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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi DOC - you apparently didn't bother to read this when is was first posted - postnumber #14838 - so rather than expect you to go all that way back, here's the data again....

However, if you’re going to use the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence that the unknown authors of the gospels wrote the truth, then I think you need to ensure that the data pertaining to said martyrdom is “real”.

So here’s a summary of what I found on Wiki:

<snip>


It's the post above DOC.




I await your reply with interest.......

OK, OK - I realise this is pointless, but I'm genuinely interested in what DOC "thinks"/"knows" about this....

DOC! DOC!

I'll answer what I think DOC really thinks of this and why he'll evade this particular post.

The logical reason would be to admit that they possibly did get 'martyred', maybe even probably, but no-one can be sure about that, and as the story spread (as was wont in that time) the story changed 'til it reached the ear of the writer. But! Wait! If I admit that, then I have to admit that the other stories in the bible may well have 'evolved' in the same way.

Can't have that, lets quote the ICRTM again.
 
Last edited:
Comments like these are absurd. Lets just say I know enough to make 2100 posts in a thread with 345,000 hits.



A

That proves you know how to type and hit the 'submit" button.

How does that prove the New Testament writers told the truth?
 
Another no substance post. Please keep on topic and provide evidence of this claim.

Well someone claimed I know nothing about the bible because there is no afterlife in the OT so I have the right to defend my knowledge of the Bible and show there are indications of an afterlife or eternal life in the OT.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6303725#post6303725

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6303621#post6303621

And here is a new one from Psalm 73 (from biblegateway.com)

23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm 73&version=ESV

If there is no afterlife in the OT, he should have said that God was the strength of his heart until the day he died, but he said God was the strength of his heart forever.
 
Last edited:
Well someone claimed I know nothing about the bible because there is no afterlife in the OT so I have the right to defend my knowledge of the Bible and show their are indications of an afterlife or eternal life in the OT.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6303725#post6303725

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6303621#post6303621

And here is a new one from Psalm 73 (from biblegateway.com)

23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you;
you hold my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm 73&version=ESV

If there is no afterlife in the OT, he should have said that God was the strength of his heart until the day he died, but he said God was the strength of his heart forever.

You can't have an afterlife if you don't die in this life.
 
Well someone claimed I know nothing about the bible because there is no afterlife in the OT so I have the right to defend my knowledge of the Bible and show there are indications of an afterlife or eternal life in the OT.


RedHerring.jpg


Your lack of knowledge about the Old Testament will no doubt come to the fore in another thread but for now, in this thread, the topic is evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Your attempts to derail the thread to cover up not only the lack of such evidence but your own woeful lack of knowledge of the source material is dishonest, transparent and insulting to the other posters who are attempting to deal with the topic.

When do you intend to address:

1. Shawmutt's question regarding the story of Jesus and the adultress, and

2. Rincewind's enquiry about the multiple deaths of the so-called martyrs?​
 
DOC! DOC!

I'll answer what I think DOC really thinks of this and why he'll evade this particular post.

The logical reason would be to admit that they possibly did get 'martyred', maybe even probably, but no-one can be sure about that, and as the story spread (as was wont in that time) the story changed 'til it reached the ear of the writer. But! Wait! If I admit that, then I have to admit that the other stories in the bible may well have 'evolved' in the same way.

Can't have that, lets quote the ICRTM again.

Ah - from one "Welshie" to another.... :)

You could be right - if they existed in the first place, of course...

However, my thoughts are as follows:

There was a lot of competition for believers between the various religions around at the time - as ever! It became "de rigeur" to have your superhero be better, stronger, etc than the opposition. It became normal for these worthies to have been born of a God and virgin, to perform miracles and to have been resurrrected, etc, etc.

So the stories had to become "enriched" as time went by - a sort of spirit of one-upmanship, if you will. Actually, more like the Holy Spirit of one-upmanship, :) I'll see your walking on water, and raise you a feeding of the 5,000!

The "team" players, therefore, had to be martyred because of the expected impact - after all, DOC, apparently thinks more highly of these guys because of this. What better example, huh?

Then, of course, everybody wants to get in on the act - Saint DOC didn't die on your website, he died on ours!

I wonder if DOC will have an answer......

Ciao,
 
And not only religious heroes. If you read historical accounts of the time, kings and even war heroes were also ascribed various supernatural abilities and/or incidents. One must remember that even a few centuries ago, there was no strict distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural', and people were not used to expect a scientific explanation. If a sailor came ashore and reported seeing a mermaid, then he was simply assumed to have seen a mermaid.

Hans
 
Hi DOC - you apparently didn't bother to read this when is was first posted - postnumber #14838 - so rather than expect you to go all that way back, here's the data again....

However, if you’re going to use the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence that the unknown authors of the gospels wrote the truth, then I think you need to ensure that the data pertaining to said martyrdom is “real”.

So here’s a summary of what I found on Wiki:

The original team:
Peter: early church tradition says he probably died by upside-down crucifixion in Rome, AD 64.

James, son of Zebedee: apparently beheaded in AD 44 (only recorded in Acts).

John, son of Zebedee: believed to have died of natural causes, aged about 94.

Andrew, Peter’s brother: said to have been crucified at Patras in Achaea.

Philip: According to legend, crucified upside-down in Hieropolis, AD 54. Another legend has him beheaded in the same city. The Catholic Church regards the accounts of his death as legendary - there’s no reputable source for his death.

Bartholomew: According to one account beheaded, but a more popular tradition has him flayed alive then crucified. Either at Derbend on the Caspian Sea or at Albanopolis in Armenia.

Matthew: Said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or Macedonia. However, both the Catholic & Orthodox Church traditions hold that he was martyred - apparently in AD 60 by a halberd.

Thomas: according to Syriac tradition, stoned then killed with a lance in Mylapore, Madras, AD 72.

James, son of Alphaeus: Tradition holds that he was beaten to death with a club after being stones and crucified in Ostrakine, Lower Egypt.

Jude: according to Armenian tradition, crucified in Beirut, Lebanon in AD 65.

Simon the Zealot: from various traditions:
Crucified in Samaria, AD 74.
Sawn in half at Suanir, Persia.
Martyred at Weriosphora in Caucasian Iberia.
Died peacefully at Edessa.
Martyred in Caistor (in modern day Lincolnshire)
Also, killed in a Jewish revolt against the Romans.
Busy, busy, busy, huh?

Judas Iscariot: according to various accounts:
Committed suicide by hanging.
Fell down and burst open.
Stoned to death by the other eleven apostles.
After his body became grossly swollen, crushed by a chariot.

And off the substitutes’ bench:
Matthias: Crucified in Colchis, or stoned & beheaded in Jerusalem. Oh, he apparently also died of old age in Jerusalem.

So the key words, in virtually every case, are “according to tradition/legend”...

We've already went over Oral Tradition evidence in some depth. And yes there is a difference between oral tradition and legend. I'd advise you read Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" where he talks about this in some depth.

Here is a post and a link that talks about the importance of Oral Tradition in that era of little literacy and expensive parchment (no paper).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033221#post6033221

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html
 
Last edited:
We've already went over Oral Tradition evidence in some depth. And yes there is a difference between oral tradition and legend. I'd advise you read Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" where he talks about this in some depth.

Here is a post about and a link that talks about the importance of Oral Tradition in that era of little literacy and expensive parchment (no paper).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033221#post6033221

DOC - you're claiming that because the Apostles were martyred this helps prove that the gospel writer wrote the "Truth".

I'm asking you to back up your contention.

You see - there's no evidence that I've found that backs up what you wrote. It's all tradition/legend - not a fact in sight. So, I'm asking you to explain how/where ther maryrdom happened.

This "Oral Tradition" stuff is just a distraction.

YOU wrote that they were martyred, therefore you ought to know the details - so give with the evidence....

:)

Ciao,
 
DOC, do you think you could have the courtesy to respond to my post regarding Sunday worship, since you have clearly shown an interest in the topic, yet seem to be ignoring my post. If you don't respond, I think we can conclude that you are conceding the point.
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.

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?

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.

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.
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.
From Wiki's article: Circumcision controversy in early Christianity
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]

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.
 
We've already went over Oral Tradition evidence in some depth.


DOC, you posting some utter nonsense and some links to other apologists spouting even more nonsense does not constitute us having "gone over" something. To talk about the subject in that way would require that you also include references to the dozens of posts refuting your ridiculous and baseless claims.

Are we supposed to assume an honest mistake here, or a clumsy attempt at subterfuge?

I have to say, it raises a red flag, whatever the case.


And yes there is a difference between oral tradition and legend.


And that difference is . . . ?


I'd advise you read Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" where he talks about this in some depth.


That's not how it works, you know. This is a discussion forum, not DOC's Book of the Month Club.


Here is a post and a link that talks about the importance of Oral Tradition in that era of little literacy and expensive parchment (no paper).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033221#post6033221


As Aberhaten remarked last time you did this, the only good thing that can be said about you linking to one of your own posts is that nobody will be able to accuse you of making an appeal to authority.

He's very astute, that fellow, you know. You should listen to him.


<ad snip>


Stop it.
 
And that difference is . . . ?


If it supports Christianity it is "oral tradition". If it relates to any other religion it is a legend and therefore not true.

See also "irregular verbs" in Yes Minister:
Bernard: "That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings; You leak; He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

Or alternatively:
Bernard: "It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it: I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist."
 
Last edited:
Comments like these are absurd. Lets just say I know enough to make 2100 posts in a thread with 345,000 hits.

