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

[John Jones]

How do you know he wrote them?





So we have all of this but not one signature? And no bones, no ashes?

We don't have a signature nor bones or ashes of Moses. What's your point?

 

[X]

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).

Did you ever cover "non-sequiturs" in that logic course you aced?

Also: Jainism.

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

And Christianity also supported slavery, subjugation of women, torture, I could go on...


Besides, for this argument to be even within striking distance of valid, you would first have to prove there is a god. And then that said god is perfect.



Seriously, have you learned nothing these last 360 pages?

Look, DOC; put down the Geisler and Turek and similar books. They are rubbish, and not worth the paper they are printed on. The authors are ignorant, dogmatic morons. Yet you proudly and repeatedly parrot their arguments. What does that say about you?
Read some real apologetic and religious histories. Go toy your local university*, and speak to a member of the faculty of theology if they have one. Ask for their recommendations.

*Real university, not ultra-conservative diploma mill.

 

[WanderingSkeptic]

So here we are on page 361 of a thread that has over 14 thousand posts. Its entitled "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" ... have we had any yet?

 

[Toke]

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).

According to that argument we should all be worshipping Samuel Smith.

Apart from the lack of perfection in any religion (not just christianity), you have not given any support whatsoever for the idea of perfection=god.

What you got is the idea that a perfect being would make a perfect beer/religion. Then you invert cause and effect and claim that something you cannot see the flaws in is evidence of a perfect being.

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

So in your opinion christianity suck less than other religions and is therefore more likely to be invented by a perfect being?

Have it occurred to you that the inventors of assorted religions were humans, and that could explain why they all suck?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Oh my gosh! Does that condemnation apply to everyone?

"DERAIL" "OFF TOPIC".

Go ahead and block me too.

No, see, doc actually believes he's punishing Akhenaten. If you want him to block you, then it wouldn't be punishment so he won't do it.

 

[Hokulele]

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

The meek shall inherit the earth? That is the worst sort of fatalistic nonsense as bad as anything like Hindu karma. I much prefer "and the meek shall stop whinging about how bad things are, grow a spine, and do something about it."

 

[joobz]

They didn't have to lie about it, all they had to do was call it a superstition..

Interesting. You believe it is truthful to call christianity a superstition?

I agree.

 

[joobz]

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

The bible also says it's ok that beat slaves, that homosexuals should be killed, and killing children is acceptable (if god asks for it)


So, by your standards, the bible is definitely not the word of god.

 

[Hokulele]

The bible also says it's ok that beat slaves, that homosexuals should be killed, and killing children is acceptable (if god asks for it)


So, by your standards, the bible is definitely not the word of god.

And that lying to God deserves an instant death penalty. See Acts for details.

 

[joobz]

And that lying to God deserves an instant death penalty. See Acts for details.

DOC,
Did you mean to provide evidence that the bible isn't the word of god, because this would seem to contradict your OP premise.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

Therefore the Albigensian Crusade is evidence that christianity is false.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

How do you know he wrote them?





So we have all of this but not one signature? And no bones, no ashes?

Why on earth would a signature be of any remote significance? I strongly suspect* that we hardly have any signatures of any 'important' person before 1000AD. This doesn't mean that we have any reason to doubt their existence. Seriously, what would a signature prove? Absolutely nothing.

Similarly, there is no good reason to doubt that Caesar wrote the books that are ascribed to him. There are extant letters of Caesar preserved with Cicero's letters. I'm sure that a competent latinist would be able to compare and contrast the language used in the letters with that in the books ascribed to Caesar and decide if they were indeed by the same man.

But all of this of pointless piffling about. No one doubts the existence of Caesar. I'm aware that you are utterly ignorant about the ancient world except for the bits that you have read about in drivel by the likes of Geisler. But think - for perhaps the first time in your life - and try to imagine the course of history if Caesar didn't exist and was a figment of the collective imaginations of Cicero, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Brutus, Octavian, Cato, Pompey and Crassus.

It's difficult to consider, isn't it? Because he existed. And yes - I'm aware that this could be used as an argument for the existence of Jesus, e.g. x number of christians today proves that he must have existed. And I'm fine with that - I'm fairly content that some guy called Jesus did exist and that christianity has been erected on some of his teachings. I don't believe any of the god business though. Perhaps if someone were to show me some evidence that the new testament writers told the truth, then I might be forced to reconsider. But since there is clearly no one here who is willing to or capable of doing that, I'll remain profoundly sceptical of all claims of divinity for some itinerant preacher 2000 years ago.

* I can't think of any easy way to check this. Perhaps there might be some extant decrees signed by pre 1000AD (an entirely arbitrary date, I admit) kings but I honestly don't know. As far as I can think, all copies of works we have from that era are exactly that - copies.

 

[Akhenaten]

pros·e·lyt·ize /ˈpräsələˌtīz/ Verb

1. Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another: "the program had a tremendous effect, proselytizing many"; "proselytizing for converts".

2. Advocate or promote (a belief or course of action). ​

And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

So I guess Christ did come at exactly the right time then if this was the behavior of the most powerful nation on earth. I think Joobz said one time Christ should have come later when there was better communication so more people could have witnessed his mininistry. But I think the above shows the world needed him desperately at that time.

And if the above was the behavior of the emperor and the most powerful nation on earth, a good argument could be made that yes, Christianity is the reason we even have a Western Civilization. Read the book "What if Jesus had never been Born". It is actually quite scary to think how the world might have turned out if Jesus never came.

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

I'm not preaching, I forming a logical conclusion that if the historical person, Jesus, that secular historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius wrote of, did not teach his philosophy it is very possible given the the brutal sadistic behaviors of the Romans that Western Civilization as we know it would not be in existence and the world would likely be a much scarier place now.

my bolding​

This is proselytizing nonsense and has nothing to do with either logic or the presentation of evidence.

Stop derailiing the thread with this drivel.

We have a difference of opinion. Talking of the teachings of the historical character Jesus is not derailing this thread and if you ever use the word derail or off topic again I'm going to block you.

For the record I have blocked Akhenaten. I asked him not to do something but he continues to do it. I believe this is the first person I've blocked in over 3 years on this system. I might unblock him in a month or so.

You just got blocked until Sept 1.

Sorry, but I'm not going to read posts like this anymore without blocking the author. I'll unblock you Sept 1.

Matthew 13:13

Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.​

Jeremiah 5:21

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.​

Isaiah 6:9-10

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.​

​

 

[zooterkin]

pros·e·lyt·ize /ˈpräsələˌtīz/ Verb

1. Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another: "the program had a tremendous effect, proselytizing many"; "proselytizing for converts".

2. Advocate or promote (a belief or course of action). ​

And not all evidence for Christianity comes from the bible. The thousands and thousands of changed lives for the better (that is happening today because of Christianity) is evidence of the power of the Gospel that we can observe today.

So I guess Christ did come at exactly the right time then if this was the behavior of the most powerful nation on earth. I think Joobz said one time Christ should have come later when there was better communication so more people could have witnessed his mininistry. But I think the above shows the world needed him desperately at that time.

And if the above was the behavior of the emperor and the most powerful nation on earth, a good argument could be made that yes, Christianity is the reason we even have a Western Civilization. Read the book "What if Jesus had never been Born". It is actually quite scary to think how the world might have turned out if Jesus never came.

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).

For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

I'm not preaching, I forming a logical conclusion that if the historical person, Jesus, that secular historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius wrote of, did not teach his philosophy it is very possible given the the brutal sadistic behaviors of the Romans that Western Civilization as we know it would not be in existence and the world would likely be a much scarier place now.

my bolding​

This is proselytizing nonsense and has nothing to do with either logic or the presentation of evidence.

Stop derailiing the thread with this drivel.

We have a difference of opinion. Talking of the teachings of the historical character Jesus is not derailing this thread and if you ever use the word derail or off topic again I'm going to block you.

For the record I have blocked Akhenaten. I asked him not to do something but he continues to do it. I believe this is the first person I've blocked in over 3 years on this system. I might unblock him in a month or so.

You just got blocked until Sept 1.

Sorry, but I'm not going to read posts like this anymore without blocking the author. I'll unblock you Sept 1.

Matthew 13:13

Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.​

Jeremiah 5:21

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.​

Isaiah 6:9-10

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.​

​

QFD.

 

[Mojo]

Therefore the Albigensian Crusade is evidence that christianity is false.

By DOC's arguments, yes.

 

[Mojo]

Why on earth would a signature be of any remote significance? I strongly suspect* that we hardly have any signatures of any 'important' person before 1000AD. This doesn't mean that we have any reason to doubt their existence. Seriously, what would a signature prove? Absolutely nothing.

Similarly, there is no good reason to doubt that Caesar wrote the books that are ascribed to him. There are extant letters of Caesar preserved with Cicero's letters. I'm sure that a competent latinist would be able to compare and contrast the language used in the letters with that in the books ascribed to Caesar and decide if they were indeed by the same man.

But all of this of pointless piffling about. No one doubts the existence of Caesar. I'm aware that you are utterly ignorant about the ancient world except for the bits that you have read about in drivel by the likes of Geisler. But think - for perhaps the first time in your life - and try to imagine the course of history if Caesar didn't exist and was a figment of the collective imaginations of Cicero, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Brutus, Octavian, Cato, Pompey and Crassus.

It's difficult to consider, isn't it? Because he existed. And yes - I'm aware that this could be used as an argument for the existence of Jesus, e.g. x number of christians today proves that he must have existed. And I'm fine with that - I'm fairly content that some guy called Jesus did exist and that christianity has been erected on some of his teachings. I don't believe any of the god business though. Perhaps if someone were to show me some evidence that the new testament writers told the truth, then I might be forced to reconsider. But since there is clearly no one here who is willing to or capable of doing that, I'll remain profoundly sceptical of all claims of divinity for some itinerant preacher 2000 years ago.

* I can't think of any easy way to check this. Perhaps there might be some extant decrees signed by pre 1000AD (an entirely arbitrary date, I admit) kings but I honestly don't know. As far as I can think, all copies of works we have from that era are exactly that - copies.

Indeed.

 

[paximperium]

Why on earth would a signature be of any remote significance? I strongly suspect* that we hardly have any signatures of any 'important' person before 1000AD. This doesn't mean that we have any reason to doubt their existence. Seriously, what would a signature prove? Absolutely nothing.

Similarly, there is no good reason to doubt that Caesar wrote the books that are ascribed to him. There are extant letters of Caesar preserved with Cicero's letters. I'm sure that a competent latinist would be able to compare and contrast the language used in the letters with that in the books ascribed to Caesar and decide if they were indeed by the same man.

But all of this of pointless piffling about. No one doubts the existence of Caesar. I'm aware that you are utterly ignorant about the ancient world except for the bits that you have read about in drivel by the likes of Geisler. But think - for perhaps the first time in your life - and try to imagine the course of history if Caesar didn't exist and was a figment of the collective imaginations of Cicero, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Brutus, Octavian, Cato, Pompey and Crassus.

It's difficult to consider, isn't it? Because he existed. And yes - I'm aware that this could be used as an argument for the existence of Jesus, e.g. x number of christians today proves that he must have existed. And I'm fine with that - I'm fairly content that some guy called Jesus did exist and that christianity has been erected on some of his teachings. I don't believe any of the god business though. Perhaps if someone were to show me some evidence that the new testament writers told the truth, then I might be forced to reconsider. But since there is clearly no one here who is willing to or capable of doing that, I'll remain profoundly sceptical of all claims of divinity for some itinerant preacher 2000 years ago.

* I can't think of any easy way to check this. Perhaps there might be some extant decrees signed by pre 1000AD (an entirely arbitrary date, I admit) kings but I honestly don't know. As far as I can think, all copies of works we have from that era are exactly that - copies.

DOC is attempting the same false equivocation as he always clumsily attempts. He's attempting to show how all the eviiiiil atheists are biased against his "evidence."

It's basically, "You guys believe in this Caesar fella despite not having any of his original writings...I don't want to hear about any of the stuff written by his contemporaries and enemies, you have no originals... I don't want to hear about archeological evidence that confirms his claims etc etc etc;
Why won't you guys should believe EVERYTHING written in the Bible? Nevermind there is not a single eyewitness or extrabiblical sources, you eviiiil atheists are just biased!!!! Waaaaaaaah!!!"

 

[Akhenaten]

The same could be said for Julius Caesar, we have no bones, no ashes, no signature for him -- just some statues like we have of Zeus, and some coins that have an image like we have an image of an eagle holding some arrows and olive leaves on our money.

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

 

[carlitos]

Do you really want to discuss savagery? If so, we can talk about the savagery of the conquest of the Americas by Christians. We can talk about the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and conversion at sword point. We can talk about the hundreds, perhaps thousands of helpless women tortured and killed during the witch hunts. We can talk about the behavior of Fred Phelps and his merry band of inbred lunatics.

There is a museum of the Inquisition in Carcasonne, France. Having seen the cruelty employed, in particular towards women and their specific biology, I have no doubt what sadistic, misogynistic bastards those Christians were.

(deleted stuff after remembering mod box way back when...)

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Good point.

 

[Simon39759]

We have a difference of opinion. Talking of the teachings of the historical character Jesus is not derailing this thread and if you ever use the word derail or off topic again I'm going to block you.

As violence is the last refuge of the incompetent; so is the ignore list the last refuge of the impotent...

If you can show the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions, in my opinion that is evidence they could have come from a perfect being (aka God).
For example Hinduism has the caste system and Islam believes to kill your enemy like the 10 humanitarians/Christians who were killed in Afganistan two days ago. Whereas the bible says the meek shall inherit the earth, the least shall be the greatest, and love your enemy. It would seem to me that the latter has more merit and thus would seem to more likely come from a perfect God and thus this would be evidence according to the definition of evidence in post #13.

As I explained to you; Hinduism post-date the caste system and does not explicitly condone it so it's not fair to pin-it on it...

On the other hand, the Jesus does explicitly condone slavery; Saint Paul's letter explicitly advocates bigotry against homosexual and giving-up on love and marriage; the story of Ananias and Shappira in the acts makes it clear that private property and the failure to surrender all your belonging to the cult is worthy of death; and, of course, there is the condoning of the old testament, with its promotion of genocides, violence, child murder and sacrifice and the many instances of institutionalized rape...