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

[Akhenaten]

Fiction was almost non-existent at that time,

Naturally you'll be presenting evidence for this ridiculous claim. Any idea when?

. . . and people don't die or risk their lives for fiction that supposedly happened to someone they knew personally and could verify whether or not it happened..

I'm guessing that you think this makes sense.

If someone said my friend (whose funeral I attended a few days ago) has since risen from the dead and was seen walking around town, I"m not going to die for that fact (like the apostles did) unless I verify it.

Is this an attempt at an analogy? Not only is it so malformed as to render it unrecognisable as such, but it contains an obvious falsehood.

We have no evidence that there were any apostles, much less evidence of their strange hobbies. It was ostensibly to provide this evidence that the thread was started, but so far we're still waiting. Remember?

And here is some info about fiction at that time from the article- Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: by Christopher Louis Lang

"Many were illiterate, few could read, much less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout."

my bolding

As would be expected from any of the apologist writers you trot out from time to time, the bolded part in the above quotation is complete nonsense.

The bible wasn't written as a book at all, of any description, and I find no reason to believe anything said by a person who would utter such a blatantly dishonest statement.

Also there were 9 independent New Testament writers, we're not talking about 1 writer here.

You can assert this as many times as you like, but it won't magically become true by your doing so. You'll need some of that evidence we keep talking about.

That's a lot of people to be out and around searching for the truth. You might be able to fool one of them but fooling all 9 is highly unlikely (especially someone like gospel writer Luke who was highly praised by Sir William M. Ramsay).

There aren't enough laughing dogs on the entire internet to adequately respond to this drivel.

 

[carlitos]

A question not for DOC. 9 New Testament Writers?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Fiction was almost non-existent at that time, and people don't die or risk their lives for fiction that supposedly happened to someone they knew personally and could verify whether or not it happened.. If someone said my friend (whose funeral I attended a few days ago) has since risen from the dead and was seen walking around town, I"m not going to die for that fact (like the apostles did) unless I verify it.

People may die for things they believe are true. That doesn't mean their beliefs are true, it just means they believe that they are. Where is your evidence from outside the Bible that the apostles "verified" Jesus' resurrection? And don't say because they died for it.

And here is some info about fiction at that time from the article- Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: by Christopher Louis Lang

"Many were illiterate, few could read, much less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout."

It might have been "written as history" and "intended to communicate truth" but that doesn't mean it was true history. Again, the most you can get out of it is that the people who wrote the Bible believed what they wrote.

Also there were 9 independent New Testament writers, we're not talking about 1 writer here. That's a lot of people to be out and about searching for the truth. You might be able to fool one of them but fooling all 9 is highly unlikely (especially someone like gospel writer Luke who was highly praised by Sir William M. Ramsay).

That's the same Sir William who said the supernatural aspects of the Bible couldn't be proved by scientific or historical means, right?

 

[Akhenaten]

A question not for DOC. 9 New Testament Writers?

Nines were measured differently in those days.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Fiction was almost non-existent at that time,

Naturally you'll be presenting evidence for this ridiculous claim. Any idea when?

. . . and people don't die or risk their lives for fiction that supposedly happened to someone they knew personally and could verify whether or not it happened..

I'm guessing that you think this makes sense.

If someone said my friend (whose funeral I attended a few days ago) has since risen from the dead and was seen walking around town, I"m not going to die for that fact (like the apostles did) unless I verify it.

Is this an attempt at an analogy? Not only is it so malformed as to render it unrecognisable as such, but it contains an obvious falsehood.

We have no evidence that there were any apostles, much less evidence of their strange hobbies. It was ostensibly to provide this evidence that the thread was started, but so far we're still waiting. Remember?

And here is some info about fiction at that time from the article- Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: by Christopher Louis Lang

"Many were illiterate, few could read, much less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout."

my bolding

As would be expected from any of the apologist writers you trot out from time to time, the bolded part in the above quotation is complete nonsense.

The bible wasn't written as a book at all, of any description, and I find no reason to believe anything said by a person who would utter such a blatantly dishonest statement.

Also there were 9 independent New Testament writers, we're not talking about 1 writer here.

You can assert this as many times as you like, but it won't magically become true by your doing so. You'll need some of that evidence we keep talking about.

That's a lot of people to be out and around searching for the truth. You might be able to fool one of them but fooling all 9 is highly unlikely (especially someone like gospel writer Luke who was highly praised by Sir William M. Ramsay).

There aren't enough laughing dogs on the entire internet to adequately respond to this drivel.

I hope you're working on the post where you list three of your fallacies, DOC.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nines were measured differently in those days.

Something to do with pi, I believe.

 

[DOC]

You are defending the truthfulness of the New Testament, which was passed on by oral tradition for hundreds of years, by presenting a source who tells us that parchment was expensive and people were illiterate? There's a jaw-dropper.

Hundreds of years?? You must be thinking of Hinduism which was passed on for hundreds of years orally before it was written down.

Former Christian persecutor Paul was risking his life and evangelizing about Christ within 5 to 14 years after the crucifixion.

From the article "The Letters of Paul"

"38-47: Paul evangelizes in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21), and possibly other regions. The record on these years is thin.

<snip>

It is likely that Paul did not write many letters until the beginning of his second missionary journey in A.D. 49. There would not be much point in writing letters until he was already somewhat well traveled, and had people to write to. The oldest letter that we have is 1 Thessalonians, and it was written around 49-51. {16 to 18 years after the crucifixion}"

http://www.systematicchristianity.org/TheLettersOfPaul.htm

 

[Akhenaten]

Something to do with pi, I believe.

 

[zooterkin]

Fiction was almost non-existent at that time,

Oh, really? So the tales of Hercules, and the Greek and Roman gods, and the plays of the time were all true?

and people don't die or risk their lives for fiction that supposedly happened to someone they knew personally and could verify whether or not it happened..

You may well be correct, and that may be why Christianity took hold in places away from where people could easily verify the tales they were being told.

And here is some info about fiction at that time from the article- Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: by Christopher Louis Lang

The same Christopher Louis Lang writing here? He seems to be barely literate; no wonder his work appeals.

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

"Nero was blamed for being responsible"?

Anyway:

"Many were illiterate, few could read, much less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high regard was given to writing

Let's pause there, as something comes mind; what was it? Ah, I remember:

Seems like the Jews started to take writing things down seriously just about the time Matthew (former Jew), Mark (former Jew), and Luke and did. So this is evidence that passing information along by writing in that non literary society was the exception rather than the rule.

Form Wiki on the Talmud:

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law (the written law expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 CE and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea without autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.[1]

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

Here is an interesting article by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in which the title pretty much says it all:

Title: "In many respects, the Oral Torah is more important than the Written Torah":


"The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two.

Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…

The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation.

http://www.aish.com/jl/kc/48943186.html

Would you like to choose whether oral or written records are more important? Or doesn't it bother you that you're producing "experts" with contradicting points of view?

and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout."

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Also there were 9 independent New Testament writers, we're not talking about 1 writer here. That's a lot of people to be out and about searching for the truth. You might be able to fool one of them but fooling all 9 is highly unlikely (especially someone like gospel writer Luke who was highly praised by Sir William M. Ramsay).

Who says they were out there searching for the truth? Have you not already had plenty of examples where a religion has been started by just one charismatic figure, and people who could have found out the truth have been taken in by them? The Mormons and Heaven's Gate spring to mind as examples. Or do you believe the notarised statements that Joseph Smith's supporters made were true?

 

[Akhenaten]

Hundreds of years?? You must be thinking of Hinduism which was passed on for hundreds of years orally before it was written down.

This thread is not for discussing evidence for Hinduism. If you wish to discuss evidence for Hinduism then you should take it to my your thread in R&P

Former Christian persecutor Paul was risking his life and evangelizing about Christ within 5 to 14 years after the crucifixion.

From the article "The Letters of Paul"

<snip>

You just don't get it at all, do you, DOC?

 

[carlitos]

Hundreds of years?? You must be thinking of Hinduism which was passed on for hundreds of years orally before it was written down.

Former Christian persecutor Paul was risking his life and evangelizing about Christ within 5 to 14 years after the crucifixion.

From the article "The Letters of Paul"

"38-47: Paul evangelizes in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21), and possibly other regions. The record on these years is thin.

<snip>

It is likely that Paul did not write many letters until the beginning of his second missionary journey in A.D. 49. There would not be much point in writing letters until he was already somewhat well traveled, and had people to write to. The oldest letter that we have is 1 Thessalonians, and it was written around 49-51. {16 to 18 years after the crucifixion}"

http://www.systematicchristianity.org/TheLettersOfPaul.htm

Actually, I was thinking of what you said about Judaism. Anyway, we know (even from your source) that people were largely illiterate, and you said that thousands were converted from Paul's ministry alone. If they couldn't read the letters, how did they get the information?

 

[RoboTimbo]

This thread is not for discussing evidence for Hinduism. If you wish to discuss evidence for Hinduism then you should take it to my your thread in R&P





[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Circular4.gif[/qimg]


You just don't get it at all, do you, DOC?

DOC seems to have fled all other threads.

 

[Fiona]

Well I am now convinced: every word in the Iliad is obviously history and there is no word of a lie and no error in it at all: *wanders off to find the correct ways to worship the greek pantheon, hoping she is not too late*

 

[zooterkin]

Oh, I forgot to comment on this one:

The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry.

Is there any poetry in the New Testament?

 

[John Jones]

Fiction was almost non-existent at that time, and people don't die or risk their lives for fiction that supposedly happened to someone they knew personally and could verify whether or not it happened.. If someone said my friend (whose funeral I attended a few days ago) has since risen from the dead and was seen walking around town, I"m not going to die for that fact (like the apostles did) unless I verify it.

And here is some info about fiction at that time from the article- Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: by Christopher Louis Lang

"Many were illiterate, few could read, much less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout."

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

Also there were 9 independent New Testament writers, we're not talking about 1 writer here. That's a lot of people to be out and about searching for the truth. You might be able to fool one of them but fooling all 9 is highly unlikely (especially someone like gospel writer Luke who was highly praised by Sir William M. Ramsay).

None of the authors of the canonical gospels are known. We have no known eyewitness testimonies of the life of christ.

You have presented no evidence why we know the NT authors told the truth.

 

[DOC]

None of the authors of the canonical gospels are known.

It's impossible to prove who wrote ancient writings. Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar? But as pointed out in this thread there is evidence that Matthew and John wrote their gospels. And certainly Sir William M. Ramsay believes Luke wrote his.

We have no known eyewitness testimonies of the life of christ.

Same can be said for Alexander the Great who conquered much of the known world including Palestine. You believe he existed don't you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Is there any poetry in the New Testament?

Very little, and it's pretty average, although compared to the evidence of truthiness it's like a motherlode, or something.

Some examples:

The Beatitudes - Matt. 5:3-10 and Luke 6:20-26

The Benedictus - Luke 1:68-79

The Song of Mary ("The Magnificat") - Luke 1:46-55

The Song of the Heavenly Host ("Gloria in Excelsis") - Luke 2:14

The Blessing of Simeon, ("Nunc Dimittis") - Luke 2:29-32​

This Beatitude featured in a very popular motion picture some years ago:

Matthew 5:3-10 (King James Version)

³Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

⁴Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

⁵Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

⁶Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

⁷Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

⁸Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

⁹Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

¹⁰Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

^10½Blessed are the cheesemakers: for they shall have small noses.​

 

[zooterkin]

It's impossible to prove who wrote ancient writings. Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar?

Do you remember how utterly irrelevant that is?

But as pointed out in this thread there is evidence that Matthew and John wrote their gospels. And certainly Sir William M. Ramsay believes Luke wrote his.

Believes? He's still amongst us?

Same can be said for Alexander the Great who conquered much of the known world including Palestine. You believe he existed don't you.

We do, but there is considerably more evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus; nevertheless, we don't believe any of the supernatural stories about him, either.

 

[Akhenaten]

None of the authors of the canonical gospels are known.

It's impossible to prove who wrote ancient writings. Remember we don't even have a signature of Julius Caesar? But as pointed out in this thread there is evidence that Matthew, John wrote their gospels. And certainly Sir William M. Ramsay believes Luke wrote his.

This particular 'argument' of yours has been comprehensively discredited every time you've presented it, DOC.

No doubt you'll ask for a link to exactly where this happened, despite the dishonesty of doing this being so painfully obvious that people who haven't been born yet will likely speak of it in hushed tones.

We have no known eyewitness testimonies of the life of christ.

Same can be said for Alexander the Great who conquered much of the known world including Palestine. You believe he existed don't you.

According to your criteria, DOC, nobody existed until the invention of signatures, no illterate people have ever existed, and nobody that we lack personal experience of ever existed.

This is sometimes referred to as a reductio ad absurdum argument, DOC. I'm sure you're familiar with the form, even though you might not be aware of its proper name.

 

[DOC]

We have no known eyewitness testimonies of the life of christ.

Actually Paul the author of much of the NT stated Jesus appeared to him:

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.