• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Opinion isn't Evidence. Ethics and Morals are not Evidence of a Deity.

The Morals expressed by Jesus in (most of) the Gospels were also expressed by Buddha and Confucius.

Yet the Bible also demonstrates that Yahweh is a Capricious, Morally Relativistic God, ready to command Genocide, the Sexual Enslavement and Rape of virgins, and the Burning in Hellfire for all Eternity (NT) of those who had the audacity to question his existence.

Explain how this is Evidence that the NT authors were telling the "Truth"!!!!

Or is this just another attempt to "derail" this thread? :D

GB
 
Would you care to address the rest of that post, which explained why he considers you to be "one of the most deliberately historically ignorant people [he has] ever come across"?

*scratches furiously into a lead tablet* Oh woe is me! May he who has stolen DOC from me become as liquid as water... who has stolen it or her, for the unbearable length of nearly a month?! Julius Caesar!

For those now scratching their heads, the above is a parody one of the most famous curses found at Bath, directed to the goddess Sulis, and is quoted from this page here... which also includes this relevant quote;

The Roman empire was based on two things: lip service to the emperor, and payment to the army. As long as you acknowledged the imperial cult and paid your taxes, Rome did not really care how you lived your life.

And then, there's this relevant one too;

Both Rome and Britain had polytheistic religions, in which a multiplicity of gods could be propitiated at many levels. At one end of the spectrum were the official cults of the emperor and the Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, linked to other Olympian gods like Mars. At the other end, every spring, every river, every cross-roads, lake or wood had its own local spirit with its own local shrine. The Romans had no problem in combining these with their own gods, simply associating them with the god(s) or goddess(es) who most resembled them.

So... which explanation for this claim... "So it would have made perfect sense for the Romans and others not to blab about the resurrection." ... do we think is more likely?

A.) The Roman's were so terrified of somebody other than Jupiter who claimed to be able to perform miracles (even if he also said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's") that they didn't even dare mention what those miracles actually were...?

B.) The Roman's had no problem at all with someone believing that, and after all they did pay their taxes, there's hardly very many of them, and you can find another God just like him on any street corner, so why bother talking about them all that much?

or, and this is my personal selection,

C.) Most of the greats in Roman history had been accused by the Christians of the time of being Off Topic and Derailing The Scrolls, and had then thrown an enormous immature hissy fit, declaring they wouldn't pay any attention to any Christian at all until at least the 1st of September 2010. But unfortunately the Roman Empire had fallen by then, so we thus have no Roman sources on the Christian faith.
 
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.

Ooh, I think I know this one! I'm never entirely sure though, but is this begging the question?

Please explain why a system of morality (something which every human civilisation has) is evidence of the existence of a god or gods? I think you would agree that the Hindu system of morality does not come from the gods associated with the religion. What is it about the Christian moral system (you know, the one that allows slaves) that gives it so much more merit? How does this subjective view ("It would seem to me" is a subjective statement, and a pretty weak one at that) translate into evidence for the existence of a deity? Since we are surrounded by evidence that moral codes arise without being divinely inspired, what is it about yours that is different, and so different that you have to invoke a supernatural being to explain it?
 
Even if "the principles have extremely high merit compared to other principles of the day and other religions", this is not evidence that they come from a perfect being, or that such a being exists.

Well we have a difference of opinion, because the teachings of a perfect being would obviously be of extremely high merit, and that is what we have -- teaching of supremely high merit. So since they are so, this increases the possibility that they came from a God over let's say run of the mill teachings. Since it increases the "probability" that it came from a perfect being, it can be looked at as being evidence. Not proof but evidence.

And even if it was evidence for the existence of a supreme being it would still not be "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth,"..
Sure it would be, because if you increase the likelihood that a God exists then this increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth, since they spent much of their time talking about God {Christ}.

Anything that increases the likelihood of something being true, even if it increases it only .00001 percent, can be considered evidence.
 
Last edited:
We don't have a signature nor bones or ashes of Moses. What's your point?
My point is if we don't even have known signature for Julius Caesar in existence, why do people make a big deal about unsigned Gospels.
 
Well we have a difference of opinion, because the teachings of a perfect being would obviously be of extremely high merit, and that is what we have -- teaching of supremely high merit. So since they are so, this increases the possibility that they came from a God over let's say run of the mill teachings. Since it increases the "probability" that it came from a perfect being, it can be looked at as being evidence. Not proof but evidence.


Sure it would be, because if you increase the likelihood that a God exists then this increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth, since they much of their time talking about God {Christ}.


Circulus in probando, DOC. Your argument fails yet again.

Please read this and comment.


Anything that increases the likelihood of something being true, even if it increases it only .00001 percent, can be considered evidence.


Tragically, you have yet to provide even that meagre amount.
 
Well we have a difference of opinion, because the teachings of a perfect being would obviously be of extremely high merit, and that is what we have -- teaching of supremely high merit. So since they are so, this increases the possibility that they came from a God over let's say run of the mill teachings. Since it increases the "probability" that it came from a perfect being, it can be looked at as being evidence. Not proof but evidence.

Please list these teachings of "high merit?" Would you also clearly indicate which of the teachings were original?
 
Anything that increases the likelihood of something being true, even if it increases it only .00001 percent, can be considered evidence.

This is not correct. Let us not go into silly percentages, but an observation is only evidence for a claim if the truth of the claim is the most likely explanation for the observation.

The fact that teachings of high merit exists does not enhance the merit of the claim that God exists, because we have an alternative scenario which explains them even better, namely that humans wrote them. (Better because we know that humans exist and are capable of writing teachings of high merit.)

Hans
 
Well we have a difference of opinion, because the teachings of a perfect being would obviously be of extremely high merit, and that is what we have -- teaching of supremely high merit. So since they are so, this increases the possibility that they came from a God over let's say run of the mill teachings. Since it increases the "probability" that it came from a perfect being, it can be looked at as being evidence. Not proof but evidence.

Dude, there is nothing 'obvious' about it - you'd like to think there is, but there isn't.

And not only are you 'begging the question', you're committing the classic logical fallacy of assuming that causation is commutative.

A therefore B does not equate to B therefore A.

All sheep produce poop.
My baby produces poop.
Therefore my baby is a sheep.
QED?

This does not increase the probability that my baby is a sheep, not at all.

(not least due to the fact that I don't actually have a baby...but y'know what I mean)
 
It sends up a red flag when you fail to list the posts where people are making a big deal about unsigned gospels.

I move that we all quote Akhenaten,Doc will put us all on ignore and this daft thread will finally come to an end.
 
My point is if we don't even have known signature for Julius Caesar in existence, why do people make a big deal about unsigned Gospels.

There is plenty of independent, contemporary evidence that Julius Caesar existed, as you have been told several times. If you don't accept that evidence, then I don't know what historical evidence you would accept.

There is no independent, contemporary evidence to corroborate the supernatural stories in the New Testament, and very little for most of the mundane content either. There is nothing to identify the authors of the gospels, so we do not know if they even were alive at the time of the events described. At least some of the stories in the gospel are hearsay, yet are reported as fact.
 
Because I don't want doc to miss anything as a result of his fit of pique:

Akhenaten said:
Well we have a difference of opinion, because the teachings of a perfect being would obviously be of extremely high merit, and that is what we have -- teaching of supremely high merit. So since they are so, this increases the possibility that they came from a God over let's say run of the mill teachings. Since it increases the "probability" that it came from a perfect being, it can be looked at as being evidence. Not proof but evidence.


Sure it would be, because if you increase the likelihood that a God exists then this increases the likelihood that the NT writers were telling the truth, since they much of their time talking about God {Christ}.

Circulus in probando, DOC. Your argument fails yet again.

Please read this and comment.


Anything that increases the likelihood of something being true, even if it increases it only .00001 percent, can be considered evidence.


Tragically, you have yet to provide even that meagre amount.

Akhenaten said:
My point is if we don't even have known signature for Julius Caesar in existence, why do people make a big deal about unsigned Gospels.


It sends up a red flag when you fail to list the posts where people are making a big deal about unsigned gospels.
 
Perhaps the gospelers failed to sign their works because they knew they were writing balderdash? :boxedin:
 
I only care about the gospels being unsigned when people say that they are perfect truth, that they dictate how we should live and work to enact laws that affect all of us. If they were regarded as just another myth, then no I wouldn't care in the least and would accept them at face value. If someone was to tell me that the bible is not 100% accurate and has mistakes, contradictions, unknown authorship etc, then the conversation I would then have with them would be completely different. I don't care if Alexander the Great, Socrates etc etc actually existed as the history texts say....but if you want me to give up my basic human rights (eg marriage to whoever I wish etc), affect how I live (what I can/can't eat etc) or to denigrate my child (she will never be afraid of hell or be told that she was born evil/full of sin for as long as I'm alive) then you better pony up some signatures, with witnesses, videotape, forsenic evidence etc etc or no dice mate.

ps...."derail"...."off topic"....if I'm now on ignore then I'm in with company that it is an honour to be associated with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom