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

[Waterman]

Whenever you see someone ramble on about me and they don't show a quote of mine or a link to a post I made then that should send up a red flag.

Who in the name of Dog do you think you're talking to?

I think that he is referring to my ‘what counts as evidence’ post a few pages ago. I did not actually quote DOC however I did include rehashes of his arguments within that post. They were from memory but I believe that I got the right. I mean I have seen them enough times to probably quote them accurately. He has yet to identify what I got wrong about his position except that I didn’t include the word ‘helpful’ from his definition of evidence.

It appears that he is attempting to disparage my post because I didn’t include quote from his posts as examples. However even when I do I often don’t get a direct response either. So he is attacking my posting style as cause to dismiss my argument.

Hmmm… wouldn’t that be a LOGICAL FALLACY a variant of the of the ad hom.

 

[Akhenaten]

Whenever you see someone ramble on about me and they don't show a quote of mine or a link to a post I made then that should send up a red flag.

Who in the name of Dog do you think you're talking to?

I think that he is referring to my ‘what counts as evidence’ post a few pages ago.

Probably, although his wild-eyed claims and poor ability to express himself mean that it's pretty hard for anyone to say what he's on about.

All I meant by my question, however, is that DOC appears to be addressing an audience that simply doesn't exist. He seems to think that some undefined group of readers need to be warned of dodgy tactics being used by his detractors, but is of course only pretending to himself that anyone takes anything he says at all with more than a single grain of salt.

I did not actually quote DOC however I did include rehashes of his arguments within that post. They were from memory but I believe that I got them right. I mean I have seen them enough times to probably quote them accurately.

Been there, done that. I'll have to draw the tee-shirt myself though.

He has yet to identify what I got wrong about his position except that I didn’t include the word ‘helpful’ from his definition of evidence.

Yep, I addressed that myself in Post #13741, but he mostly ignores me as well.

Why did you leave out the word helpful?

Because he's talking about your usage of 'evidence' and not some arbitrary definition from the first questionable online source that you could find, oh so long ago.

Since when is answers.com the final authority for these things, DOC?

It appears that he is attempting to disparage my post because I didn’t include quote from his posts as examples. However even when I do I often don’t get a direct response either. So he is attacking my posting style as cause to dismiss my argument.

Hmmm… wouldn’t that be a LOGICAL FALLACY - a variant of the of the ad hom.

It's a logical fallacy, but not really ad hominem since his remarks are directed at your argument rather than at you personally.

I'd describe it more as a Style over Substance fallacy, which occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument.

 

[Waterman]

It's a logical fallacy, but not really ad hominem since his remarks are directed at your argument rather than at you personally.

I'd describe it more as a Style over Substance fallacy, which occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument.

Thank you that IS a better evaluation. I have heard of that type from the 'because it is pretty it must be true' angle, I guess this is the inverse because it is 'not pretty then it is not true.' (Not disparaging my own post there just identify the apparent argument.)

 

[joobz]

No,

And if someone thinks I have made logical fallacies then list the post numbers of those alleged fallacies rather than rambling on
without examples. Whenever you see someone ramble on about me and they don't show a quote of mine or a link to a post I made then that should send up a red flag.

I didn't ask about your posts. I asked if you felt logical fallacies were evidence. Indeed, I am not interested at this point in discussing your arguments in particular.
But thank you for your answer. It is good that you do not consider Logical fallacies to be evidence for anything.

Let's go one step further. Instead of addressing your posts, let's review one of Geisler's arguments.

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

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.

It seems to me that this is a textbook example of special pleading.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html
Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

Framing Geisler's statement into this logical format, we clearly have
RULE: Martyrs are evidence of Religious truth
non-christian martyrs are Martyrs.
Non-christian martyrs are an exception to this rule because they are not also eyewitnesses to the truth.
Therefore, non-christian martyrs are not evidence of religious truth.


Based upon this information, please answer the following questions:

1.) Do you agree that Special Pleading is a logical Fallacy?
2.) Do you agree with the definition of logical Fallacy as provided in the link above? If not, why not?
3.) Do you agree With my summary of Geisler's Argument? If not, please re-frame it as you see it.
4a.) If Yes to number 3, Do you agree that this is the Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading? If not, why not?
4b.) If No to number 3, Do you believe your re-framing of Geisler's argument is special Pleading? If not, why not?

 

[Lothian]

Doc,

We have to go back quite a way until we find your last vaguely on topic post. I think it was this one.

Joobz, the bible says God is just.

This is an example of Circular reasoning. When the bible says "God is just" it is not evidence that the NT writers told the truth when they said "God is Just".

Don't you get a feeling from reading the bible that God will punish the unjust masters that the bible says existed at that time.

This is an Appeal to consequences a sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is

1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust

1Pe 2:19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.

This is an example of the Etymological fallacy, in particular amelioration. We all know 'servant' didn't mean what it does today.

In addition your use of the word God is an example of the Reification fallacy

 

[DOC]

Just for the record some people have mentioned the verses where Jesus gives a parable about a servant who beat several men and several women while the land owner was away. This is in Luke 12: 45-48. Jesus states in the parable (verse 47) that the servant will receive many lashes. In verse 46 some translations also say Jesus said in the parable the servant will be cut asunder by the master. But just for the record not all translations say this.

The Revised Standard Version says this in verse 46:

the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.

The Contemporary English Version says this in Luke 12:46

If that happens, the master will come on a day and at a time when the servant least expects him. That servant will then be punished and thrown out with the servants who cannot be trusted.

The New Revised Standard Version which Hokulele states she prefers for accuracy says this:

the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces,* and put him with the unfaithful.

But notice there is a asterisks right after the word pieces in the New Revised Standard Version (that Hokulele says she prefers because of accuracy).

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke+12

Here is what the asterisks reference says "cut to pieces" can also mean -- it can also mean "cut him off". Now "cut him off" could mean other things , especially when followed by "and put him with the unfaithful". It could mean cut him off from the rest of the servants.

Just something to consider from other translations

 

[Lothian]

Just for the record some people have mentioned the verses where Jesus gives a parable about a servant who beat several men and several women while the land owner was away. This is in Luke 12: 45-48. Jesus states in the parable (verse 47) that the servant will receive many lashes. In verse 46 some translations also say Jesus said in the parable the servant will be cut asunder by the master. But just for the record not all translations say this.

The Revised Standard Version says this in verse 46:

the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.

The Contemporary English Version says this in Luke 12:46

If that happens, the master will come on a day and at a time when the servant least expects him. That servant will then be punished and thrown out with the servants who cannot be trusted.

The New Revised Standard Version which Hokulele states she prefers for accuracy says this:

the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces,* and put him with the unfaithful.

But notice there is a asterisks right after the word pieces in the New Revised Standard Version (that Hokulele says she prefers because of accuracy).

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke+12

Here is what the asterisks reference says "cut to pieces" can also mean -- it can also mean "cut him off". Now "cut him off" could mean other things , especially when followed by "and put him with the unfaithful". It could mean cut him off from the rest of the servants.

Just something to consider from other translations

Doc Just something to consider should you wish to post again. This is an example of the Etymological fallacy.


It is obvious that whichever translation you use it is clear that the cutting off or throwing out or the unspecified punishment is the retribution for the drunkenness.

The whipping of slaves is for a different crime.

 

[joobz]

The New Revised Standard Version which Hokulele states she prefers for accuracy says this:

the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces,* and put him with the unfaithful.

But notice there is a asterisks right after the word pieces in the New Revised Standard Version (that Hokulele says she prefers because of accuracy).

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke+12

Here is what the asterisks reference says "cut to pieces" can also mean -- it can also mean "cut him off". Now "cut him off" could mean other things , especially when followed by "and put him with the unfaithful". It could mean cut him off from the rest of the servants.

Just something to consider from other translations

Just to confirm, this translation also states:

That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. 48But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.

Which goes to my point:
Jesus condones slavery.
Jesus condones the beating of slaves.

now, would you mind answering my question regarding logical fallacies.

 

[Akhenaten]

Just for the record . . .

<snip balatantly obvious diversion>

You asked this question and were given several answers.

Let's keep things simply and Answer Lothian.

Do you believe logical Fallacies are "helpful" in forming a conclusion?
Do you believe a logical fallacy is "evidence" for something?

No,

And if someone thinks I have made logical fallacies then list the post numbers of those alleged fallacies rather than rambling on
without examples. Whenever you see someone ramble on about me and they don't show a quote of mine or a link to a post I made then that should send up a red flag.

How about providing some responses to those instead of invoking Nimrod, yet again, with this drivel about translating a single word?

You know it's irrelevant in terms of providing evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Get with the programme, DOC. Can't you see that this dishonesty is why nobody believes you and why your every post disgraces those beliefs you pretend to espouse, and by reflection, brings shame on genuine believers?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Just for the record some people have mentioned...

...your many fallacies that you asked about. You appear to have skipped over posts #13747 through 13765. Are you going to address those now?

 

[kmortis]

...your many fallacies that you asked about. You appear to have skipped over posts #13747 through 13765. Are you going to address those now?

He'll only address them so as to get them as far away from him as possible. What're stamps up to these days?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Get with the programme, DOC. Can't you see that this dishonesty is why nobody believes you and why your every post disgraces those beliefs you pretend to espouse, and by reflection, brings shame on genuine believers?

But with lying for Jesus the ends justify the means!

 

[Moss]

Note to self: Ask mom for hering salad recipe.

 

[Cactus]

I wonder though, how are you supposed to argue something when your reason for believing it is mostly faith?

If you can explain faith, then it's not faith.

You can explain things up to a point, but after a while, you are forced to use "It's true because I know it's true" as an argument, which doesn't hold up.

I think the problem here is that DOC has been using this line from the very beginning, even though he may not know it himself.

 

[paximperium]

Weird...just...weird.

 

[kmortis]

Weird...just...weird.

Is this a recent discovery or a simple affirmation of the obvious?

 

[Hokulele]

Wow, I am flattered that DOC thinks so highly of my opinion.

DOC, after comparing those various translations of a single verse, do you see why I consider that one to be the most accurate? Now, shall we apply that same reasoning to the nonsense in your OP?

 

[six7s]

DOC, after comparing those various translations of a single verse, do you see why I consider that one to be the most accurate? Now, shall we apply that same reasoning to the nonsense in your OP?

Cue the painted ponies...

These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.

Here is the first definition of evidence according to answers.com:

"A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"

The things posted in my first post are helpful in my forming a judgment that the NT writers were telling the truth.

And the more evidence we have that the NT authors were telling the truth, the more likely it is that the Resurrection was true.

@DOC:

In the intervening 20+ months, even you can't have failed to learn that what YOU find "helpful" in "forming a judgment" is - for the non-delusional - completely irrelevant.

Please note that, in littering this thread with 1,978 posts of nothing more than delusion-reinforcing twaddle, you have yet to provide ANY persuasive arguments in support of your woo that "the Resurrection was true"

If you have none, fine...

But, please, please, do stop pretending that - for critical thinkers - you have anything on offer other than the opportunity to debunk your vacuous, circular illogic

In the unlikely event of you actually complying with my request, here's a tune that is - I think - rather fitting for this never-ending thread:

​

 

[Rincewind]

Presumably DOC now thinks that Waterman's excellent post is far enough into history that he can comfortably ignore it?

 

[Moss]

In reading through DOC’s arguments (and yes I am one of those that has read every post) It appears that there is some fundamental difference in how the two sides are using the term evidence in the context of this discussion.

Per DOC’s usage in post 13, Evidence is something that is used to arrive as a determination or decision. He has turned this definition around in that ANYTHING that is used to arrive at a decision or determination is to be considered Evidence.

Per this definition anything considered becomes evidence:
Facts (irrelevant and relevant)
Quotes (and misquotes)
Logical Arguments
Fallacious Logical Arguments (especially if you don’t recognize the fallacy)
Statistics (both correctly applied and misapplied)
Opinions of Famous People
Untruths (either unknown to the presenter or not)
Speculation and Conjecture
Inspirational thoughts / ideas
Tradition

People do and often use all of these to help make decisions. However that does NOT mean that they rise to what the majority of the posters of this board consider to be GOOD EVIDENCE.

Irrelevant Facts – It is a fact that my house is green. However that has no bearing on whether or my computer crashed while working on a project last week. Unless I can link these two items together the fact is unimportant to solving my computer dilemma. Many people are asking for that logical link between your facts and your conclusion. 42 Presidents are Christian. OK link that to the Truthfulness of the NT.

Quotes and Misquotes are not Evidence at best they document the opinion of the person. At worst when taken out of context mean the opposite of what speaker intended. They have to be evaluated carefully for context. Even when they evaluated, quotes are only indications of their opinion on a topic and are not in themselves Evidence for anything other than their opinion. They can be useful in pursuing things in more detail (ala Greenleaf) to evaluate what their reasoning is to see if is supports your position. I believe that Greenleaf provided his quote and believed what he said. However a review of his argument showed that he employed faulty reasoning in arriving at that conclusion. I have yet to see a counter argument to the contrary.

Opinions of famous people, see above. In addition many famous people use their status of famed to spout all sorts of non-sense (Jenny McCarthy, Tom Cruise) while others actually get things right. You have to make sure that the famous person is knowledge able in the area they are being quoted on and then follow up on whether or not their reasoning is sound. Then you can present the argument not just the conclusion.

Untruths – Even if they are used to make the initial decision they should not be considered Evidence! Once an untruth is identified is should be stricken from list if items.

Tradition – This is also not Evidence, it is a way of doing things which may be founded in reality or it may be to counter something that no longer is of concern. Take the eating of pork or shellfish as an example.

Inspirational thought or idea: These sorts of things make us feel good about our decisions however that is all that are. They are only indications that the idea or thought is emotional satisfying for what ever reason. It is not Evidence of any truth.

Fallacious Logical Arguments: for those not schooled in logic is can be relatively easy to make a bad logical argument especially if it reaches the desired conclusion. These can be rooted out through a dispassionate evaluation of the individual points and the reasoning that binds the argument together. Once the hole in the argument is identified it should be discarded from the class called evidence. The arguments presented here are of the ‘Does not follow’ or ‘unstated major premise’ type. If A=B and B=C then D is orange, there are a lot of missing steps. Plus there is a lot of ‘Special Pleading’ My Martyrs count your martyrs are deluded.

Speculation / Conjecture This is a tricky one. When much of the ‘Bad Evidence’ is stripped away sometimes there is little left with to make a strong conclusion and that is all that you have left. This is using educated guesses and filling in the blanks. This can be problematical especially of one starts with a desired conclusion and oversteps the logical inferences to arrive at where you want to be. You have to use this sparingly and limit yourself to moving forward where the data leads without forcing it in a particular direction and stopping when you run out of reasonable extrapolations. I for one am willing to accept the idea of a Historical ‘Yeshua’ a radical rabbi around with the biblical story of Jesus evolved. However to go beyond and say he was divine and worked miracles that is reaching.

If we eliminate the bad evidence and arguments what do we have left as good evidence.

Relevant Facts – These MUST BE relevant to the conclusion. In many of DOCs posts there are some factual data. However it breaks down is in his application in support of the OP

Logical Arguments – Facts are very useful here, but those facts must point clearly to one another and to a logical conclusion. All major assumption must be stated for the argument to stand up to scrutiny.

Limited Speculation and Conjecture – this can only be used when there is insufficient facts to support a logical argument to arrive at a conclusion. Care must be taken to not reach too far beyond the available data.

So far people (myself included) have reviewed what you consider to be ‘evidence’ and have determined that it is ‘bad’ or ‘invalid’ evidence. If you want to punt and rephrase this as:

‘Reasons that DOC believes that the NT is True’ then you would have probably fewer people arguing with you. You can use what ever illogical reason you want to arrive at a conclusion or determination.

However you imply that you purpose here is to provide the members of the board with the reasons that they should believe that the NT is True. You have presented a lot of information that qualifies as ‘bad or invalid’ evidence and you are being offered an education in logic and reasoning to tell the good from the bad if you chose to learn.

This one?