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

[Akhenaten]

Actually Jesus never said make a bible after I'm gone. He said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel.

Where is your evidence in support of this statement?

The first converts were all done orally like Peter converting 3000 on Pentecost and 5000 more within weeks of that.

Where is your evidence in support of these claims?

As Ralph Muncaster says in his book "Examine the Evidence" pg. 211 - 212:


"The existence of the church is undeniable and indicates an unbroken chain of belief in the historical event of the resurrection. Without belief in that one historical event, there would be no Christian church".

my bolding

What people believe isn't the issue under discussion here, DOC. People believe in all manner of weird stuff.

This thread is meant to be dealing with evidence, not beliefs.

Also one has to ask why did the apostles (who were all Jewish) make such a drastic change in religion "after" Jesus was crucified. They had a perfectly good religion that had been around for about a 1000 years where they were the chosen people. Now all of the sudden they are worshiping on Sunday and not Saturday, having communion, uncharacteristically speaking boldly, and dying martyr deaths.

These points, even if they have some grain of truth to them (for which you have failed to provide any evidence) are completely irrelevant when looking at the question of the New Testament's veracity.

Please try and stay on topic.

 

[Simon39759]

Actually Jesus never said make a bible after I'm gone. He said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. The first converts were all done orally like Peter converting 3000 on Pentecost and 5000 more within weeks of that. As Ralph Muncaster says in his book "Examine the Evidence" pg. 211 - 212:

So says the bible, yes.
We don't have any corroborating evidence of that, of course. In fact, such massive numbers of converts are nowhere to be found when Paul comes around a couple of decades later...

"The existence of the church is undeniable and indicates an unbroken chain of belief in the historical event of the resurrection. Without belief in that one historical event, there would be no Christian church".

That's a bare assertion and one that is contradicte by the facts.
After all, many other religions exist without such a belief. And a vast of number of Christians managed to keep their faith without such a belief...

Also one has to ask why did the apostles (who were all Jewish) make such a drastic change in religion "after" Jesus was crucified. They had a perfectly good religion that had been around for about a 1000 years where they were the chosen people. Now all of the sudden they are worshiping on Sunday and not Saturday, having communion, uncharacteristically speaking boldly, and dying martyr deaths.

I guess for the same reason a lot of Christians today are converting to the Muslim faith; they believe it to be the truth...

Also, you are misinformed (surprisem, surprise) about the passage of the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
It was not an immediate event during the apostelic time. It seems to have been gradual over decades...

 

[zooterkin]

So says the bible, yes.
We don't have any corroborating evidence of that, of course. In fact, such massive numbers of converts are nowhere to be found when Paul comes around a couple of decades later...

Indeed, and as was pointed out earlier in this thread, these were supposedly all eye-witnesses of miracles, and yet they had mysteriously all disappeared rather than founding a new religion or even leaving behind one account of what happened, outside of the bible.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

"The existence of the church is undeniable and indicates an unbroken chain of belief in the historical event of the resurrection. Without belief in that one historical event, there would be no Christian church".

Hasn't this been pointed out to you time and time and time again?
Just because a lot of people believe something says nothing about wether the thing they believe is actually true.
Because by this evidence mohammed truly was inspired by Allah to renew the faith, the golden tablet truly showed how christianty was perverted and the mormon way is the only way and Xenu really did dump millions of innocent souls in earth's volcano's.
Each of these show belief for a supposed historical metaphysical event in an unbroken chain, so by your very definition they are all true. But in your other thread you've said that evidence is insufficient, and that means this particular bit of 'evidence' for the resurrection is also insufficient.

 

[DOC]

Where is your evidence in support of this statement?





Where is your evidence in support of these claims?



my bolding

What people believe isn't the issue under discussion here, DOC. People believe in all manner of weird stuff.

This thread is meant to be dealing with evidence, not beliefs.

The over 5000 New Testament manuscripts (which at times were illegal to own in Roman times) are historical evidence -- ask any historian.

These points, even if they have some grain of truth to them (for which you have failed to provide any evidence) are completely irrelevant when looking at the question of the New Testament's veracity.

Thanks for your opinion, my opinion is they are very relevant. People don't die for what they know is a lie. Therefore their deaths so close in time to the alleged Resurrection is evidence for its truth -- not proof but evidence.

And the evidence that the formerly Jewish apostles made a drastic change in their religion is evident by the 2 billion Christians in existence today.

 

[X]

The over 5000 New Testament manuscripts (which at times were illegal to own in Roman times) are historical evidence -- ask any historian.

Evidence of the existence of scriptures, not of the veracity of their contents.

Thanks for your opinion, my opinion is they are very relevant. People don't die for what they know is a lie. Therefore there deaths so close in time to the alleged Resurrection is evidence for its truth -- not proof but evidence.

"People don't die for what they know is a lie."
For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that.
But their willingness to die is evidence only that they believe something. Not whether that something is true.

And the evidence that the formerly Jewish apostles made a drastic change in their religion is evident by the 2 billion Christians in existence today.

And that, impressively, is your stupidest argument yet.

 

[John Jones]

Actually Jesus never said make a bible after I'm gone. He said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. The first converts were all done orally like Peter converting 3000 on Pentecost and 5000 more within weeks of that. As Ralph Muncaster says in his book "Examine the Evidence" pg. 211 - 212:

"The existence of the church is undeniable and indicates an unbroken chain of belief in the historical event of the resurrection. Without belief in that one historical event, there would be no Christian church".

None of that is evidence for why we know the new testament writers told the truth.

Why does this simple fact have to be pointed out to you scores of times?

 

[DOC]

Hasn't this been pointed out to you time and time and time again?
Just because a lot of people believe something says nothing about wether the thing they believe is actually true.

But it is evidence when people are willing to die for a belief in a single historical event (Resurrection) when this historical event occurred in their lifetime and their city of residence as was the case with the apostles. If you knew the mayor of your city died a week ago and then it was reported he rose from the dead would you die for that belief without seeing the mayor in person.

Because by this evidence mohammed truly was inspired by Allah to renew the faith

Well since you are the one who brought up these other religions I'll comment. No one but Muhammed supposedly saw the Angel Gabriel. It was reported many people saw the risen Christ.

the golden tablet truly showed how christianty was perverted and the mormon way is the only way

No one else saw the angel who supposedly gave Joseph Smith the tablets.

and Xenu really did dump millions of innocent souls in earth's volcano's.

No one but Hubbert had knowledge of this supposed event.

Each of these show belief for a supposed historical metaphysical event in an unbroken chain, so by your very definition they are all true.

Strawman, I never said evidence of something is proof of something.

But in your other thread you've said that evidence is insufficient, and that means this particular bit of 'evidence' for the resurrection is also insufficient.

Not really because whether or not these supposed events occurred or not can be historically tested by historical evidence. There is historical evidence for the supposed historical event of the Resurrection.


http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

But you must look at all the evidence in this 356 page thread not just the link above. I looked at much of the evidence in that other thread of other religions and it was not sufficient for me. If the 356 pages in this thread (largely summarized on page 328 in post 13104) is not sufficient for some people -- so be it.

 

[Elizabeth I]

But you must look at all the evidence in this 356 page thread not just the link above. I looked at much of the evidence in that other thread of other religions and it was not sufficient for me. IF the 356 pages in this thread is not sufficient for some people -- so be it.

Well one can consider the fact that I have a 356 page thread on Christian evidence and the religions you mentioned don't. You have to look at all the evidence.

One can also consider the fact that quite probably most of the posts in that 356-page thread are refutations and rebuttals of yours. It would be a different matter if every post - or even most of the posts - in that 356-page thread were all evidence in favor of your point of view, but they're not.

When will you learn that quantity does not equal correctness?

 

[tsig]

But it is evidence when people are willing to die for a belief in a single historical event (Resurrection) when this historical event occurred in their lifetime and their city of residence as was the case with the apostles. If you knew the mayor of your city died a week ago and then it was reported he rose from the dead would you die for that belief without seeing the mayor in person.



Well since you are the one who brought up these other religions I'll comment. No one but Muhammed supposedly saw the Angel Gabriel. It was reported many people saw the risen Christ.



No one else saw the angel who supposedly gave Joseph Smith the tablets.




No one but Hubbert had knowledge of this supposed event.



Strawman, I never said evidence of something is proof of something.



Not really because whether or not these supposed events occurred or not can be historically tested by historical evidence. There is historical evidence for the supposed historical event of the Resurrection.


http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

But you must look at all the evidence in this 356 page thread not just the link above. I looked at much of the evidence in that other thread of other religions and it was not sufficient for me. If the 356 pages in this thread (largely summarized on page 328 in post 13104) is not sufficient for some people -- so be it.

So the evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth is the fact that this thread is long?

 

[Helen]

So the evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth is the fact that this thread is long?

Or, in other words, the evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth, is that so many people have so many good counter-arguments. Which does make as much sense as a lot of other things in this thread.

 

[zooterkin]

But it is evidence when people are willing to die for a belief in a single historical event (Resurrection) when this historical event occurred in their lifetime and their city of residence as was the case with the apostles. If you knew the mayor of your city died a week ago and then it was reported he rose from the dead would you die for that belief without seeing the mayor in person.

