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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
And it would seem that Caiaphas' relatives, friends, fellow sect members, and children (if any) would not be to happy about the NT writers writing about him if the things they said about him were not true.
Click to expand...
Do we have evidence that they weren't upset? Or do we have any evidence that they were happy about it?

Or, perhaps, they could care less what crazy, apocalyptic hill people wrote about him?
 
DOC said:
No, but it is evidence that Forrest Gump was not making up Kennedy when he talked about him, just like we have evidence the NT writers were not making up Caiaphus.
Click to expand...


This pretty much demonstrates the insurmountable problem this thread presents for you, DOC. The main reason you'll never be able to present any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth isn't so much that there isn't any - the simple fact is that you don't know what evidence is.

Stultus est sicut stultus facit.​
 
DOC said:
No, but it is evidence that Forrest Gump was not making up Kennedy when he talked about him, just like we have evidence the NT writers were not making up Caiaphus.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the idiocy of the first part of your remark, has anyone suggested that Caiaphas (not Caiaphus, by the way) was fictional? No-one is arguing that the setting of the story was made up (though if it was shown to be so, that of course would cast more doubt on the other parts of the NT (did someone say "census"?)); when we talk of the truth of the New Testament, we're talking about the supernatural parts, since it doesn't mean much either way if the mundane parts are true or not. However, there doesn't appear to be a shred of corroboration for the miracles, or some of the other events one might think worthy of comment; several thousand speaking in tongues, and converting to a new religion (mysteriously to disappear and never be heard from again), or the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem, for example; no independent account of these. Really?

The Romans, and Caesar Augustus are also mentioned in the bible; I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that they didn't exist; though there was one guy who seemed to think there was doubt whether Julius Caesar existed...
 
zooterkin said:
Leaving aside the idiocy of the first part of your remark, has anyone suggested that Caiaphas (not Caiaphus, by the way) was fictional? No-one is arguing that the setting of the story was made up (though if it was shown to be so, that of course would cast more doubt on the other parts of the NT (did someone say "census"?)); when we talk of the truth of the New Testament, we're talking about the supernatural parts, since it doesn't mean much either way if the mundane parts are true or not.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of someone who Doc quoted regularly

The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence. That truth exists and moves on a higher plane of thought. No man can make historical investigation and historical proof take the place of faith. THE BEARING OF RECENT DISCOVERY ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - SIR W. M. RAMSAY​

However, there doesn't appear to be a shred of corroboration for the miracles, or some of the other events one might think worthy of comment; several thousand speaking in tongues, and converting to a new religion (mysteriously to disappear and never be heard from again), or the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem, for example; no independent account of these. Really?
Click to expand...
Those are obviously essential facts; Resurrection, virgin birth, God, Son of god.....all in Ramsay's words, totally lacking in historical evidence.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
DOC said:
No, but it is evidence that Forrest Gump was not making up Kennedy when he talked about him, just like we have evidence the NT writers were not making up Caiaphus.
Click to expand...


This pretty much demonstrates the insurmountable problem this thread presents for you, DOC. The main reason you'll never be able to present any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth isn't so much that there isn't any - the simple fact is that you don't know what evidence is.

Stultus est sicut stultus facit.​
Click to expand...
I think DOC believes his forte is logic.
 
DOC said:
No, but it is evidence that Forrest Gump was not making up Kennedy when he talked about him, just like we have evidence the NT writers were not making up Caiaphus.
Click to expand...

Oh dear... your parents haven't let you watch "Forrest Gump" yet? There's only a couple of objectionable parts. :eek:
 
zooterkin said:
Leaving aside the idiocy of the first part of your remark, has anyone suggested that Caiaphas (not Caiaphus, by the way) was fictional? No-one is arguing that the setting of the story was made up (though if it was shown to be so, that of course would cast more doubt on the other parts of the NT (did someone say "census"?)); when we talk of the truth of the New Testament, we're talking about the supernatural parts, since it doesn't mean much either way if the mundane parts are true or not. However, there doesn't appear to be a shred of corroboration for the miracles, or some of the other events one might think worthy of comment; several thousand speaking in tongues, and converting to a new religion (mysteriously to disappear and never be heard from again), or the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem, for example; no independent account of these. Really?

The Romans, and Caesar Augustus are also mentioned in the bible; I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest that they didn't exist; though there was one guy who seemed to think there was doubt whether Julius Caesar existed...
Click to expand...
To amplify what zooterkin said here, none of us are denying the existance of Caiaphas, Caesar, Herod Antipas, Herod the Great, Herod Phillip or many others. Hell, some of us don't deny that there was a historical Jesus. I'd even go so far as to say that none of us deny, per se, the existance of the supernatural events as described in the gospels. What we do do is question the claims made. Since none of the supernatural events have been witnessed or recreated by any modern verifable source, it is questionable as to the veracity of the reports as written. The whole thing is legend and hagiography1. Unless there is a contemporary, extra-biblical account of the events then all we have to go on is the bible itself, which would be like taking the advertising department's word that the product is safe.




1 Ok, technically none of the NT is strictly hagiography, but it does fit the more pejorative definition.
 
but there is proof of Jesus (Yeshua actually) preaching his version or religion...in Kashmir, where he is buried...Hindu Legend!! that's extra-biblical
 
refamat said:
but there is proof of Jesus (Yeshua actually) preaching his version or religion...in Kashmir, where he is buried...Hindu Legend!! that's extra-biblical
Click to expand...

a) I'm not sure that a legend is proof of anything and b) if it was true, wouldn't that tend to disprove the New Testament story?
 
zooterkin said:
a) I'm not sure that a legend is proof of anything and b) if it was true, wouldn't that tend to disprove the New Testament story?
Click to expand...

well, it has to stay legend until such time as warfare and such cease long enough for researchers to venture into Kashmir and see if anything is left to research

and yes, if true, it would most certainly strike a blow at christianity but would still be important for Islam
 
kmortis said:
Usually, hagiography is about a particular saint, not a gathering. But since I'm not feeling particularly pedantic, I'll take your point.
Click to expand...

Hmm... Actually, you are probably right.
At any rate; I think, that real hagiographies date from the medieval period so would be a very different cultural construct than the first century Acts.
 
Simon39759 said:
Hmm... Actually, you are probably right.
At any rate; I think, that real hagiographies date from the medieval period so would be a very different cultural construct than the first century Acts.
Click to expand...
The way I was using the word was perjoratively, that the NT authors were flush with religious ferver and that overrulled their rational skills. That usage has no time limitation.
 
kmortis said:
The way I was using the word was perjoratively, that the NT authors were flush with religious ferver and that overrulled their rational skills. That usage has no time limitation.
Click to expand...


If you say so... I am not aware of a pejorative usage for the term...
I guess we both were wrong then, as my question did not really apply to such an usage either...
 
Simon39759 said:
But the earliest Gospel to mention him was, according to most serious scholars, at least 50 years after the alleged crucification...
Click to expand...
Many other scholars disagree with your unsourced statement.

And the NT writers didn't seem to have any problem remembering Caiaphas.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Here is some new evidence for this thread and it regards Caiaphas who had a prominent role in the bible. His ossuary was found in Jerusalem.


http://www.formerthings.com/caiaphas.htm
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
So, because there is evidence that JFK existed, "Forrest Gump" was a documentary?
Click to expand...

John Jones said:
Walt Disney existed. Does that mean Steamboat Willie was a documentary?
Click to expand...

Forrest Gump and Steamboat Willie are not real people and never had their bones dug up like Caiaphas so I don't believe the analogies apply.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom