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

[Fiona]

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history famous historical people in them (like the NT did -- verified by secular sources or archaeology). Nowadays they can sue the pants off you if you tell falsehoods about them, but at that time they or their relatives would simply deny the story hurting the authors credibility, or possibly if they had power like the Herodian line maybe put you in prison or worse if you told falsehoods about them.

What?!?

 

[DOC]

The author of Luke's gospel was not necessarily named Luke, or the apostle Luke. None of the gospels were signed by their authors. Names were consigned to them much later by christians of the second and third century.

We've been over this before. There is no evidence the names were just randomly assigned to the gospels. For one it doesn't make sense to assign a gospel to a tax collector like Mathew. Roman tax collectors were strongly disliked by the general population much like IRS agents are today. A tax collector should be one of the last people you would assign a gospel to. Also why assign a major gospel to Mark, just an associate of Peter, why not assign a major gospel to Peter instead of just 2 short letters to him. Conclusion -- the authors were exactly the people who have been claimed as authors for 2000 years.

And how do you know the original works weren't signed, we only have copies of them which is normal for ancient documents. We don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar.

 

[DOC]

What?!?

Explain.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history famous historical people in them (like the NT did -- verified by secular sources or archaeology). Nowadays they can sue the pants off you if you tell falsehoods about them, but at that time they or their relatives would simply deny the story hurting the authors credibility, or possibly if they had power like the Herodian line maybe put you in prison or worse if you told falsehoods about them.

You really don't have a clue, do you? There are plenty of works of fiction with many historical figures. The Flashman or Sharpe chronicles, just for two examples.

 

[zooterkin]

Explain.

Fiona is asking you to explain your latest outpouring of arrant nonsense.

 

[amb]

All that means is that the tale was set in a historical time and place. No evidence at all that it's true.

 

[Marduk]

We've been over this before. There is no evidence the names were just randomly assigned to the gospels. blah blah.....

Ok, say I take that as true (which it isn't) what solid evidence is there that the names were not randomly assigned to the Gospels, emphasis on solid, not on your SpEsHuL speculation

Besides, its quite clear that whoever wrote them most weren't at the crucifixion as none of them can agree what Jesus's last words were.

 

[amb]

We've been over this before. There is no evidence the names were just randomly assigned to the gospels. For one it doesn't make sense to assign a gospel to a tax collector like Mathew. Roman tax collectors were strongly disliked by the general population much like IRS agents are today. A tax collector should be one of the last people you would assign a gospel to. Also why assign a major gospel to Mark, just an associate of Peter, why not assign a major gospel to Peter instead of just 2 short letters to him. Conclusion -- the authors were exactly the people who have been claimed as authors for 2000 years.

And how do you know the original works weren't signed, we only have copies of them which is normal for ancient documents. We don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar.

Nevertheless. Most honest biblical scholars agree that the names assigned to the gospels are fiction.

 

[zooterkin]

We've been over this before. There is no evidence the names were just randomly assigned to the gospels. For one it doesn't make sense to assign a gospel to a tax collector like Mathew.

There are many things in the bible that don't make sense (would you care to list the events at the empty tomb, and who was there, in order?), why should this be an exception? And it's Matthew, by the way.

Roman tax collectors were strongly disliked by the general population much like IRS agents are today. A tax collector should be one of the last people you would assign a gospel to. Also why assign a major gospel to Mark, just an associate of Peter, why not assign a major gospel to Peter instead of just 2 short letters to him.

I could speculate (maybe something to do with the power struggle between Paul and Peter), but that's exactly what you're doing, too. It doesn't prove anything.

Conclusion -- the authors were exactly the people who have been claimed as authors for 2000 years.

Conclusion: we have no evidence about who wrote the gospels, or when.

And how do you know the original works weren't signed, we only have copies of them which is normal for ancient documents. We don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar.

Oh, dear, here we go again. Do you really not read the replies to your posts, or do you fail to understand them?

 

[Helen]

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history famous historical people in them (like the NT did -- verified by secular sources or archaeology). Nowadays they can sue the pants off you if you tell falsehoods about them, but at that time they or their relatives would simply deny the story hurting the authors credibility, or possibly if they had power like the Herodian line maybe put you in prison or worse if you told falsehoods about them.

You do realise that there are people in here who actually read books once in a while, don't you?

 

[Fiona]

You said:

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history famous historical people in them (like the NT did -- verified by secular sources or archaeology). Nowadays they can sue the pants off you if you tell falsehoods about them, but at that time they or their relatives would simply deny the story hurting the authors credibility, or possibly if they had power like the Herodian line maybe put you in prison or worse if you told falsehoods about them.

I have no idea how many: there is a whole genre called "historic fiction". Famous books include War and Peace: Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series: Upton Sinclair's Lanny Budd books: the whole opus of Georgette Heyer in the field of historical romance.

I am beginning to suspect you live in a hole in the ground in outer mongolia: or that you will say any daft thing you think supports your position

 

[Mojo]

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history famous historical people in them (like the NT did -- verified by secular sources or archaeology).

To bring up one I read comparatively recently and is thus the first one to spring to mind, how about Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? There are plenty of examples of historical fiction out there.

Nowadays they can sue the pants off you if you tell falsehoods about them, but at that time they or their relatives would simply deny the story hurting the authors credibility, or possibly if they had power like the Herodian line maybe put you in prison or worse if you told falsehoods about them.

By the time the NT appeared in anything like its current form they were all long dead.

 

[Mojo]

I have no idea how many: there is a whole genre called "historic fiction".

Ah, but remember that there was no such thing as fiction in the Ancient World (which explains why people were so easily taken in when the authors of the NT came up with the idea). All those stories about the Greek gods are true!

 

[DOC]

You really don't have a clue, do you? There are plenty of works of fiction with many historical figures. The Flashman or Sharpe chronicles, just for two examples.

Yes and they tell the truth about those historical figures don't they. They wouldn't dare make up lies about them.

 

[Helen]

of course they make up lies. That is why it is called fiction.

 

[DOC]

By the time the NT appeared in anything like its current form they were all long dead.

So you believe none of the 30 historical figures in the NT (verified by non-Christian writers or archaeology) had relatives or friends still alive. Would you say John and Robert Kennedy who were killed 47 and 42 years ago have any relatives or friends alive today.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Another generalized statement. Why don't you just let the posts stand for themselves. And I have responded to posts that talk of fallacies.

Which specific post that talks of a fallacy do you want me to address the most and I will address it.

I accept your offer and agree with joobz's suggestion of post #544 here replicated for your convenience:

Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.

What does martyrdom prove? Does it prove Islam is true too?

Not at all. There are some similarities, but there's one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you're talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity - they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. Why? Because the New Testament Christian martyrs were eyewitnesses of the Resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses.

Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?

DOC, how do you address these fallacies of special pleading and circular argument? I'm positive that you will need me to explain that further.

The special pleading arises because he is claiming that two identical reasons for two different religions to be true only applies to one of them, incidentally the one he is already predisposed to believe to be true anyway.

The circular argument arises because he is using lore from the Christian Bible to prove Christianity is true.

These are unresolved problems with your (or Geisler's) argument. Unresolved because you have not satisfactorily addressed them in any post. That means that you may not simply direct me back to a post # and may not handwave it away. You must genuinely address these two fallacies and either resolve them or admit that they are fallacious arguments.

DOC, were you going to make any attempt at all to answer this? Remember your Christian promise to address this.

 

[Fiona]

" I read that Alice in Wonderland and in my opinion it is nothing but a pack of lies"

Damon Runyon

 

[Mojo]

So you believe none of the 30 historical figures in the NT (verified by non-Christian writers or archaeology) had relatives or friends still alive.

The NT wasn't edited into its current form until several hundred years after the event. People only lived for that sort of length of time in the OT.

 

[Mojo]

" I read that Alice in Wonderland and in my opinion it is nothing but a pack of lies"

Damon Runyon