Ok, I think I can almost see what you're saying; rather than martyrdom proving that something is true (because we have martyrs for nearly all faiths), you're saying that someone would not be martyred for something that they knew not to be true. This means you are accepting that nearly all the Christian martyrs cannot be used as evidence for the truth of the New Testament, right?

So, let's get to the specifics. Which Christian martyrs do you say fit the category of people who would have known that Christ was not resurrected, and therefore would not have been prepared to die? What is the evidence for their story?

 

[Lothian]

If you knew the mayor of your city died a week ago and then it was reported he rose from the dead would you die for that belief without seeing the mayor in person.

This thread is about evidence that the NT authors told the truth. Please point me to the evidence outside the NT that the anyone saw the resurrected Jesus.

 

[paximperium]

This thread is about evidence that the NT authors told the truth. Please point me to the evidence outside the NT that the anyone saw the resurrected Jesus.

I'd be happy if he could point to one eyewitness of this Jesus character who wrote anything down, even in the NT.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'd be happy if he could point to one eyewitness of this Jesus character who wrote anything down, even in the NT.

I'd be even happier with some (undoctored) video footage of the Resurrection.

DOC, when are you going to get what everyone has been beating their heads against a brick wall saying for over 350 pages? Evidence that people wrote stuff down (2000 years ago) that they believed in, isn't Evidence of TRUTH.

GB

 

[DOC]

This thread is about evidence that the NT authors told the truth. Please point me to the evidence outside the NT that the anyone saw the resurrected Jesus.

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus talks of a Christian superstition. Notice at the end the kinds of punishment they endured for this so called superstition:


"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:
"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.html

ETA:

And from Early Christian Writings website

"Suetonius also makes mention of Nero's persecution in 16.2:

"Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Notably, unlike Tacitus, Suetonius does not associate this punishment with the fire that swept Rome."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus talks of a Christian superstition. Notice at the end the kinds of punishment they endured for this so called superstition:


"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:
"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

http://users.drew.edu/ddoughty/christianorigins/persecutions/tacitus.html

This is evidence that Nero liked to torture people who believed in an "evil" Superstition, and nothing more.

GB

 

[DOC]

This is evidence that Nero liked to torture people who believed in an "evil" Superstition, and nothing more.

GB

That is your opinion, my opinion (from what we all know now) it is evidence that Nero liked to torture people who believed Christ rose from the dead and also people who lived in Rome, 1400 miles or so from the place where Christ allegedly rose from the dead 31 years earlier. That's very fast growth in a time period where being a Christian could get you tortured and killed. It seems logical to conclude something very big must have happened to be driving all of this in an age with no modern transportation or communication.

 

[Akhenaten]

The over 5000 New Testament manuscripts (which at times were illegal to own in Roman times) are historical evidence -- ask any historian.

The over 5000000 ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, (whose legality of ownership at any time in history is completely irrelevent) are historical evidence -- ask any school child.

This argument is totally without merit, DOC, as you have been told thousands of times.​

Thanks for your opinion, my opinion is they are very relevant. People don't die for what they know is a lie.

People do, however, die for what they think is the truth. 618000 Americans died in the Civil War, DOC. Did they all die for the truth?

This argument is totally without merit, DOC, as you have been told thousands of times.​

Therefore their deaths so close in time to the alleged Resurrection is evidence for its truth -- not proof but evidence.

my bolding

Alleged in the very book that you're trying to establish the veracity of. This is the fallacy of circular reasoning, which may be represented by the following graphic:

This argument is totally without merit, DOC, as you have been told thousands of times.​

And the evidence that the formerly Jewish apostles made a drastic change in their religion is evident by the 2 billion Christians in existence today.

It's evidence that some people believe some stuff. It most certainly is not evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

This argument is totally without merit, DOC, as you have been told thousands of times.​

No matter how many times you attempt to present the same fallacious reasoning, illogical conclusions and outright lies, your arguments will remain as utterly without credence as they did the very first time you introduced them.

How do you explain your inability to grasp this point?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

That is your opinion, my opinion (from what we all know now) it is evidence that Nero like to torture people who believed Christ rose from the dead and also people who lived in Rome, 700 miles or so from the place where Christ allegedly rose from the dead 31 years earlier. That's very fast growth in a time period where being a Christian could get you tortured and killed. It seems logical to conclude something very big must have happened to be driving all of this in an age with no modern transportation or communication.

One might conclude "something big" happened, but it's still not evidence for the veracity of the NT. One does not logically progress from the other. Again, it's evidence that people BELIEVED in Christianity, not that Christianity was Truth. All kinds of new cults were arising in that time. Christians were picked on because they were believed to be arrogant in their Exclusivity, and not giving the other superstitions equal credence (i.e. they refused to worship the Roman gods).

GB