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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
...How in the heck were people living in Corinth supposed to validate that claim?
Click to expand...
The tentmaker Paul was able to find his way to Corinth, are you saying Corinthians couldn't find their way to Jerusalem before they devoted their life to Jesus. Also are you saying the Corinthians couldn't write Paul back and ask questions?
 
DOC said:
The tentmaker Paul was able to find his way to Corinth, are you saying Corinthians couldn't find their way to Jerusalem before they devoted their life to Jesus. Also are you saying the Corinthians couldn't write Paul back and ask questions?
Click to expand...
A lot of people travel, but not everyone.

1.) Who were those 500 people?
2.) Where did they live?
3.) Why would people go out and travel long distances to verify the claims of some guy's letter?
 
DOC said:
The tentmaker Paul was able to find his way to Corinth, are you saying Corinthians couldn't find their way to Jerusalem before they devoted their life to Jesus. Also are you saying the Corinthians couldn't write Paul back and ask questions?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the New Testament is evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?
 
Akhenaten said:
1 Cobberinthians 2:9 (King James Version)

9But as it is written, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which Bruce hath prepared for them that love him."​
Click to expand...

Well then . . .
 
joobz said:
2. Who were the 500? ..3. WHERE did they see jesus?
Click to expand...

If you don't believe Paul when he implied or named 14 people, you're not going to believe him if he named some of the more than 250 other witnesses Paul claimed were still alive.

In his letter to the Corinthians, written 51-53 AD, 18 - 20 years after the crucifixion, Paul named or indicated the following people as seeing the Resurrected Christ:

From the article: EYEWITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION

"Simon Peter, James the son of Zebedee, John the brother of James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Mark 3:16-18, John 20:24-31.," {mentioned later: Cephas, and another James}

And there were people who supposedly saw the risen Christ who Paul did not name but were named by other Gospel writers (including Luke).

From the same article:

"Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the mother of James, Mark 16:1, Matthew 28:1-10. Cleopas Luke 24:13-34 and Joseph and Matthias, Acts 1:16-26."

http://reasonableanswers.org/12-Eyewitnesses-of-the-resurrection.html

We know Peter and John were alive at this time and possibly James. Joobz don't you find it odd that Paul would lie in a letter about all of these people, some of whom we know were alive and then go out and risk his life almost daily for something he knew was a lie.


So there were at least 20 named people being written about who supposedly saw the risen Christ but there is no record of them or their friends or relatives saying, hey, this never happened to me or to my friend, or my relative.

Also there is no record of the friends or relatives of Pontius Pilate or the high priest Caiaphus saying, hey, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphus did not do the things the many manuscripts said they did, hey, quit writing all those manuscripts about my well known relative/friend (and arguably the 2 most powerful men in Judea at the time).
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
If you don't believe Paul when he implied or named 14 people, you're not going to believe him if he named some of the more than 250 other witnesses Paul claimed were still alive.

In his letter to the Corinthians written 51-53 AD, 18 - 20 years after the crucifixion Paul named or indicated the following people as seeing the Resurrected Christ:

From the article: EYEWITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION

Simon Peter, James the son of Zebedee, John the brother of James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Mark 3:16-18, John 20:24-31., Cephas, and another James.

And there were people who supposedly saw the risen Christ who Paul did not name but were named by other Gospel writers (including Luke).

From the same article:

Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the mother of James, Mark 16:1, Matthew 28:1-10. Cleopas Luke 24:13-34 and Joseph and Matthias, Acts 1:16-26.

http://reasonableanswers.org/12-Eyewitnesses-of-the-resurrection.html

We know Peter and John were alive at this time and possibly James. Joobz don't you find it odd that Paul would lie in a letter about all of these people, some of who we know were alive and then go out and risk his life almost daily for something he knew was a lie.


So there were at least 20 named people being written about who supposedly saw the risen Christ but there is no record of them or their friends or relatives saying, hey, this never happened to me or to my friend, or my relative.

Also there is no record of the friends or relatives of Pontius Pilate or the high priest Caiaphus saying, hey, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphus did not do the things the many manuscripts said they did, hey, quit writing all those manuscripts about my well known relative/friend.
Click to expand...

Tautology.
 
If you don't believe Paul when he implied or named 14 people, you're not going to believe him if he named some of the more than 250 other witnesses Paul claimed were still alive.

In his letter to the Corinthians written 51-53 AD, 18 - 20 years after the crucifixion Paul named or indicated the following people as seeing the Resurrected Christ:

From the article: EYEWITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION

Simon Peter, James the son of Zebedee, John the brother of James, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Mark 3:16-18, John 20:24-31., Cephas, and another James.

And there were people who supposedly saw the risen Christ who Paul did not name but were named by other Gospel writers (including Luke).

From the same article:

Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary the mother of James, Mark 16:1, Matthew 28:1-10. Cleopas Luke 24:13-34 and Joseph and Matthias, Acts 1:16-26.

http://reasonableanswers.org/12-Eyewitnesses-of-the-resurrection.html

We know Peter and John were alive at this time and possibly James. Joobz don't you find it odd that Paul would lie in a letter about all of these people, some of who we know were alive and then go out and risk his life almost daily for something he knew was a lie.


So there were at least 20 named people being written about who supposedly saw the risen Christ but there is no record of them or their friends or relatives saying, hey, this never happened to me or to my friend, or my relative.

Also there is no record of the friends or relatives of Pontius Pilate or the high priest Caiaphus saying, hey, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphus did not do the things the many manuscripts said they did, hey, quit writing all those manuscripts about my well known relative/friend.
Click to expand...
So you really have just thrown up your hands and decided to use the New Testament exclusively as evidence for the New Testament. Do you understand that means your argument is now empty of all content?
 
Elizabeth I said:
So you really have just thrown up your hands and decided to use the New Testament exclusively as evidence for the New Testament. Do you understand that means your argument is now empty of all content?
Click to expand...
The historical figure Paul, who helped drastically change the mighty Roman Empire never heard the word bible or New Testament as he was writing his works. And his writings and those of his companion Luke are "historical" evidence -- ask any historian or archaeologist who use their writings as part of their work.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Paul, who helped drastically change the Roman Empire never heard the word bible or New Testament as he was writing his works. And his writings and those of his companion Luke are "historical" evidence -- ask any historian or archaeologist who use their writings as part of their work.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
DOC said:
Paul, who helped drastically change the Roman Empire never heard the word bible or New Testament as he was writing his works. And his writings and those of his companion Luke are "historical" evidence -- ask any historian or archaeologist who use their writings as part of their work.
Click to expand...


Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

- Thomas Jefferson, April 13, 1820​
 
DOC said:
The historical figure Paul, who helped drastically change the Roman Empire never heard the word bible or New Testament as he was writing his works. And his writings and those of his companion Luke are "historical" evidence -- ask any historian or archaeologist who use their writings as part of their work.
Click to expand...


So, the authors of the New Testament are evidence that the authors of the New Testament told the truth, because they didn't know their scriptures would come to be called the new Testament.

DOC, that is imbecilic, even by your normal standards.


Oh, and do you have any evidence that the book of Luke was actually written by Luke?
Because, textual criticism says otherwise...
 
DOC said:
The historical figure Paul, who helped drastically change the Roman Empire never heard the word bible or New Testament as he was writing his works. And his writings and those of his companion Luke are "historical" evidence -- ask any historian or archaeologist who use their writings as part of their work.
Click to expand...
Doc, Congratulations.

I can use the Bible to prove the Bible because the people writing it didn't call it the bible?

is the worst argument you have ever come up with and face facts you have had some really crap ones.
 
DOC said:
The historical figure Paul, who helped drastically change the Roman Empire never heard the word bible or New Testament as he was writing his works. And his writings and those of his companion Luke are "historical" evidence -- ask any historian or archaeologist who use their writings as part of their work.
Click to expand...


This is fun . . .


Bart D. Ehrman BA said:
Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because, frankly, I don't know that it was. Our very first reference to Jesus' tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years later by someone living in a different country who had heard it was empty. How would he know?...Suppose...that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea...and then a couple of Jesus' followers, not among the twelve, decided that night to move the body somewhere more appropriate...But a couple of Roman legionnaires are passing by, and catch these followers carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets. They suspect foul play and confront the followers, who pull their swords as the disciples did in Gethsemane. The soldiers, expert in swordplay, kill them on the spot. They now have three bodies, and no idea where the first one came from. Not knowing what to do with them, they commandeer a cart and take the corpses out to Gehenna, outside town, and dump them. Within three or four days the bodies have deteriorated beyond recognition. Jesus' original tomb is empty, and no one seems to know why.

Is this scenario likely? Not at all. Am I proposing this is what really happened? Absolutely not. Is it more probable that something like this happened than that a miracle happened and Jesus left the tomb to ascend to heaven? Absolutely! From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one . . .
Click to expand...
my bolding
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom