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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument. The first and second point of Geisler's argument was that the NT writers abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and adopted new ones. Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years. In their Jewish Religion they were the chosen race, with a special calling from God. Why throw all that under the bus and basically say to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught. To hell with your (and formerly ours) 1000 year old sacred tradition of worship, we're now having communion and breaking the bread and drinking the wine because of what our dead Jesus taught. We're accepting the Gentiles now and not even requiring them to have our 1000 year old sacred circumcision because of what our dead Jesus taught,

Geisler's point is that it doesn't make sense for these 12 Jewish apostles and the Jewish Paul to abandon these 1000 year old sacred beliefs and to risk their salvation by adopting new beliefs if Jesus had just died on the cross and that was it. It only makes sense if they did indeed see him in his risen state.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence that the New Testament writers did any of these things? Do you have the first clue how the early church developed? To pick just one, when do you think Sunday worship started?
 
58. The fear of the disciples to ask Jesus who he was (21:12) is an unlikely concoction; it demonstrates natural human amazement at the risen Jesus and perhaps the fact that there was something different about the resurrection bod
Click to expand...
Yes, he became a zombie! But in reality DOC. It's stated in the gospels that he was exactly the same man. He even had the crucifixion wounds which he told Thomas to feel.
 
DOC said:
Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read your own bible? The jews drop their traditions in almost every single story in the bible.

Heck, they see god giving the 10 plagues to egypt, walks them through the desert with pillars of smoke and fire, provide them food from the sky and then they don't hear from him for a month while Moses is on the mountain and they alreay run to worship a golden idol.

Talk about a short attention span, they abandoned their god who showed them waaaaaaaaaay more impressive stuff than a resurection out of pure boredom.

In other words, even the bible says you're full of BS.
Not to mention dozens of times in the bible where the jews go to worship Baal and tons of other gods without any miracle involved.
 
DOC said:
Yes and they tell the truth about those historical figures don't they. They wouldn't dare make up lies about them.
Click to expand...

Oh, for heaven's sake, DOC. You're not going to make me post again about the fanfiction story that has Kiera Knightley dying on a desert island during the filming of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, and her fellow castaways Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom eating her corpse and then indulging in a lot of sweet, sweet manlovin', are you? I mean, Depp and Bloom and Knightley are LIVING PERSONS -- or at least Depp and Bloom are. No one would dare make up lies about them, right?

Or the story about how Orlando Bloom (who really gets around in these stories) and Elijah Wood becoming lovers during the filming of Lord of the Rings, but not until Wood had spontaneously grown wings? Elijah Wood has done a very effective job of hiding the wings ever since, but he must really have them. I mean, some fanwriter wouldn't dare make up lies about him, would she?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
{Tripe deleted}
Geisler's point is that it doesn't make sense for these 12 Jewish apostles and the Jewish Paul to abandon these 1000 year old sacred beliefs and to risk their salvation by adopting new beliefs if Jesus had just died on the cross and that was it.
{Tripe deleted}
Click to expand...

Risk what?
 
Elizabeth I said:
Ooh, he met Queen Victoria and Agatha Christie and William Shakespeare as well. And Charles Dickens. And my namesake :blush:, Madame de Pompadour, Nero, Prince John of England...wow, this must mean that there really is a time-traveling alien who for some reason loves the Earth and takes care of all of us!

ETA: but I want nothing to do with those stone angels!
Click to expand...

Lucian said:
You know it. Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. I saw the Noodly Appendages with my own eyes, as well as the beer volcano.

[off topic] I saw a stone angel today. I'm okay--didn't blink and fortunately there were dozens of Doctors around at the time (costume parade) [/off topic].
Click to expand...
You know, having thought about it overnight, I have come to a startling, maybe even revolutionary conclusion: Dr. Who is Jesus! Think about it - he dies and resurrects (not once but multiple times), he has superhuman powers and skills (but mostly refuses to use them because it wouldn't be fair), he loves the Earth and humanity despite all we do to make ourselves unlovable, and he's always there when we need him - and really there, waving around his screwdriver and trying to help, not there "in spirit" only.
 
Elizabeth I said:
You know, having thought about it overnight, I have come to a startling, maybe even revolutionary conclusion: Dr. Who is Jesus! Think about it - he dies and resurrects (not once but multiple times), he has superhuman powers and skills (but mostly refuses to use them because it wouldn't be fair), he loves the Earth and humanity despite all we do to make ourselves unlovable, and he's always there when we need him - and really there, waving around his screwdriver and trying to help, not there "in spirit" only.
Click to expand...

That's the most believable theory I've heard on this thread. :)

GB
 
Elizabeth I said:
You know, having thought about it overnight, I have come to a startling, maybe even revolutionary conclusion: Dr. Who is Jesus! Think about it - he dies and resurrects (not once but multiple times), he has superhuman powers and skills (but mostly refuses to use them because it wouldn't be fair), he loves the Earth and humanity despite all we do to make ourselves unlovable, and he's always there when we need him - and really there, waving around his screwdriver and trying to help, not there "in spirit" only.
Click to expand...

He also has a particular fondness for the UK, and we know that Jesus was English...
 
DOC said:
Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument. The first and second point of Geisler's argument was that the NT writers abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and adopted new ones. Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years. In their Jewish Religion they were the chosen race, with a special calling from God. Why throw all that under the bus and basically say to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught. To hell with your (and formerly ours) 1000 year old sacred tradition of worship, we're now having communion and breaking the bread and drinking the wine because of what our dead Jesus taught. We're accepting the Gentiles now and not even requiring them to have our 1000 year old sacred circumcision because of what our dead Jesus taught,

Geisler's point is that it doesn't make sense for these 12 Jewish apostles and the Jewish Paul to abandon these 1000 year old sacred beliefs and to risk their salvation by adopting new beliefs if Jesus had just died on the cross and that was it. It only makes sense if they did indeed see him in his risen state.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Where is your evidence that the New Testament writers did any of these things? Do you have the first clue how the early church developed? To pick just one, when do you think Sunday worship started?
Click to expand...

