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

[Akhenaten]

No, I'm just stating historical evidence -- you are another person who confuses the difference between evidence and proof.

DOC, you are in absolutely no position to be criticising anyone for their understanding of what constitutes evidence.

Have you already forgotten the 'no fiction in ancient times' fiasco? Some of us are still splitting our sides over that one.

Surely you don't deny the former skeptic Paul was a historical person who helped make belief in the Greek and Roman gods extinct.

As mentioned above, you don't know what evidence is, otherwise you'd realise that the historicity of Paul is nothing like evidence that the NT writers told the truth; in exactly the same way that the historicity of Homer is not evidence that The Iliad is a true story.

I realise that your own denial of people like Homer and the existence of works such as The Iliad is going to make this analogy difficult for you, but that's your cross to bear, not mine, as they say in the fairytales.

So then people are idiots to buy well known Shelby Foote's 2 volume book on the Civil War because he didn't witness any of the civil war.

And why are you talking about extraordinary claims when I specifically said a "non-supernatural evemt".

Does it not occur to you that people may be aware of some clues to the reality of the Civil War other than those in Foote's book and are thus able to corroborate his story?

Do you not realise, despite it being explained to you hundreds of times, that the same cannot be said for the New Testament?

Your apologist references are not, by the way, corroborative. They're exactly the same fantasy-based drivel that you continually try to pass off as evidence in your posts here.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now, if you just want to make the claim that some people were executed for heresy because they held loopy ideas, I won't quibble.

Ooer. I don't like the sound of that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I'm just stating historical evidence -- you are another person who confuses the difference between evidence and proof.

DOC, you are in absolutely no position to be criticising anyone for their understanding of what constitutes evidence.

Have you already forgotten the 'no fiction in ancient times' fiasco? Some of us are still splitting our sides over that one.

Surely you don't deny the former skeptic Paul was a historical person who helped make belief in the Greek and Roman gods extinct.

As mentioned above, you don't know what evidence is, otherwise you'd realise that the historicity of Paul is nothing like evidence that the NT writers told the truth; in exactly the same way that the historicity of Homer is not evidence that The Iliad is a true story.

I realise that your own denial of people like Homer and the existence of works such as The Iliad is going to make this analogy difficult for you, but that's your cross to bear, not mine, as they say in the fairytales.

So then people are idiots to buy well known Shelby Foote's 2 volume book on the Civil War because he didn't witness any of the civil war.

And why are you talking about extraordinary claims when I specifically said a "non-supernatural evemt".

Does it not occur to you that people may be aware of some clues to the reality of the Civil War other than those in Foote's book and are thus able to corroborate his story?

Do you not realise, despite it being explained to you hundreds of times, that the same cannot be said for the New Testament?

Your apologist references are not, by the way, corroborative. They're exactly the same fantasy-based drivel that you continually try to pass off as evidence in your posts here.

I wonder when he will address my last post which he asked for. Post #14938 on the previous page. I wouldn't want to think he dishonestly asked for me to clarify something only for him to ignore it later.

 

[Hokulele]

Ooer. I don't like the sound of that.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder when he will address my last post which he asked for. Post #14938 on the previous page. I wouldn't want to think he dishonestly asked for me to clarify something only for him to ignore it later.

Yes, I'm sure the other 1,384 times he did that it was just an honest mistake.

 

[joobz]

RE: The 500:

DOC please see the following photo.

explain to me how people in location C (Corinth) were to verify the existence of 500 people that could be anywhere in this map.

For notable landmarks

C= Corinth
P= Ephesus, where Paul wrote the letters to Corinth
D= Damascus roadish, where Paul was converted
J= where Jesus died

While you are putting this together, look at the scale bar on the lower left.

 

[Mojo]

And we know gospel writer Luke (who was praised by Sir William M. Ramsay as a great historian regarding things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence) stated Stephen was stoned for his Christian faith and the apostle Paul witnessed this stoning.

There you go again, DOC, trying to use the NT as evidence that the NT is true.

When a person like gospel writer Luke (who was praised by Sir William M. Ramsay as a great historian regarding things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence ) --

(scroll down this link http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643 and view the 84 facts of Luke and you'll see why)

-- says a non-supernatural event occurred, then it is just pure bias not to believe it occurred. Ask any historian if it is "historical" evidence or not.

What Sir William M. Ramsay said doesn't come into it. You are attempting to use the NT as evidence that the NT is true. Do you really not understand the problem here?

 

[shawmutt]

What Sir William M. Ramsay said doesn't come into it. You are attempting to use the NT as evidence that the NT is true. Do you really not understand the problem here?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say he does not.

As far as issues with eyewitness testimony (the 500), wikipedia offers an excellent article on the issues with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

As my link in post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6283091&postcount=14946, even the Bible contradicts itself on numerous occasions in dealing with eyewitness accounts.

As in my thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183680 Some "eyewitness accounts" in the Bible are completely made up.

In short, DOC, you need to provide independently verifiable information for your claims. The Bible has been shown, by the scholars who dedicate their lives to studying it, to be a piss-poor account of history.

 

[carlitos]

What Sir William M. Ramsay said doesn't come into it. You are attempting to use the NT as evidence that the NT is true. Do you really not understand the problem here?

It's a small thing, but just the fact that DOC, an American, is even using the "Sir" honorific is puzzling to me. Should British peerage lend authority to ... anything?

 

[Elizabeth I]

At the time he wrote it it could certainly be verified. This is similar to Paul basically saying over 250 people who saw the resurrected Christ were still alive.

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.

That's a very dangerous thing to say if it wasn't true. It would be like Barack Obama saying over 250 family friends and relatives were able to verify he was born in Hawaii.

Wow, so you've given up on everything else and are now just quoting the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true?

And are you a birther on top of all that? Hmmm...

 

[DOC]

If Foote had only used a single (hearsay) source for the book, then yes, they would have been idiots.

It's a good thing that Foote didn't do that, though.

How do you know Foote didn't use a single hearsay source for some of his facts. And who said gospel writer Luke (who was praised by Sir William), only used one source when he wrote his account to inform his friend.

Luk 1:1 Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts about the
events that took place[fn1] among us.
Luk 1:2 They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises.
Luk 1:3 Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you,
Luk 1:4 to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.
Luk 1:5 It all begins with a Jewish priest, Zechariah, who lived when Herod was king of Judea. Zechariah was a member of the priestly order of Abijah. His wife, Elizabeth, was also from the priestly line of Aaron.

 

[joobz]

How do you know Foote didn't use a single hearsay source for some of his facts.

That isn't what Hokulele said, is it? She said Foote didn't use a single hearsay source for the Whole book. And, if Foote did use a single source hearsay reference for any point, than that single point would be suspect and worthy of revision pending verification.

And who said gospel writer Luke (who was praised by Sir William), only used one source when he wrote his account to inform his friend.

We know for a fact that Luke didn't use A SINGLE hearsay source. He used many. Indeed, he likely used the other gospels as sources.

you do understand that hearsay is still hearsay regardless of the number of hearsay accounts, right?

By the way, do you have any names of those 500?

 

[DOC]

Wow, so you've given up on everything else and are now just quoting the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true?

I'm presenting historical evidence, the weight you give to that historical evidence is up to you.

 

[tsig]

No, I'm just stating historical evidence -- you are another person who confuses the difference between evidence and proof. Surely you don't deny the former skeptic Paul was a historical person who helped make belief in the Greek and Roman gods extinct.

Yes I deny Paul was an historical person. His story sounds just like the conversion stories that we hear all the time.

Do you have an authenticated signature from Paul?

 

[DOC]

We know for a fact that Luke didn't use A SINGLE hearsay source. He used many. Indeed, he likely used the other gospels as sources....

There is nothing wrong with using other gospels as partial sources, just like other authors like Foote use other books as sources -- read footnotes sometimes, they're filled with other books as sources.

 

[joobz]

There is nothing wrong with using other gospels as partial sources, just like other authors like Foote use other books as sources -- read footnotes sometimes, they're filled with other books as sources.

I didn't say there was. I was simply pointing out the simple fact that Luke isn't an independent account and is largely redundant text.

I noticed that you ignored the point about Hearsay and the questions about the 500.

1. Multiple hearsay accounts is STILL hearsay
2. Who were the 500?
3. WHERE did they see jesus?

 

[joobz]

I'm presenting historical evidence, the weight you give to that historical evidence is up to you.

What historical evidence? The bible is not reliable history.

 

[DOC]

Yes I deny Paul was an historical person. His story sounds just like the conversion stories that we hear all the time.

Do you have an authenticated signature from Paul?

No, and you don't have an authenticated signature of Julius Caesar. Ancient writings are almost all copied manuscripts.

There are few if any historians who deny the existence of Paul, who wrote almost half of the NT.

 

[DOC]

What historical evidence? The bible is not reliable history.

Why not, archaeologists use it in their research.

 

[joobz]

No, and you don't have an authenticated signature of Julius Caesar. Ancient writings are almost all copied manuscripts.

There are few if any historians who deny the existence of Paul, who wrote almost half of the NT.

I have no problem believing Paul was a real person. I just don't think he was very reliable source.
1. Who were the 500?
2. WHERE did they see jesus?
3. How in the heck were people living in Corinth supposed to validate that claim?