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

[joobz]

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.

1.) No evidence that even the biblical authors and/or disciples were martyred.
2.) We have evidence of people giving their life for the promise of a better life all the time. (E.g., James Jones Cult, Heaven's Gate, Suicide Bombers, ...)
3.) Crazy street preachers were the norm back then. Christian street preachers were just part of them.

 

[Waterman]

<tap> <tap> <tap> Is this thing on?

 

[laca]

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

You might want to take a look around in the real world.

 

[Mirrorglass]

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

Fixed.

 

[DOC]

Remember, assuming the bible is true to prove the bible is true is still circular reasoning.

Thomas Jefferson did not assume the Bible is true. But that didn't stop him from saying the teachings of Christ were the most moral and sublime ever preached to humanity (and thus superior to Plato and Socrates). And Sir William Mitchell Ramsay didn't assume the Bible was true when he spent 15 years digging in Biblical lands doing research, and then saying Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians with regard to things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

I have just as much right to "conclude from historical evidence" (not assume as you say) the bible is true as the American Educational system has the right to conclude those historians who wrote about Alexander the Great 350 to 400 years after his death (from which we get the great majority of our info about Alexander the Great) were truthful. In fact I have more of a right since the biblical writers wrote within a lifespan of Christ's death and thus there had to be witnesses alive who could say the writings were false.

Concluding from historical evidence is not circular reasoning. 41 historical documents (31 Christian and 10 non-Christian -- most about Christ and some about Christianity) compared to 10 for Tiberius Caesar (the emperor alive at the time of Christ's life), and 5000 Christian manuscripts compared to 20 manuscripts for the historian Tacitus and 7 for Plato has nothing to do with circular reasoning, it has to do with cold historical evidence and making conclusions based on that cold historical evidence.

 

[DOC]

1.) No evidence that even the biblical authors and/or disciples were martyred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

 

[Moss]

Just because you use the same few arguments (and they are not evidence...) a few hundred times it does not make them any more true.

 

[Aepervius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Funny I don't see brunno giodo in that list, neither do I see the small 4 years old kid which got his personal autodafe in germany, neither do i see those which had to be "questionned" under suspicion of sorcery.

Also funny, there are very few martyr for the number of preacher and priest and apostele.

But maybe that's just me in both case.

Or maybe that's just doc being obtuse when I see the number of post he did not asnwer because they posed "hard" question.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thomas Jefferson did not assume the Bible is true. But that didn't stop him from saying the teachings of Christ were the most moral and sublime ever preached to humanity (and thus superior to Plato and Socrates). And Sir William Mitchell Ramsay didn't assume the Bible was true when he spent 15 years digging in Biblical lands doing research, and then saying Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians with regard to things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

How many times do you need to be told that these pathetic appeals to authority which you parrot at every opportunity as though they were actual answers to the questions you've been asked before you finally realise that every single person who has even glanced at this thread sees that you have not one whit of the evidence that you undertook to provide in the OP.

The dishonesty of your approach to the matters discussed in this thread is absolutely breathtaking DOC, and you ought to thank your lucky stars that the humour we've been able to extract from the drivel that you post is sufficient distraction from your disgraceful hypocrisy that you aren't treated with the full measure of scorn which your feeble excuses for posts so richly deserve.

I have just as much right to . . .

<snip>

You have no right to anything. You've treated everyone posting in this thread with nothing but contempt, and the only expectation you can reasonably hold is that you will be treated likewise in return.

Your posts are nought but lies and hypocrisy DOC, and they've demonstrated, hundreds and hundreds of times, that such is all that you are capable of.

What an absolutely disgraceful performance.

 

[Akhenaten]

1.) No evidence that even the biblical authors and/or disciples were martyred.

<snip a pathetic link to yet more non-evidence>

I forgot to mention your complete inabilty to construct any kind of argument, regardless of the honesty or otherwise of its premise.

 

[joobz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Wiki uses the bible as the source for all of the christian martyrs. In other words, you are again using the bible to prove the bible true.

And by ignoring my other two points, I assume you agree with them.

 

[zooterkin]

Thomas Jefferson did not assume the Bible is true. But that didn't stop him from saying the teachings of Christ were the most moral and sublime ever preached to humanity (and thus superior to Plato and Socrates). .

It also didn't stop him saying that the supernatural parts were nonsense, and cutting them out of his version of the bible. Do you only choose to use those of his arguments which agree with you?

 

[joobz]

It also didn't stop him saying that the supernatural parts were nonsense, and cutting them out of his version of the bible. Do you only choose to use those of his arguments which agree with you?

Does a Bear Defecate in the woods, and did Jefferson equate the bible to such defecations?

 

[Cactus Wren]

<tap> <tap> <tap> Is this thing on?

Do you want some feedback?

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ...

 

[Simon39759]

Actually my descriptions of Geisler's arguments in my post #1 were very short. He goes into greater detail in his 22 page chapter 11.

And, as was pointed out over a year ago, Geisler's greater detail is a load of poo.

Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.

What does martyrdom prove? Does it prove Islam is true too?

Not at all. There are some similarities, but there's one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.

But, wouldn't the first people to die for Islam have met Mahomet?


And, really, it's perfectly false to say that any significant number among the Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the crucifiction.

The earliest of the Roman persecution, if it actually happened which is a point of debate, was conducted thirty years after the fact, thousand of miles from Jerusalem it is very likely that the vast majority of Christian that would have been present in Rome at the time were recently converted gentile and not former Jews that would have met Jesus.
And, while we don't have any numbers, this persectution was, if it happened at all, a short, one-time event limited to Rome.

The next persecution was to occur one century after the alleged crucifixion so it almost certainly did not involve any eye-witnesses.

So, characterizing, as Geisler, the Christian martyr as an eye-witnessed of the events from the NT is incredibly untrue.


And, of course, this hand-waving does not explain the disciples of Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite or even Charles Manson. They knew their leader well, lived with him sometime for years and believed them enough to kill and give their life for their respective 'truth', sometime month after the death of their mentor.
Why would Jesus be considered differently and the martyrdom of his disciples more significant than that of these new prophets?

 

[Hokulele]

<snipped the spammed list of martyrs linked from the site run by, gasp, atheists>

That is a list, not evidence. For example, please provide non-biblical evidence that Peter was crucified for his beliefs. Bonus points if you have evidence that it was upside-down.

(Hint, accounts from Christian historians 150 years later do not count.)

Again, it simply shows that you are using the bible to prove the bible. What was the term for that again?

 

[Simon39759]

I'll take "circular reasoning" for a thousand, Alex Hoku!

 

[carlitos]

It also didn't stop him saying that the supernatural parts were nonsense, and cutting them out of his version of the bible. Do you only choose to use those of his arguments which agree with you?

Sadly, yes. Why DOC can't see how dishonest this line of debate is completely eludes me.

 

[Waterman]

Thomas Jefferson did not assume the Bible is true. But that didn't stop him from saying the teachings of Christ were the most moral and sublime ever preached to humanity (and thus superior to Plato and Socrates).

Correct, as noted there is some good stuff in there, but there is much that needs to be discarded. Just because there are some good ideas and someone famous agrees has no bearing on whether or not it was divinely inspired. It also does not support the idea that the portions that we discarded were also true. Why do you continue to bring up Jefferson? His position is closer to the atheist position in on this topic than yours.

And Sir William Mitchell Ramsay didn't assume the Bible was true when he spent 15 years digging in Biblical lands doing research, and then saying Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians with regard to things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

Correct, what Luke witnessed he recorded and much of it has been confirmed. Luke was not a witness to the Jesus story and all that he recorded was legend and lore as told to him by others. You cannot use his ‘accuracy’ regarding what he witnessed to imply anything about the truth of what he was told by others. At best you could imply that he recorded the legend and lore faithfully as he was told. Not that it was true.

I have just as much right to "conclude from historical evidence" (not assume as you say) the bible is true as the American Educational system has the right to conclude those historians who wrote about Alexander the Great 350 to 400 years after his death (from which we get the great majority of our info about Alexander the Great) were truthful.

You have the ‘right’ to reach what ever conclusion you wish using what ever twisted illogical path you choose. However you came here to present your evidence and reasons for concluding that the NT is true. The consensus of the posters here is that your standard for what qualifies as evidence is poor and your reasoning is fraught with logical fallacies. You are welcome to arrive at what ever conclusion you choose but as long as you post here making claims here you will be held to a higher standard that you will find elsewhere. Because believe it or not the folks here are actually interested in finding the real truth and not just what is comfortable to believe.

In fact I have more of a right since the biblical writers wrote within a lifespan of Christ's death and thus there had to be witnesses alive who could say the writings were false.

Based on the posts of kapongy (sorry for misspelling your name) there is no record of the names of the gospel writers until long after they were actually written down. As I believe that you imply in other posts Christianity spread behind the scenes because it was dangerous to be out in the open. How would you expect people to go around and confirm these stories?

Concluding from historical evidence is not circular reasoning. 41 historical documents (31 Christian and 10 non-Christian -- most about Christ and some about Christianity) compared to 10 for Tiberius Caesar (the emperor alive at the time of Christ's life), and 5000 Christian manuscripts compared to 20 manuscripts for the historian Tacitus and 7 for Plato has nothing to do with circular reasoning, it has to do with cold historical evidence and making conclusions based on that cold historical evidence.

Number of documents is not ‘evidence.’ What are you trying to prove with this reference? I am willing to conditionally accept that a historical itinerant preacher named something like Jesus (others have noted that Jesus was a Greek name not an Aramaic one but was probably a close translation) existed at the same time as Tiberius Caesar. OK now what? I don’t think that Tiberius had any super powers even if those documents claimed he did, same for that Jesus dude.

 

[amb]

Thomas Jefferson did not assume the Bible is true. But that didn't stop him from saying the teachings of Christ were the most moral and sublime ever preached to humanity (and thus superior to Plato and Socrates). And Sir William Mitchell Ramsay didn't assume the Bible was true when he spent 15 years digging in Biblical lands doing research, and then saying Gospel writer Luke was one of the world's greatest historians with regard to things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

I have just as much right to "conclude from historical evidence" (not assume as you say) the bible is true as the American Educational system has the right to conclude those historians who wrote about Alexander the Great 350 to 400 years after his death (from which we get the great majority of our info about Alexander the Great) were truthful. In fact I have more of a right since the biblical writers wrote within a lifespan of Christ's death and thus there had to be witnesses alive who could say the writings were false.

Concluding from historical evidence is not circular reasoning. 41 historical documents (31 Christian and 10 non-Christian -- most about Christ and some about Christianity) compared to 10 for Tiberius Caesar (the emperor alive at the time of Christ's life), and 5000 Christian manuscripts compared to 20 manuscripts for the historian Tacitus and 7 for Plato has nothing to do with circular reasoning, it has to do with cold historical evidence and making conclusions based on that cold historical evidence.

If that character Ramsey realy believed that, then he was just as deluded as the most staunch of fundamentalist.