From BibleGateway.com

Colossians 2:16 (New Living Translation)

So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.

Acts 20:7 (King James Version)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

From Wiki's article: Circumcision controversy in early Christianity

The first Christian Church Council in Jerusalem[1], held in approximately 50 AD, decreed that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[2] and may be one of the first acts differentiating Early Christianity from Judaism.[3] At roughly the same time Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement for Jewish boys even stricter.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

The Council in Jerusalem was attended by Peter, the other apostles, Paul, the elders, and James. See the Book of Acts chapter 15.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Where is your evidence that the New Testament writers did any of these things?
Click to expand...

DOC said:
From BibleGateway.com

Colossians 2:16 (New Living Translation)

So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.

Acts 20:7 (King James Version)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

From Wiki's article: Circumcision controversy in early Christianity

The first Christian Church Council in Jerusalem[1], held in approximately 50 AD, decreed that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree"[2] and may be one of the first acts differentiating Early Christianity from Judaism.[3] At roughly the same time Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement for Jewish boys even stricter.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

The Council in Jerusalem was attended by Peter, the other apostles, Paul, the elders, and James. See the Book of Acts chapter 15.
Click to expand...
So your evidence that the NT is true is the fact that is the N.T. You are not getting this evidence thing are you.
 
Well, it's a good attempt, but you have strayed away from what I asked, so I'll ignore the part about circumcision. Actually, I won't, not entirely, but we'll come to that.

DOC said:
zooterkin said:
Where is your evidence that the New Testament writers did any of these things? Do you have the first clue how the early church developed? To pick just one, when do you think Sunday worship started?
Click to expand...

From BibleGateway.com

Colossians 2:16 (New Living Translation)

So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.
Click to expand...

Doesn't say anything about Sunday worship.

Acts 20:7 (King James Version)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Click to expand...
That's a one-off occasion, nothing about it being a regular arrangement. Paul was only there for a week. Here's the preceding verse, too:
Acts 20:6-7 (King James Version)
6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Click to expand...
DOC said:
From Wiki's article: Circumcision controversy in early Christianity
Click to expand...
Odd that you've quoted the completely unrelated wiki article for circumcision, rather than the one about Sunday observance which doesn't support your implication that the choice of Sunday was from the bible.
Sabbath observance

According to Bauckham, the New Testament and post-apostolic church contained diverse practices as regards Sabbath. Most Jewish Christians continued to observe seventh-day Sabbath, some out of strict obedience to the law and others for customary reasons. Meanwhile some Gentile Christians adopted Jewish Shabbat while others did not, considering themselves free from observance of the Law of Moses.[9]

By the 2nd century, most Gentile Christians rejected Sabbath observance as a judaizing tendency, although some Christian and gnostic sects continued to observe Sabbath as evidenced in Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians.[9]
Click to expand...

So, no evidence, either in the bible or outside it, to support your claim that the New Testament writers said:
to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught.
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument.
Click to expand...
No, Geiseler's point was that the NT martyrs were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ because it says so in the NT. That is circular reasoning. You still have not addressed the circular reasoning.

Do you recognize circular reasoning or not, DOC? You claim to have aced a logic course.

The martyrdoms are not identical because early Islam martyrs died in an offensive attack on other nations while conquering new lands and new wealth (even non-believers die in battle trying to capture new lands). And there was always the possibility they would not die in battle.

Whereas the early Christian martyrs had their deaths committed upon them for simply evangelizing (in the dangerous Roman Empire).
Click to expand...
And that is a classic example of special pleading. There have been Christian and Muslim martyrs. You (via Geisler) are saying that Christian martyrs are true martyrs because of the circumstances of their martyrdom but the Muslim martyrs are not true martyrs because the circumstances of their martyrdom were different from your favorites.

Do you recognize special pleading or not, DOC? You claim to have aced a logic course.

This one has been addressed. Geisler and Turek probably had a 100 arguments in their booK cited in post #1. If you really want to learn and understand them spend $4 on Amazon and get their 420 page book, instead of getting a partial and diluted account from me.
Click to expand...
Your addresses have all been utterly demolished. If you really want to learn something, take your blinders off.

You still have not addressed the special pleading and circular reasoning, nor will you ever be able to. It is simply dishonest of you to continue to pretend.
 
Doc, have you thought about the etymology of the word "sabbath"?

OE sabat - Saturday
L sabbatum, Gk sabbaton, Heb shabbath - day of rest from shabath "he rested".

The original meaning is preserved in Sp. Sabado, It. Sabbato, and other languages' names for "Saturday." Hung. szombat, Rumanian simbata, Fr. samedi, Ger. Samstag "Saturday" are from V.L. sambatum, from Gk. *sambaton, a vulgar nasalized variant of sabbaton.

from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sabbath

If you clicky on the linky, you'll see that Sunday worship is a much later tradition than the Saturday observance of the 1st century. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_worship which discusses the shift from Saturday to Sunday worship in the 4th century.

Doc, I have to enquire whether you ever fact-check the things you post. The apologetics you read (and copy-paste here) may suffice for people who don't worry about such niceties as actual facts, but they won't do here. It's no good asserting that the apostles "threw all that [their Jewish traditions, including Saturday Sabbath] under the bus" when a couple of seconds of fact-checking will show you that the early Christians retained their Jewish tradition of seventh day (Saturday) worship until much later than the time of the supposed apostles.

The fact-free, belief filled ideas of Geisler and his ilk will not do if you wish to have credibility in this or any other thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom