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

[kmortis]

Oh. Okay, thanks.



What evidence? The only evidence I see is that he has been infected by the " god virus. " The only cure for that, and for most, there is no cure. But for some who can be rational it can only be cured by immersing oneself in science.

Now that you know where AAH is, go and find the part of the "Fact Attrition" thread. Ducky summarized every DOC thread there is. Too bad it got moved there though.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Now that you know where AAH is, go and find the part of the "Fact Attrition" thread. Ducky summarized every DOC thread there is. Too bad it got moved there though.

Still in R&P

DOC has started a number of threads which all raise a seemingly inconsequential point. (Was peter in rome, was Lief Erikkson christian, Communism better as christian,...). Whenever asked, "So what?", the question goes unanswered.

I wish to start this thread by presenting my believe as to what DOC's goal/view is here. I think it may provide interesting discussion and will hopefully shortcut further digressions down nonsensical paths.

I believe DOC is attempting to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because

1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was a church going christian
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) Athiesm can't rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity
7.) Leif Errickson is a christian
8.) Christ and Paul are on some guys list of 100 most influential people.

The validity of any of these claims are not important to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for.

It is with the belief that by presenting enough small facts, these will add up to a large fact. This is obviously an example of either argumentum verbosium or fallacy of the consequent. But I would like for DOC to have a chance to prove me wrong.

Doc, why are these small "facts" relavent?
to what are they relavent?
and why I am wrong?

Did this post win an award? Joobz nailed it good.

 

[Belz...]

bolding added

So it would seem you're saying the philosophy of most Jews and Buddhists is "I got mine" (that is knowledge of the ultimate truth) and if others don't have this knowledge of the ultimate truth that I possess, who cares, that's their tough luck.

"Ultimate Truth" ?

 

[Cactus Wren]

Bottled Water (split from: Welcome thread)

Astral War​

On the open-ended JREF Forum Naughtiness Scale, you're a .0003, or 'Goody Two-shoes'.

I don't think you're even trying.

Wow, I only have three in there, and I learned to debate on alt.folklore.urban and talk.abortion.

 

[Akhenaten]

Wow, I only have three in there, and I learned to debate on alt.folklore.urban and talk.abortion.

Hmm. I have 193 posts from 39 different threads and for what it's worth, I 'trained' at alt.religion.scientology.

Not very well, apparently.

 

[LibraryLady]

Please note: If anyone attempts to post anything in this thread that is not about the thread's primary topic i.e. "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth," his or her posts will be deleted and they will be suspended for a minimum of one week. Stay on topic and be civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Darat]

As per:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6156786#post6156786 I have decided to roll the thread back to a previous Mod Box warning. There were of course some posts that did not breach the Membership Agreement and the Mod Box warning that have been removed to Abandon All Hope and Members can, as usual, repost those posts.

It appears that for whatever reason some Members are simply unable to keep to their Membership Agreement when they post in this thread, I strongly suggest to those Members that they either put the thread starter on ignore or place this thread on ignore (Thread Tools>Ignore this thread) rather then risk the inevitable suspension if they continue to breach their Membership Agreement in this thread.

So remember your Membership Agreement applies when you come to post in this thread and that includes any Moderator directives such as LibraryLady's above.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Lothian]

There has been a fair bit of pruning but I think I can summarise where we have got to and we can then kick back off from there.

So far we have some evidence that some of the locations described in the bible existed. We have no independent evidence that the supernatural events described by the NT authors happened.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't see any threads "Evidence for Why" Islam, hindu, and the flying spaghetti monster is true.

A perusal of the Religion and Philosophy sub-forum may remedy the situation revealed by this non sequitur observation.

In any case, DOC, are you able to explain how either a dearth or surfeit of evidence for other religions has any bearing on the evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

 

[Akhenaten]

There has been a fair bit of pruning but I think I can summarise where we have got to and we can then kick back off from there.

So far we have some evidence that some of the locations described in the bible existed. We have no independent evidence that the supernatural events described by the NT authors happened.

An interesting starting point.

Perhaps we could first address the lack of a place from which Jesus is said by the NT writers to have originated.

ie. Where is this Nazareth?

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

'Never heard of the place' – Josephus

In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).

source and further reading


How do you answer these points, DOC?

 

[amb]

Wiki has more information about Nazareth. But this still in no way assumes that the gospel writers were telling the truth. Many stories are set in a ceratain location that exists. But that doesn't mean the story is true.

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

 

[eccles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

 

[kmortis]

An interesting starting point.

Perhaps we could first address the lack of a place from which Jesus is said by the NT writers to have originated.

ie. Where is this Nazareth?







source and further reading


How do you answer these points, DOC?

Ahh...the Nazereth angle. This was covered by either cj.23 or dr kitten a while back. IIRC, there is plenty of archelogical evidence that places Nazereth during the time frame of the gospel story. To me, it's one of the weakest arguments against the validity of the gospels.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ahh...the Nazereth angle. This was covered by either cj.23 or dr kitten a while back. IIRC, there is plenty of archelogical evidence that places Nazereth during the time frame of the gospel story. To me, it's one of the weakest arguments against the validity of the gospels.

I agree that it's not something on which the overall truth of the NT would actually depend, but it seemed a reasonably logical starting point. I'd be perfectly happy to start with something else as consensus dictates.



As far as Nazareth is concerned though, my understanding has been that although it was there at the time the NT writers said it was, it was at best an insignificant settlement of only a few families.

As such, it does not fit very well with the descriptions implicit in the words of the authors of the NT.

Luke1:26-27

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.​

Luke 2:3-4

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David.​

Matthew 2:22-23

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.​

Luke 2:39-40

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.​

Not damning evidence of malfeasance, certainly, but at least an indication that the authors were willing to take liberties with the truth should it suit their purpose.

And the above words must also call into question any description of Luke as 'one of the world's greatest historians'.

 

[Simon39759]

I was listening to the 'Chariot of Iron' podcast yesterday and they were interviewing Rene Salm, author of 'The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus'.
Needless to say, he did not seem to find these evidences compelling at all.

I am not sure I found his expose too compelling, and I'd certainly need to look into it more deeply before my opinion be worth anything, but it certainly seems that the evidence for the city's existence at the time of Jesus are rarer and less compelling that often purported...

 

[joobz]

Ahh...the Nazereth angle. This was covered by either cj.23 or dr kitten a while back. IIRC, there is plenty of archelogical evidence that places Nazereth during the time frame of the gospel story. To me, it's one of the weakest arguments against the validity of the gospels.

I agree. The problem isn't Nazareth's existence. The problem with the bible (As it relates to Nazareth), is Bethlehem vs. Nazareth as Jesus' birth place. Did the census happen or didn't it?

 

[Simon39759]

I agree that it's not something on which the overall truth of the NT would actually depend, but it seemed a reasonably logical starting point. I'd be perfectly happy to start with something else as consensus dictates.

Another point that Salm made, one that was more convincing to me, is that Nazzareth is not only referred to as a city in the NT (Polis) but several allusion hint at it being so.

Joseph being a carpenter implies some level of economic diversity, so a population big enough to warrant a family of specialized artisans.
Furthermore, the passage were Jesus comes back to the Synagogue implies the presence of such a building which would hint at a significantly big place...


Interestingly, it'd seem that the word 'Nazorean' would have been used to referred to the Essene sect.
It's not news that the teaching attributed to Jesus are often closer to the Essene's creed that mainstream Judaism so the idea the sentence 'Jesus of Nazzareth' being a misunderstanding do have some support and is quite interesting...

 

[kmortis]

I agree. The problem isn't Nazareth's existence. The problem with the bible (As it relates to Nazareth), is Bethlehem vs. Nazareth as Jesus' birth place. Did the census happen or didn't it?

The census didn't happen. Of that, I think there is ample resources to put that to bed. Nazareth, is a sticker wicket.

 

[cj.23]

Bethsaida is also referred to as a polis (πολισ), as is Bethlehem. The fact the gospel writer had an often shaky grasp of geography is clear; it is however far from clear that the koine word polis was used in the Classical Greek sense as referring to a city and territory: in fact it might have been used to refer to any settlement, based upon the evidence I have seen. I'd like to see more 1st century texts analysed for common usage.

 

[Paulhoff]

The fact the gospel writer had an often shaky grasp of geography is clear;

The inspired word of a so-called god, they would have not needed of any grasp of geography to know a name.

Paul