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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Not really because the gospel account ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Or if your a skeptic and want to believe it ended with the death of Jesus. The deaths of the apostles came after the time period he was writing about. If I wrote a book about the life of Harry Truman in 1980. It would not be strange not to mention the death of John Kennedy.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
That's interesting; so you no longer believe that the fact that the destruction of the Temple is not mentioned helps to date when the gospels were written?
Click to expand...

No I still believe it. There may be other reasons why the gospel writers didn't report the martyrdom of the apostles.

1) they occurred after the gospel was written

http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html

notice how the earliest martyrdom of James 44 a.d. was in fact recorded in the Book of Acts.


2) the writer of the gospel might not have heard about the martyrdom at the time of his writings since according to oral tradition -- which as I've shown (according to at least one rabbi) is more important than a written source during that time -- several of the apostles died in places like India, Ethiopia, and Britainia. On the other hand, it is much more likely the gospel writer would have heard about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

3) He didn't want to scare non-believers before they had a chance to deeply learn the teachings and become strong in their faith.
 
Last edited:
Lord Emsworth said:
They are there. I just hope that it is not the devil who keeps you from seeing it. *prays for DOC*
Click to expand...

Then what are they if they are in the link he provided because I didn't see any.

ETA

Oh excuse, me I do see the name Ehrman, but the name Ehrman is not a source of a statement without a book title, a page number, and hopefully an exact quote.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No I still believe it. There may be other reasons why the gospel writers didn't report the martyrdom of the apostles.

1) they occurred after the gospel was written

http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html

notice how the earliest martyrdom of James 44 a.d. was in fact recorded in the Book of Acts.
Click to expand...

Interesting, they also speak of St. Thomas. :) And yet, you betray him. :(
 
DOC said:
Then what are they if they are in the link he provided because I didn't see any.

ETA

Oh excuse, me I do see the name Ehrman, but the name Ehrman is not a source of a statement without a book title, a page number, and hopefully an exact quote.
Click to expand...

*continues praying*
 
DOC said:
No I still believe it. There may be other reasons why the gospel writers didn't report the martyrdom of the apostles.

1) they occurred after the gospel was written

http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html
Click to expand...
This explanation at your source bothers me.

John,
son of Zebedee and bro. of James;
Bible writer Ephesus, Turkey
or Turkish Isle
of Patmos
98 AD

thrown in boiling oil but unharmed; died of Natural causes in Ephesus
Click to expand...
Really? He was thrown in boiling oil but unharmed? Really?

Which is more likely:

1 - A human being was thrown into a vat of boiling oil and his skin didn't peel off, he didn't breathe in oil and suffocate, melting his lungs, etc. He emerged "unharmed." (Having worked at KFC, I can tell you what hot oil does to human skin)
or

2 - The above account is a fantasy tale told in the 'oral tradition'

ETA - As you have learned countless times in this thread, people have died for many incorrect beliefs. Hitler died for the superiority of Nazism, David Koresh martyred himself thinking he was the new messiah, the Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves believing that the earth was about to be wiped clean based on their reading of the BOOK OF REVELATION. The suicide bombers of Al Qaeda kill themselves as a pathway to paradise in Islam. Are all of these things true?

Do you understand that people being killed for something doesn't make it true?
 
Last edited:
I know it's a pipe dream, but I'd like to see doc admit his mistake in the whole "Harry Truman/Kennedy assassination" thing. doc?

Then maybe we could discuss the likelihood of your other knowledge of history achieving the same great heights.
 
DOC said:
Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, and Josh McDowell are modern scholars too, and they write books that say it is not a myth and give the evidence why it isn't.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant to your original question, though.


Also; I would hate to attribute the title of scholar to your little friends as I consider them professional liars selling comforting BS to the willingly self-deluded.
To be a bit more objective, here is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar#Scholars"}definition[/url] of scholarly methods. As none of your apologetics give but the most passing and hypocritical nod to these methods, I do not believe they qualify for the title.
 
DOC said:
No I still believe it. There may be other reasons why the gospel writers didn't report the martyrdom of the apostles.

1) they occurred after the gospel was written

http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html

notice how the earliest martyrdom of James 44 a.d. was in fact recorded in the Book of Acts.


2) the writer of the gospel might not have heard about the martyrdom at the time of his writings since according to oral tradition -- which as I've shown (according to at least one rabbi) is more important than a written source during that time -- several of the apostles died in places like India, Ethiopia, and Britainia. On the other hand, it is much more likely the gospel writer would have heard about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

3) He didn't want to scare non-believers before they had a chance to deeply learn the teachings and become strong in their faith.
Click to expand...

Which apostle died in "Britainia"? What and where is Britainia?
 
Lucian said:
Which apostle died in "Britainia"? What and where is Britainia?
Click to expand...

Britainia is a spelling mistake. Had you read the page DOC linked to you would know that it has to be Brittainnia, which is in Europe.

You would also know that it is "Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite)" who was crucified there.

However, none of that is in the Bible, so there is every reason to just dismiss this kind of "information."
 
St. Andrews' bones (and a lot of lost golf balls) are in Scotland, but they didn't arrive until like 800 AD.
 
Hokulele said:
Pah, I would be far more impressed by Christianity if the apostles hadn't died at all, but were still wandering the earth, spreading the word. That would be considered evidence.
Click to expand...
The shambling undead specters of Jesus?
 
Hokulele said:
Yeah, and then the cthuloids would rise out of the depths and battle the undead apostles for the tasty souls of those left alive after the Valkyries had finished with the earth. That would be cool.
Click to expand...

At least more interesting than the games DOC is playing.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
Britainia is a spelling mistake. Had you read the page DOC linked to you would know that it has to be Brittainnia, which is in Europe.

You would also know that it is "Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite)" who was crucified there.

However, none of that is in the Bible, so there is every reason to just dismiss this kind of "information."
Click to expand...


Indeed, that's an interesting illustration of Doc's intellectual dishonesty.
There are several conflicting stories for my namesake's place of martyrdom. Most of them, as far as I know the older ones, place it in Armenia. Other place in Iran and Egypt and, in a few case, even India.
There is one final, later, generally rejected, tradition that put him as being martyred in Britain.

That is the least likely and supported of a [url)"http://www.atheavensgate.com/The%20Twelve%20Apostles/Simon.html"]wide variety[/url] of traditions, of course, but it is the one that seem to serve Doc's point the best, that the martyrdoms happened in a far away place and so the gospels writers could not be expected to know about it.

So, of course, Doc pick up this unreliable story wholesale and don't even mention that other accounts exist, let alone that this particular story is quite unlikely... One more example of hos tremendous intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, purposely leaving out such critical information when making an argument is nothing short of lying by omission.
 
Lucian said:
Which apostle died in "Britainia"? What and where is Britainia?
Click to expand...

Lord Emsworth said:
Britainia is a spelling mistake. Had you read the page DOC linked to you would know that it has to be Brittainnia, which is in Europe.

You would also know that it is "Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite)" who was crucified there.

However, none of that is in the Bible, so there is every reason to just dismiss this kind of "information."
Click to expand...
While I'm all for slamming DOC when he's blatantly wrong, a simple misspelling is not one of those cases. Hadrian commissioned his wall in 122 CE, so we know that the Roman Empire reached northern Britain/Southern Scotland at that time. A quick check of wikipedia, we find that the Romans were in Britian in 43 CE, a mere decade after the traditional crucifixion of Jesus.

As for Simon Z. being killed there? Well, there's enough controversy surrounding where he died to not even worry about him. Another quick wiki check shows four places of death listed. Of course, we're not even sure he existed, only really being mentioned in the Book of Acts.

So, DOC gets a pass on bringing Britannia up, but unless he can bring in solid evidence (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) that ANY apostles were martyred there, I'd suggest he stop mentioning-it-before-it-starts-to-hurt-his-credibility. Not that he has any left, but what he might gain at some point wold be hurt.
 
Hokulele said:
Yeah, and then the cthuloids would rise out of the depths and battle the undead apostles for the tasty souls of those left alive after the Valkyries had finished with the earth. That would be cool.
Click to expand...
Could you work Kali into that somehow? Thanks.
 
DOC said:
Akhenaten said:
I always notice how DOC's attack the messenger mode heats up whenever we bring in important information.
Click to expand...


Asking legitimate questions is attacking the messenger???
Click to expand...


I wouldn't have thought so, but you foolishly keep using that phrase when people ask you legitimate questions and it seems to me that turn-about is fair play.

I was pretty sure the irony of my post would be completely lost on you, but having that expectation met in such a comprehensive and timely fashion is just icing on the cake.

Thanks for playing.


DOC said:
Akhenaten said:
Well duh
Click to expand...


How come there are no names or book titles or page numbers in your source.
Click to expand...


Since you didn't ask for any, I didn't bother to make any up. Why are you always moving the goalposts like this, DOC?

Anyway, my only intentions were:

1. To amuse the other posters, and

2. To create a situation where I could say "Made you look!".


Guess what.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom