'd say your behaviour is more trollish than mine.


It seems to me some skeptics are scared to death to let the posts stand on their own without having to add personal attacks to the mix.

If you read a personal attack post (of which there are many in this thread), and you learn zero in the post, guess what, your time just got wasted. In addition to being rude, and showing a bitterness in the person, it is against the rules. But that won't stop some skeptics in this thread from doing it.
Click to expand...

Considering the content of your last post of substance (for lack of a better term) was answered debunked 4 pages ago; there is not much else we can do.


ETA: And your use of the working drunken meekrat really hurts your credibility on this site.
Click to expand...


Dude; meekrats don't work. They inherited the earth and are leaving of the rents they charge us...


But, ok, I am apologizing to the working meerkats of the world (but not to the lazy unemployed meerkats, though, that sit at home watching Oprah all day long and collecting social security checks; get a job you bums!).


 
Last edited:
I have nothing just at the moment, other than amazement.

Given certain other threads going on at the moment, this place is like a breath of fresh air.

Go figure.


Meerkats, for Aten's sake. I just . . . well, you know.


You guys and gals are awesome.
 
DOC said:
And any troll can come in here and say the exact same thing you did without having read 2 posts in this thread.


.
Click to expand...

Yes, isn't it awful when people comment without reading?

DOC said:
Not according to the author of this book:

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (Paperback)

Timothy Paul Jones (Author)
Click to expand...

Have you read either Ehrman or Jones's books?
 
Moss said:
Ehrman is awesome!:D
Click to expand...
Yes. I forgot that one. A great historian. I've got, Misquoting.

DOC said:
Not according to the author of this book:

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (Paperback)

Timothy Paul Jones (Author)
Click to expand...

You see DOC, this is why members here can't take you seriously. You know that author is a theist, and fundamentalist one at that. What do you expect such a one to write? Of course his only defense is to attack people like Ehrman.
 
Moss said:
Ehrman is awesome!:D
Click to expand...

The only thing cooler than finding a copy of Jesus, Interrupted in the books-and-magazines section of a supermarket in my fairly religious (Mormon) community ...

... is finding a copy of Jesus, Interrupted in the Inspirational Books section in my fairly religious community.

The week before Easter.
 
Cactus Wren said:
The only thing cooler than finding a copy of Jesus, Interrupted in the books-and-magazines section of a supermarket in my fairly religious (Mormon) community ...

... is finding a copy of Jesus, Interrupted in the Inspirational Books section in my fairly religious community.

The week before Easter.
Click to expand...

Yea, yea. Dream on! ;)
 
Moss said:
Which ending of Mark do you think is the original DOC? And why?
Click to expand...
I've already discussed this in this thread. There are several explanations. One could be simply the original Mark was used so much by early Christians that the last few pages were lost or damaged. Heck, I even have had books where the last few pages came off, and those books were made with modern equipment, not papyrus. That is just one of several explanations. But there were other gospels around, and many evangelists, and the oral tradition -- which I already presented evidence was more important than the written word at that time.

And most of the 11 of 12 apostles were dying martyr's deaths even before Mark was written. Not everything in life is cut and dry. A lot of the problems are caused by skeptics trying to transport our modern industrial society and culture back to that ancient paperless society where the oral tradition was very important in passing information to the next generation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom