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

[DOC]

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.

Huh?

 

[zooterkin]

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

Oh? So Harry Flashman really did meet Queen Victoria, and Richard Sharpe really was given a commision by Wellesley?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

This lie of yours is out there for all to see, DOC.

 

[Helen]

A few genre suggestions for DOC to investigate: Biographies and autobiographies.

 

[zooterkin]

Huh?

Oh, dear. Bad day?

Since the New Testament was not in its present form and reasonably available until a couple of hundred years after the supposed events it reports, for anyone to object to their portrayal, they would have to be a couple of hundred years old. It was only in the Old Testament that people were reported as living that long.

 

[Agatha]

Yes, but how many works of fiction have 30 actually present day or recent history historical people (many famous and powerful) 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 what?

Fictionalised history - fiction books with real settings and real characters - is incredibly popular. You can barely move in a bookshop without falling over Tudor fictionalised history by Phillippa Gregory, Alison Weir and similar authors. I chose Tudor history as it's enjoying a rise in popularity just now, but pick any era in history, ancient or modern, and there will be hundreds of works of fiction which fit the criteria.

In the modern era, looking just at the bookshelf I can see from this sofa, I can see two works by Beryl Bainbridge: Every Man for Himself (fictionalised account of the sinking of the Titanic, mentioning several real people who still have extant families), The Birthday Boys (fictionalised account of Scott's ill-fated Antarctic expedition, entirely based on people who still have families who are very keen to protect reputations).

James Cameron's screenplay for the film Titanic fits your requirement perfectly. A fictionalised account which mentions lots of real historical figures, some famous and powerful. The screenplay contains many errors of fact in order to make the story more interesting, and you may recall (or more likely, you may not be aware) that Cameron apologised to the family of First Officer William Murdoch (and the film company donated a paltry £5,000 to his home village) for the way Murdoch was portrayed in the film.

Most viewers of the film will believe that Murdoch behaved as he did in the film, and if the film were unearthed 2000 years from now, I can practically guarantee that people will believe Cameron's version over the truth.

 

[dafydd]

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

What will it take for you to actually get the point of someone else's post here? Are you really that dumb,or only pretending?

 

[zooterkin]

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.

They do, and yet people have still written books and made films in which they appeared, alongside other real people. See, for example, Oliver Stone's JFK, which is a work of fiction, though based on real events.

An even more modern example, the book and the film The Damned United about Brian Clough's time at Leeds United. All the characters are real people, many still alive today, yet some of the events in the film are not what happened in real life.

 

[A Lurker]

Just... just stop it DOC. Please? It's painful to see you constantly repeat the same old discredited claims again and again and again; and that's before we even get to the outrageous lying and deception involved in what you try and claim... now I'm going to bold the next part of this comment, in the hopes that it'll somehow help you understand just how ridiculous your current theme of "fiction" is;

One major theme within your own Gospels is that people were claiming different things about Jesus, and what he said even within his own life time; and that both Matthew and Mark state that at the trial before the Sanhedrin, the witness testimony as to what Jesus had claimed was too inconsistent to convict him on their words... And that this included deliberate false witnesses. And this was at a time when Jewish Law demanded a higher punishment for false witnessing than today, when you claim no one now dares do it; in capital cases then, this punishment was death.

In the end, Jesus was convicted on his own words, not that of witnesses because the witnesses then couldn't be trusted.

For crying out loud DOC... just stop it. You don't even know anything about your own Bible, much less the era it was written in.

 

[John Jones]

For one it doesn't make sense to assign a gospel to a tax collector like Mathew.

It makes every bit as much sense as naming him as an apostle.

 

[Hokulele]

It makes every bit as much sense as naming him as an apostle.

Or speculating that Paul had to be telling the truth, as opposed to speculating that Paul suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy and/or delusions of grandeur.

 

[carlitos]

DOC, so this:

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

was simply another one of your lies? Nice Christian ethics you display there.

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

This lie of yours is out there for all to see, DOC.

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.

Sorry, I could have sworn that you said 19 somewhere. 40 authors of the bible? Interesting claim.

So, Paul, Luke, John, Mark, James, Jude, Peter, Matthew, Silas, Timothy? Is that your 9? What about Q?

Also, you asked for specific references to logical fallacies.

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

Several people responded to you with references. If you ignore those, may we conclude that your request was dishonest, since you weren't going to reply? If not, why did you ask?

one

two

three

four

DOC, you asked for a specific post which points out a supposed logical fallacy, which you said you would address.

Several have been suggested, but my personal preference from those is this one by Carlitos

• Your use of "Sir Ramsay" and Thomas Jefferson as evidence is an appeal to authority.
• Your use of the bible as evidence to prove the bible (Jesus appeared to Paul) is circular reasoning.
• Your lack of acceptance for the exact same arguments to provide evidence of Hinduism is special pleading.
• Your intimation that there was no fiction in the ancient Greek world (which included Judea) is ignorance, a lie, or both.

<snipped irrelevant stuff>

So, are you going to address this post, another of those suggested, or ignore all the responses to your request?

DOC, ignoring the above is dishonest. And it's out there for everyone to see. Also, the punctuation mark at the end of questions should be a question mark.

I recently read some of Kent Hovind's "doctoral" "dissertation." Apparently, lying for Christ and writing like a second grader are two traits that are not altogether unrelated. I would like to once again thank JREF Forum posters for the eye-opener in this respect.

 

[joobz]

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.

SO no names of the 500 people, eh?

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

So no names for the 500 or where they live?

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.

Not at all. people lie all the time to support belief. They may even believe the lies.
I find it strange that you would think a claim of 500 unknown people would be "evidence".

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.

because the gospels are "pro-jesus" texts. Why would you think stories of jesus written 30+ years later would contain anti-jesus stories?

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).

again, why would that exist in the bible?

I've noticed you don't have a single bit of extrabiblical evidence for....any of your claims regarding the resurrection.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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.

Wow. As so many others have pointed out, here you are saying that what is in the New Testament is true, and you can use it as evidence that the New Testament is true, because at the time the different sections were written they had not yet been compiled into a single volume called the New Testament. Even for you, this is a piece of idiocy of staggering proportions.

If this is what being a Christian does to the reasoning processes, all I can say is I am so glad I stopped being a Christian before it could give me brain damage.

But Sir William M. Ramsay's assertion is based on historical evidence. For example let's look at some of Luke's writings.

From the article "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
by Frank Turek Chapter 10

Luke accurately records:

1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)

2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)

3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)

4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)

5. the correct language spoken in LystraCLycaonian (14:11)

6. two gods known to be so associatedCZeus and Hermes (14:12)

7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)

8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf. 15:41)

9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)

10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace (16:11)

11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)

12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)

13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)

14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)

15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1)

16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)

17. the proper term (Apolitarchs') used of the magistrates there (17:6)

18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15)

19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)

20. the reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:17)

There are 64 more such detailed facts written by Luke on this link, scroll down about a quarter of the way to see them.

Oh? So Harry Flashman really did meet Queen Victoria, and Richard Sharpe really was given a commision by Wellesley?

You...you know what this means, don't you? Forrest Gump is a documentary!

 

[Mojo]

Huh?

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you hadn't read it. I hope we haven't already given away too much of the plot.

 

[joobz]

But Sir William M. Ramsay's assertion is based on historical evidence. For example let's look at some of Luke's writings.

And modern scholarship has shown the bible to be very unreliable as a history text.

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.

I've noticed you ignored this post.

 

[dafydd]

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you hadn't read it. I hope we haven't already given away too much of the plot.

When Oscar Wilde sat his final exams at university he had sit an oral exam,translating a part of the New Testament from Greek to English.After a while the invigilator was satisfied and told him to stop.Wilde said "Oh do let me go on,I want to see how it ends."

 

[kmortis]

It makes every bit as much sense as naming him as an apostle.

On the plus side, Matt knew simply everybody...



aberhaten did it

 

[tsig]

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).

So because there's no record that something didn't happen it must have happened?

 

[X]

Didn't we go over this whole "historical locations and customs" nonsense many many pages go?

I seem to recall pointing out how Victor Hugo's Les Miserables and Alexandre Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo, among other works, included much detail on the time, place and customs in which they were set.


I had hoped DOC had realized that Turek is a Grade-A Moron, and decided that parroting the arguments of a Moron (caps intended, in Turek's case) was perhaps not reflecting well on him...


You wouldn't follow a blind man down an unfamiliar path, would you?
So why do you follow the Morons like Turek and Imbeciles like Geisler into the world of apologetics?
What does that make you, DOC?
Are you next going to bring in Comfort and Cameron? Their apologetics is at a similar level...