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

[Toke]

No, but all those martyrs dying so soon to the reported resurrection (which is an event in history and not just a philosophy) adds more weight to be put on the scale of evidence. And that's what this thread is about -- evidence -- not my opinion or belief.

By that measure Jim Jones must have been Jesus himself, right?

(I assume you have heard of Jonestown, if not you should try read of it, It is a good example of religious hysteria.)

 

[Elizabeth I]

This argument does not apply to this issue because you have not presented any proof of what you are basically saying -- that the Resurrection was not true.

In general, we know that resurrection after being dead for three days is not possible. Therefore it is unlikely to have happened in this case. Without absolute, unmistakeable evidence that it took place, the reasonable position is therefore to assume that it did not.

And to say that it was possible in this one particular instance because of God is circular argument and special pleading, so don't bother.

How can you be mistaken about something like the Resurrection that has not been proven true or false.

See above.

Joobz says Luke lied -- that makes Luke a liar according to Joobz doesn't it?

And Simon implies Mark and John might have lied.

Links?

What exactly are you talking about. You can't be talking about the Resurrection (which is the main focal point of Christianity) because you have no proof it turned out not to be true.

You don't have to tell us that the resurrection is the main belief of Christianity. I think we are all well aware of that. Nevertheless, parsimonious thought indicates that it is more likely not to be true than true.

You, however, are the person who keeps asking, "Why would all these liars [fill in the blank]?" "If it was a lie, would the apostles have [fill in the blank]?"

It almost seems as if you might be afraid it's all a lie.

 

[tsig]

A cynic might point out that he tried to salvage the worthwhile parts from the dross.

Almost like a miner picking out the valuable from the worthless.

 

[John Jones]

This argument does not apply to this issue because you have not presented any proof of what you are basically saying -- that the Resurrection was not true.

Where is the evidence that we know the NT writers told the truth?

 

[joobz]

Explain?

None of the things you've said represent "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" regarding the truthfulness of the authors.


Interestingly, evidence has been presented which contradicts the author's truthfulness.

For instance, we have evidence that Luke made up the story of the census.

 

[Hokulele]

No, but all those martyrs dying so soon to the reported resurrection (which is an event in history and not just a philosophy) adds more weight to be put on the scale of evidence. And that's what this thread is about -- evidence -- not my opinion or belief.

Please provide evidence, other than the bible, for the existence of these martyrs, much less their martyrdom.

DOC, do you even know what the term "circular reasoning" means? If so, please provide the definition you use.

 

[Waterman]

You falsely imply that the quote was Geisler's total reasoning for the issue whereas he writes another 2 1/2 pages on the topic. And if you believe the NT writers told the truth as I have been giving evidence for throughout this thread (e.g. post 11054 and the links in post 12307) then what he said is perfectly accurate. The apostles were not being martyred because they had faith, they were dying because they had proof.

I have read the 2.5 pages on the topic about the Muslim martyrs and it boils down to special pleading fallacy after a round of circular reasoning. In order to consider this line of reasoning that is presented it is required that you accept that what the bible says is true. Without that assumption then the argument falls apart.

This helps explain the very rapid growth of Christianity "by peaceful means" (as opposed to by military means in Islam) in the very dangerous Roman empire where preaching Christianity could get you killed (not a real good selling point for your religion).

This is irrelevant to whether or not the bible is true. In a time and place of chosen people and elitism in religions a religion that says all will come before god as equals and be judged on their own merit would have a lot of appeal to an underclass. Based on the posts of others the spread was through this class. In a Roman pantheon of many gods what is one more?

From the Article "Miracles" by Peter Kreeft

"If Jesus did not really rise from the dead, three questions are unanswerable: Who moved the stone? Who got the body? and Who started the Resurrection myth and why? What profit did the liars get out of their lie?

I will tell you what they got out of it. They got mocked, hated, sneered and jeered at, exiled, deprived of property and reputation and rights, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, clubbed to a pulp, beheaded, crucified, boiled in oil, sawed in pieces, fed to lions, and cut to ribbons by gladiators If the miracle of the Resurrection did not really happen, then an even more incredible miracle happened: twelve Jewish fishermen invented the world's biggest lie for no reason at all and died for it with joy, as did millions of others. This myth, this lie, this elaborate practical joke transformed lives, gave despairing souls a reason to live and selfish souls a reason to die, gave cynics joy and libertines conscience, put martyrs in the hymns and hymns in the martyrs — all for no reason. A fantastic con job, a myth, a joke."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0021.html

So if miracles didn’t happen, it was a miracle? What sort of reasoning is that? No one is claiming that a cabal of conspirators gathered to draft a plan to pull the wool over humanities eyes with a false religion (except in the straw man argument that is set up here). It was a process that developed overtime and who origins are fairly hazy, someone took the Jewish teaching twisted them slightly inviting others to join in and relaxing a few of the more restrictive rules. As you have pointed out the oral torah and teaching were more important the written word. The oral tradition allows for stories to morph and change with the retellings to drop things that don’t make sense to add fantastic tales of miracles with each retelling the collection of stories telling them as parable. No I don’t have any evidence that it is so, but then again you have yet to provide any evidence that the named authors of the gospels were the actual authors.

It was not a con or a joke it was a story retold so many times that its origins have become lost and we can no longer tell fact from fiction, parable form history. The only tool that we have is comparison to what we know outside the bible about reality and possibility by using what we can determine through the scientific method. To date there is no hard evidence of the existence of god, his son nor that they (he) performed miracles.

 

[Waterman]

And Thomas Jefferson also got something out of this alleged lie -- He got the motivation to cut out about 900 verses of this alleged lie out of the bible with a razor and paste them in a book and say they were the most moral and sublime teachings ever preached to humanity.

I will repeat the ides I presented in a much earlier post (why not you seem to do that frequently too). No one has claimed that there is nothing worthwhile in the bible. There are a lot of good ideas. But good ideas do not have to be brougth fourth from divnie inspiration. There is good stuff in the bible along with a bunch of really awful stuff and thing that don't make since in a modern context. Even TJ's time would be considered 'modern' relative to circa 300AD when the Bible was born. So TJ discarded what he thought was worthless and kept the good ideas. I still don't get why you keep bringing him up, he disagreed wth you on the fact that the NT spoke truth, the parts you arguing for are the parts he cut out.

 

[Waterman]

Joobz says Luke lied -- that makes Luke a liar according to Joobz doesn't it?

I am not sure if Joobz said that, but I could be wrong. What HAS been presented was that Luke only knew of Jesus through his travels with Paul (and perhaps others I don't know). So all of Lukes writing with respect to Jesus are second hand records of events he did not witness. We can accept that he recorded them faithfully as he was told just as he recorded the events around him that you seem to trot out from time to time. But we cannot grant the same consideration to the two types of events. His travels could be considered hisotrical, his recorded tales from others are at best lore or fable.

 

[Waterman]

All we are saying is that they believed something that turned out not to be true.

What exactly are you talking about. You can't be talking about the Resurrection (which is the main focal point of Christianity) because you have no proof it turned out not to be true.

Sigh… This thread isn’t about evidence that resurrection didn’t happen. But Evidence that the NT is true. The burden of proof is on you to provide that. So far you body of evidence is dubious at best and typically laughable and even though you don’t recognize it is actually a point for the other side at worst.

I believe that the point that was being made was primarily about being mistaken does not make one a liar merely incorrect. You have laid out a false dichotomy either the Bible is True or they are all a bunch of liars. There is a giant middle ground there that you are pretending doesn’t exist.

 

[zooterkin]

How can you be mistaken about something like the Resurrection that has not been proven true

Ok, we've got that one out of the way. Which of the remaining supernatural events do you think you can prove?

 

[laca]

This argument does not apply to this issue because you have not presented any proof of what you are basically saying -- that the Resurrection was not true.

FAIL. Shifting the burden of proof.

How can you be mistaken about something like the Resurrection that has not been proven true or false.

FAIL. You are the prime example of that: by assuming it's true when it's not been proven.

Joobz says Luke lied -- that makes Luke a liar according to Joobz doesn't it?

And Simon implies Mark and John might have lied.

They might have. That's not the same as they have.

What exactly are you talking about. You can't be talking about the Resurrection (which is the main focal point of Christianity) because you have no proof it turned out not to be true.

All evidence, both historical and archeological (not to mention common sense wrt. to the miracles...), point to the fact that no resurrection took place. Jesus might not have even existed.

 

[amb]

I'm talking about the first 300 years of its growth. It was by peaceful means unlike Islam. That is very hard to explain in the Roman Empire where people (as Peter Kreeft says in my earlier link) were getting mocked, hated, sneered and jeered at, exiled, deprived of property and reputation and rights, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, clubbed to a pulp, beheaded, crucified, boiled in oil, sawed in pieces, fed to lions, and cut to ribbons by gladiators.

They had the perfect product to sell. Namely, eternal life. The kingdom of god was to appear at any moment, and believers in this myth were promised eternal life. That's one reason it took the Roman world by storm.

 

[dafydd]

No, but all those martyrs dying so soon to the reported resurrection (which is an event in history and not just a philosophy) adds more weight to be put on the scale of evidence. And that's what this thread is about -- evidence -- not my opinion or belief.

You have not presented us with a shred of evidence,this endless thread only proves how dumb religion is.

 

[DOC]

They had the perfect product to sell. Namely, eternal life. The kingdom of god was to appear at any moment, and believers in this myth were promised eternal life. That's one reason it took the Roman world by storm.

Most Americans believe in God and eternal life but I doubt a large percentage of those would willingly lay down there life for that belief. And also who would publicly preach it if they knew they could be stoned to death or crucified upside down.

 

[DOC]

All evidence, both historical and archeological (not to mention common sense wrt. to the miracles...), point to the fact that no resurrection took place. Jesus might not have even existed.

This is a false statement, you might want to read this thread.

 

[DOC]

You have not presented us with a shred of evidence,this endless thread only proves how dumb religion is.

You should read post 11054 and the links in post 12307 for starters.

 

[DOC]

Ok, we've got that one out of the way. Which of the remaining supernatural events do you think you can prove?

None of them without supernatural evidence to prove a miracle from 2000 years ago. But if I gave skeptics supernatural evidence (aka miraculous evidence) they would want evidence to prove the miraculous evidence and so on and so on.

Matthew 12:38-45

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[Hokulele]

None of them without supernatural evidence to prove a miracle from 2000 years ago. But if I gave skeptics supernatural evidence (aka miraculous evidence) they would want evidence to prove the miraculous evidence and so on and so on.

Exactly. So, got any evidence to prove your miraculous claims? Remember, assuming the bible is true to prove the bible is true is still circular reasoning.

 

[Akhenaten]

None of them without supernatural evidence to prove a miracle from 2000 years ago. But if I gave skeptics supernatural evidence (aka miraculous evidence) they would want evidence to prove the miraculous evidence and so on and so on.

Matthew 12:38-45

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Nimrod's bolding