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

[joobz]

Why not, archaeologists use it in their research.

Which archaeologists* and how do they use it in their research?
Without specifics, your claim is meaningless.


*And please don't say Ramsay. Use modern archaeologists.

 

[carlitos]

DOC, I apologize, because I have only read like 70% of this thread.

You say that there were 19 writers of the Gospels, and then you also refer to "Luke" as a singular person. Can you help me understand this? It seems different from what I have read from biblical scholars over the years. If Luke wrote "Luke," then how did the other 18 writers split up the other New Testament books?

Thanks.

PS - the "Sir William" thing is funny every time. Thanks for keeping it up. Just between us.

ETA - @tsig, I have read a fair bit about Paul, and I think that he was a historical person. I would have to dig up a few books to provide evidence, but could do so eventually.

 

[Mojo]

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

This thread is supposed to be about "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth", not evidence that the authors of the NT existed. You seem to be wandering off-topic again.

 

[Mojo]

I'm presenting historical evidence...

You are citing the NT as evidence that the NT is true. Fail.

 

[DOC]

DOC, I apologize, because I have only read like 70% of this thread.

You say that there were 19 writers of the Gospels, and then you also refer to "Luke" as a singular person. Can you help me understand this? It seems different from what I have read from biblical scholars over the years. If Luke wrote "Luke," then how did the other 18 writers split up the other New Testament books?

I never said there were 19. There were 9 separate writers of NT books. And 40 separate writers of the entire bible. Interesting how it all seems to have a similar theme and come together nicely in spite of having 40 separate writers and being written over many centuries.

 

[joobz]

Why not, archaeologists use it in their research.

Jerusalem in Bible and archaeology: the First Temple period
Check out this book.

On page 1:

This situation changed dramatically, however, during the last three decades of the twentieth century. Scholars trained specifically as archaeologists dominated archaeological fieldwork in the modern nation-states of the ancient biblical world, and many of their discoveries, the result of a more systematic approach to archaeological fieldwork, raised difficult questions regarding the historicity of biblical texts. At times the results even seemed to contradict events described in the Bible. Whearas the early generation saw some hope in finding an "essential continuity" between the events that were deemed factual and the biblical narratives, the results of recent research have tended to conclude that such continuity is unlikely to emerge.

In other words: The bible ain't a reliable account of history.

 

[Southwind17]

I never said there were 19. There were 9 separate writers of NT books. And 40 separate writers of the entire bible. Interesting how it all seems to have a similar theme and come together nicely in spite of having 40 separate writers.

Was there no editor?!

 

[DOC]

Was there no editor?!

If there was a human editor there would have been no divergent details. But as Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School) says, that is normal for eyewitnesses.

 

[joobz]

If there was a human editor there would have been no divergent details. But as Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School) says, that is normal for eyewitnesses.

It's even more common for people who make crap up.

ETA:
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?

 

[Simon39759]

I never said there were 19. There were 9 separate writers of NT books. And 40 separate writers of the entire bible. Interesting how it all seems to have a similar theme and come together nicely in spite of having 40 separate writers.

You are kidding right?
The Bible contains mythology (Genesis); historical accounts (Kings); Proverbs; Harsh priestly laws (Leviticus) and Pornography (Song of Solomon).

The God depicted is either violent and hateful and genocidal or all about love and forgiving.

And that's not even beginning to scratch the surface of this sea of contradictions.
Now, I am plainly aware that apologetists have devoted a huge amount of time building up ridiculously far-stretched excuses...
Nonetheless, I am still surprised that you'd be so incredibly unaware of the amount of contradictions to actually use this ignorance as an argument.

 

[joobz]

You are kidding right?
The Bible contains mythology (Genesis); historical accounts (Kings); Proverbs; Harsh priestly laws (Leviticus) and Pornography (Song of Solomon).

The God depicted is either violent and hateful and genocidal or all about love and forgiving.

And that's not even beginning to scratch the surface of this sea of contradictions.
Now, I am plainly aware that apologetists have devoted a huge amount of time building up ridiculously far-stretched excuses...
Nonetheless, I am still surprised that you'd be so incredibly unaware of the amount of contradictions to actually use this ignorance as an argument.

the gospels can't even agree about jesus' genealogy.

 

[Simon39759]

If there was a human editor there would have been no divergent details. But as Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School) says, that is normal for eyewitnesses.

That's silly.
Witnesses accounts diverging to the point of the witnesses forgetting their own identity and number?

And, at any rate, if these accounts are so divergent, regardless of it being normal or not, why should be put any trust in them?
If they were so confused as to be unable to count the number of angels, or distinguish between angels and a boy, how can we be even sure that they went to visit the right tomb? (Maybe Dysmas was actually the resurrected son of God?).

 

[Southwind17]

If there was a human editor there would have been no divergent details. But as Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School) says, that is normal for eyewitnesses.

So "divergent details" is consistent with "com[ing] together nicely":

I never said there were 19. There were 9 separate writers of NT books. And 40 separate writers of the entire bible. Interesting how it all seems to have a similar theme and come together nicely in spite of having 40 separate writers and being written over many centuries.

Lucky for you such terms afford great latitude, despite your seeking to rely on them as evidence!

 

[Lucian]

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.

Hang on, my bible seems to be defective! The careless printers left out Luke's footnotes* and bibliography.

*Or endnotes or parenthetical source citations.

 

[zooterkin]

I never said there were 19. There were 9 separate writers of NT books. And 40 separate writers of the entire bible. Interesting how it all seems to have a similar theme and come together nicely in spite of having 40 separate writers and being written over many centuries.

How would you know? Have you actually read it all now?

 

[Rincewind]

So DOC,

I see no evidence from you that any of the Apostles were martyred.

Therefore, presumably you now accept that it's no longer valid to quote this in support of the OP?

Thanks!

 

[zooterkin]

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

For some of his facts, he may have done, but I expect he would have noted that. The other sources he used are available to others to read. In the case of the bible, there are no other sources.

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.

You do realise that all those verses are from the New Testament, which means that they cannot be used to prove the truth of the New Testament, don't you? Unless you can actually produce any of the evidence that is being referred to, it's simply uncorroborated assertions.

 

[zooterkin]

If there was a human editor there would have been no divergent details. But as Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School) says, that is normal for eyewitnesses.

Simon Greenleaf; died 1858. Do you have have any 'authorities' from the 21st or even 20th century? What do you have against the last 150 years of research and knowledge?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Simon Greenleaf; died 1858. Do you have have any 'authorities' from the 21st or even 20th century? What do you have against the last 150 years of research and knowledge?

Wikipedia page on Simon Greenlaef:

Contributions to Christian Apologetics

Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's book, which he wrote after examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and becoming a Christian,The Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists. He is distinguished as one who applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. His style of reasoning is reflected in the apologetic works by John Warwick Montgomery, Josh McDowell and Ross Clifford.

I shudder to think that this guy was actually influential in the establishment of Harvard Law School.

I guess DOC still can't find any Non-Christian Sources to back up his claims.

GB

 

[Elizabeth I]

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

The Bible is historical evidence? You really have given up on any other potential sources of evidence, haven't you?

Once again, you can't quote the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.

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.

If Foote did nothing but quote his own book as a source for his historical facts he would very quickly be laughed out of scholarly circles as any sort of serious researcher.<sup>1





1</sup>As we have seen, Elizabeth I said, "If Foote did nothing but quote his own book as a source for his historical facts he would very quickly be laughed out of scholarly circles as any sort of serious researcher."