To show just how important oral tradition was at that time of no paper and little public literacy. Few people in here are aware just how important oral tradition was in that culture. How else are you going to pass on history to the vast majority of people who were illiterate at that time. We've just scratched the surface of the subject of oral tradition.
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
To show just how important oral tradition was at that time of no paper and little public literacy. Few people in here are aware just how important oral tradition was in that culture. How else are you going to pass on history to the vast majority of people who were illiterate at that time. We've just scratched the surface of the subject of oral tradition.
Are you saying they don't call experts in courtrooms to voice their opinions?
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It's certainly adds weight to the fact that something big was happening. And there would have been a lot more manuscripts if some of the Roman emperors didn't order the destruction of Christian writings -- not to mention the destruction of the Christians themselves.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Well, I've already shown how one rabbi believes it was actually more reliable than written evidence at that time.
Here is more about the importance of the oral tradition at that time:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Gandalfs Beard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,548
Only if they have ACTUAL evidence to back their opinions up. And by the way, Birth Certificates are evidence in courtrooms too
.You mean like the Manuscripts destroyed in 325CE by other Christians at the Nicene Council under the authority of Roman Emperor Constantine? You know, like the Gnostic and the Arian (not to be confused with Aryan) ones, which offered very different Cosmological interpretations of the surviving scriptures.
Even the surviving scriptures lend themselves to more than one interpretation of "Truth" despite the attempt to excise offending material. That might make it a bit difficult to prove "why we know the New Testament writers told the truth," don't you think?
GB
Last edited:
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,364
Thread must have nearly hit page 2 to send DOC into such an incoherent flurry of activity.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Ok, I'm calling "foul". For all of you who claim to be skeptics, turn in your cards. You are behaving in a very non-skeptical manner. You have 1900+ pieces of evidence in this thread alone, not to mention the other dozen or so threads, that DOC is not an honest debater. He will not listen to reason. He will only engage in fallicious argumentation, ignoring meaningful posts and only post non-sequitors, appeals to authority and popularity, tautalogical reasonings and other fallacies to the one-liners we shoot off. If you want to go back to ridicule, then that's fine - it's what he deserves at this point - but to continue to engage is just stupid.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
If by "ridicule" you mean "making the subject appear ridiculous", meaningful and intelligent engagement with DOC does the trick quite well.
Helen
Implicitly explicit
Well, I for one welcome the knowledge that oral tradition is even more believable than written documents, cause now I know that the Odyssey and the Iliad are true!
- Status