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

[joobz]

Well we have gotten some evidence as I've shown in my posts (e.g. post 13104)

that's not evidence as every post following has demonstrated.

Or it could mean Jesus meant what he said when he said this in Matthew 16:4

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

Wicked is beating slaves and servants.
what does that make Jesus?

 

[DOC]

Oral Tradition is worthless as far as history is concerned.

It wasn't worthless in biblical times where the great majority couldn't read and there was no paper. In fact is was of the utmost importance in the Jewish culture of biblical times. Remember that rabbi I cited about the importance of oral tradition.

How about the oral tradition around King Arthur and Robin Hood. There might have been men with those names, but the fables about them are no different from the fables of one Jeshua bar Joseph.

There is a difference between oral tradition and legend. Former skeptic Ralph Muncaster goes into some depth on this topic in his book "Examine the Evidence" which I don't have time for now.

There are NO original authored manuscripts of any of the Scriptures.

This is normal for ancient documents which is why we don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar (not to mention no tomb or ashes for him either).

Nobody knows who wrote any of the books of the bible.

Nobody has absolute proof, but there is historical evidence they wrote them as I have talked about for several biblical writers in this thread. And proving someone actually penned an ancient document is almost impossible even if we dug up books that were signed Matthew Mark Luke and John. That doesn't mean they wrote them just because there is a name written on them.

The names of the evangalists are attributions made later by early Church Fathers.

You have no evidence that they just chose the names at random. In fact it doesn't make sense if they chose certain people. For example why choose and an obscure apostle like Matthew who was a tax collector. People didn't like tax collectors (for the Roman Empire) at the time. Would you choose an Internal Revenue agent to be advocate for a religion you were making up -- no. And why choose non-apostle Mark to write a major Gospel. Why not choose Peter for a major Gospel instead of the two lesser known books attributed to him.

Anyone here who still believes that silly bible after all I have pointed out has had his brain poisoned by Religion.

Or they don't have all the facts or have inaccurate or misleading facts.

 

[joobz]

It wasn't worthless in biblical times where the great majority couldn't read and there was no paper. In fact is was of the utmost importance in the Jewish culture of biblical times. Remember that rabbi I cited about the importance of oral tradition.

being important and being accurate are not the same thing.

There is a difference between oral tradition and legend. Former skeptic Ralph Muncaster goes into some depth on this topic in his book "Examine the Evidence" which I don't have time for now.

such as?

This is normal for ancient documents which is why we don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar (not to mention no tomb or ashes for him either).

Are you claiming there is just as much evidence for Julius Caesar as god on earth as there was for Jesus' resurrection?

I'd agree.

Nobody has absolute proof, but there is historical evidence they wrote them as I have talked about for several biblical writers in this thread. And proving someone actually penned a ancient document is almost impossible even if we dug up books that were signed Matthew Mark Luke and John. That doesn't mean they wrote them just because there is a name written on them.

It's why the gospels are at best hearsay.

You have no evidence that they just chose the names at random. In fact it doesn't make sense if they chose certain people.

Why are the canonical gospels considered accurate but the gospel of Thomas not?

Or they don't have all the facts or have inaccurate or misleading facts.

Or you do.

 

[DOC]

Hold on just a minute here.

You started this thread claiming evidence for why we know the new testament writers told the truth.

Now you're implying that we're wicked and adulterous generation for looking for the thing you claimed to present?

No, the verse says a sign which is translated in many translations as a "miraculous sign". I have not done any miracles in this thread, but I have given evidence.

 

[DOC]

So is there evidence or isn't there evidence?

There is evidence in this thread, just not miraculous signs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is evidence in this thread, just not miraculous signs.

You giving evidence would be a miraculous sign. You answering Waterman's post would be a miraculous sign.

 

[joobz]

No, the verse says a sign which is translated in many translations as a "miraculous sign". I have not done any miracles in this thread, but I have given evidence.

Yup, you provided evidence that the bible is unreliable second hand hearsay.

Afterall, you did prove quite well that the bible is a transcription of oral tradition and not first hand accounts.

 

[carlitos]

The names of the evangalists are attributions made later by early Church Fathers.

You have no evidence that they just chose the names at random.

Right. That's why eccles didn't say "they just chose the names at random."

The logical fallacy you employed here is "strawman argument." You made something up, a work of fiction. Then you argued against this fake work of fiction that you made up.

You're welcome. Please PM me the contact details for your philosophy 101 teacher and I will similarly enlighten him or her.

 

[Cleon]

It wasn't worthless in biblical times where the great majority couldn't read and there was no paper. In fact is was of the utmost importance in the Jewish culture of biblical times. Remember that rabbi I cited about the importance of oral tradition.

Remember I already showed how you are misrepresenting that article. You ignored my post. Therefore, there can be no mistake; you are intentionally lying. Again.

(I know, you're going to ask "which post." Scroll up. Laziness is not an adequate cover for your continued dishonesty. It's a tired, transparent, pathetic ploy. Give it a rest.)

 

[Lothian]

The apostles did see the resurrected Christ.

We all know the NT accounts, but this thread is about evidence they are true. What evidence to you have for this outside the NT?

 

[joobz]

The apostles did see the resurrected Christ.

Harry Potter did see dementors in little Whinging.
King Aurthur did pull a sword from the stone.
Gandalf did defeat the Balrog.
Achilles was dipped into the river styx.


Since we were making assertions about works of fiction, I thought I'd add to the list.

 

[paximperium]

The apostles did see the resurrected Christ.

Says who?
Which eyewitness are you talking about?

 

[SanityGap]

Harry Potter did see dementors in little Whinging.
King Aurthur did pull a sword from the stone.
Gandalf did defeat the Balrog.
Achilles was dipped into the river styx.
James T Kirk did go where no man had gone before.

Completed it for you.

 

[amb]

Oral tradition cannot be trusted. Never has and never will. Ten witnesses who all saw the same incident will have ten different versions of it. Man's memory is fallible.

 

[Paulhoff]

Let’s see, the earth only occupies only about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123 of the visible universe. And I am lead to believe, by the Christians, that their so-called god is the creator of it all and all that extra space and stuff is just to show his glory. OH PLEASE, how blind and self absorbed can a people be?

Paul

 

[amb]

Let’s see, the earth only occupies only about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123 of the visible universe. And I am lead to believe, by the Christians, that their so-called god is the creator of it all and all that extra space and stuff is just to show his glory. OH PLEASE, how blind and self absorbed can a people be?

Paul

Not just that. He made it all for us, but if we step just a few miles up off the surface of this planet we are done for. We can only live in space with life support systems for a short time.
Hell, without protection, we can't even visit or live on the North Pole, or Antarctica, or the Sahara desert.

 

[Paulhoff]

Not just that. He made it all for us..........

That would be the "self absorbed" part.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

Or it could mean Jesus meant what he said when he said this in Matthew 16:4

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

So this "wicked and adulterous generation" can be saved only by believing that Jesus is their savior, but the "signs" they seeketh after, that might lead to their being saved, are withheld because they are "wicked and adulterous"?



Where's Akhenaten's circle?

There is evidence in this thread, just not miraculous signs.

DOC, you've used weasel words like this so frequently it would take a miraculous sign to convince anyone that you were capable of doing anything else.

The main evidence provided in this thread is that there is no limit to the willingness of certain proselytisers to lie in order to further the aims of their disgusting superstitions.

Added to this is the delicious irony that you believe we want this thread to end, when in fact it's a boon to have your every post bring more shame upon the cause you think, bizarrely, that you're supporting. You've done more to demonstrate the complete lack of evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth than any of us could have hoped to do.

 

[carlitos]

Hi DOC,

Since you are selectively ignoring stuff again, like the logical fallacy I pointed out above, here is one more for you to ignore (twice). When you dragged out "evidence" about the oral tradition that was supported by words from the original Greek, you undercut your own "evidence" about slaves & bond-servants, where you relied on English translations of translations of translations. So, everyone here can see in Luke that Jesus talks about beating slaves with a whip, cutting them to pieces. The word "doulos" means slave.

You're welcome.

"So, how can scholars know that these words actually come from an early oral history? In the first place, Paul introduced this summation with two Greek words that clearly indicated it was oral tradition. These two words were "paradidomi" ("handed over" in my translation above) and "paralambano" ("received"). Ancient readers understood these two words -- when used together -- to imply that the writer was quoting words that he or she intended to become oral tradition.

My irony meter, it assploded! Why the **** are we discussing the original *********** Greek now, exactly? DOC, you wasted about 500 posts telling us to ignore the original Greek word "doulos." Are you insane?

 

[Waterman]

As DOC has largely ignored the salient points in my post regarding evidence we are only left to infer based on his posting as to what he considered evidence. He has stated that I have things wrong but not what is in error and I have repeated asked for clarification. Based on my evidence post lets see what DOC considered to be evidence.

From DOCs Post 13104

Post #11054

Here is information from it, along with some minor additions.

There are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

DOC does appear to believe that irrelevant fact are evidence, He has yet to show how the number for manuscripts has anything to do with truth nor has he provided any information regarding hat percentage of those manuscripts have anything to do with the Jesus story.

Respected archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian with regard to facts that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

DOC does appear to believe that the opinion of famous people is evidence of truth. As noted if you want to use the famous person as support bring their argument not just the conclusion.

The fact that there are about 40 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during the life of Christ.

DOC does appear to believe that irrelevant facts are evidence. In this list there are references to Christian which are not evidence of the truth of the new testament.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

DOC does appear to believe that irrelevant facts are evidence.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

DOC does appear to believe that the logical fallacy of special pleading is evidence. It is special pleading because inherent in this argument is that my conversions count but your conversion don’t

Most archaeologists {who study the biblical era} believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Doc does appear to believe that unsupported assertion from bias sources count. He has yet to provide a source for this statement despite multiple requests.

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ's life and the Resurrection and how he considered those topics to have more historical evidence than any other fact in history up to that point.

DOC does appear to believe that the opinion of famous people is evidence of truth, and that flower language and hyperbole can be taken at face value.

The Moral Argument

DOC does appear to believe that fallacious logical arguments are evidence.

The Cosmological Argument

DOC does appear to believe that fallacious logical arguments are evidence.

The Teleological Argument

DOC does appear to believe that fallacious logical arguments are evidence.

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

DOC does appear to believe that fallacious logical arguments are evidence. At the root of this argument is special pleading, my martyrs count but your don’t.

Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.

DOC does appear to believe that the opinion of famous people is evidence of truth, despite the fact that when Greenleaf’s argument was evaluated it was found to be fallacious. So DOC also believe that fallacious logical arguments are evidence.

A Rabbi stated that the Oral Torah {and thus oral tradition evidence} is "more important" than the Written Torah. This statement is important because oral tradition evidence was also important in early Christianity (in that era of no paper and little public literacy).

DOC does appear to be believe that irrelevant facts are evidence of truth.

PhD. in astrophysics Dr. Hugh Ross claims there are about 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

DOC does appear to believe that the opinion of famous people is evidence of truth. As noted if you want to use the famous person as support bring their argument not just the conclusion.

You continue to use exactly the type of reasoning that I pointed out was in the ‘bad evidence’ list. While at the same time implying that you don’t use bad evidence. People have attempted to educate on specific points and you ignore them event after you requested that they identify specific instances where you made a logical fallacy. You need to do a better job either presenting complete arguments, linking your facts to your conclusion or abandoning points when they are shown to be invalid or incorrect.