And Bedlam received 96,000 individual visits in 1814 alone, as people queued up to laugh at the writhings of the insane. A dignified behaviour, to laugh at the misfortunate? No. But let's not kid ourselves that they don't still do it today still; that the internet hasn't allowed an outlet for the same morbid fascinations; Crank Dot Net has been logging, and laughing at online lunatics since 1997, for instance. And that had approximately 10,400 visits in the last month alone. So... you're on a web page here where you have no friends, on the internet that recognises no virtues or public restraints in general. Now why do you really think you're getting those hits? It's because people are coming to your thread is to see you trapped in your own self inflicted bedlam, and to laugh at it.

They watch you writhe around, distorting even your own precious Bible in your desperate attempts to keep your demons away; One minute the Bible is true because it gives perfect message, the next it's true because the messages are conflicted, confusing and nonsensical... just like you are.

They sit on the sidelines and laugh as you debase yourself, for who knows what reason; come watch the mad man declare publicly he's going to pretend people don't exist, because he doesn't want to listen to them! Watch him play out Little Napoleon complexes, or set dates for his Papal forgiveness!

They hurl the rotten fruit of invective, as you sit gibbering in the corner, endlessly repeating yourself; "Geisner says... Civil War... Signatures... Geisner... Signatures... As my 1000 posts say.... Civil War... Geisner... Signatures... As my 2000 posts say... Geisner... Geisner... Signatures!"

Oh, many people here are trying to debate with you rationally... they want to help you, or at least warn others away from following you down the same road to irrationality... but the peanut gallery? They don't care. Don't kid yourself that they do DOC. They are just watching and wondering how you'll top this weeks insanity in next weeks show. And putting them on ignore only blocks up your ears, it doesn't close their ravenous eyes... they are the ones out there, still watching you DOC.

And they're the ones who'll bust out laughing every time 2,000 becomes 3,000 because they know exactly what that means; you've been laughed at another 1,000 times since, and still haven't salvaged any dignity from it all. Cruelty has a stomach that can never be filled... but if you insist on feeding yourself to it, so be it DOC. But don't say you haven't be warned plenty of times before...
 
And that difference is . . . ?

Oral tradition = Stories that the faithful believe is true
Legend = Stories that the faithful recognize as being made up stories

Both are virtually non distinguishable by a non-faithful, and shows a terrible lack of evidence. ETA: Please note that this work well for any faith, leading some story being a legend for a faith and oral tradition , and the role being reversed for another faith.

But good luck making DOC admit that.

ETA: Curse you Mojo you beat me to it :P
 
Last edited:
Now why do you really think you're getting those hits? It's because people are coming to your thread is to see you trapped in your own self inflicted bedlam, and to laugh at it.

They watch you writhe around, distorting even your own precious Bible in your desperate attempts to keep your demons away; One minute the Bible is true because it gives perfect message, the next it's true because the messages are conflicted, confusing and nonsensical... just like you are.

Best. Explanation. Ever. on why I post and read this thread.
 
They hurl the rotten fruit of invective, as you sit gibbering in the corner, endlessly repeating yourself; "Geisner says... Civil War... Signatures... Geisner... Signatures... As my 1000 posts say.... Civil War... Geisner... Signatures... As my 2000 posts say... Geisner... Geisner... Signatures!"


Nominated.
 
And Bedlam received 96,000 individual visits in 1814 alone, as people queued up to laugh at the writhings of the insane. .........................
And they're the ones who'll bust out laughing every time 2,000 becomes 3,000 because they know exactly what that means; you've been laughed at another 1,000 times since, and still haven't salvaged any dignity from it all. Cruelty has a stomach that can never be filled... but if you insist on feeding yourself to it, so be it DOC. But don't say you haven't be warned plenty of times before...
It is harsh to suggest that we are all just laughing at DOC.

I have also made a fair bit of money on the DOC Fallacy Spot Bet market.
 
We've already went over Oral Tradition evidence in some depth. And yes there is a difference between oral tradition and legend.
Yes we have:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033354#post6033354
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033275#post6033275
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033687#post6033687
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033827#post6033827

And yes there is a difference between oral tradition and legend.
The difference (if there is one) has nothing to do with truthfulness.

I'd advise you read Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" where he talks about this in some depth.
I'd advise you to not make arguments based upon logical fallacies.

Here is a post and a link that talks about the importance of Oral Tradition in that era of little literacy and expensive parchment (no paper).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6033221#post6033221

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html
Yup, those links don't support your argument.
One only needs to click on the links I've provided to see that.
 
And Bedlam received 96,000 individual visits in 1814 alone, as people queued up to laugh at the writhings of the insane. A dignified behaviour, to laugh at the misfortunate? No. But let's not kid ourselves that they don't still do it today still; that the internet hasn't allowed an outlet for the same morbid fascinations; Crank Dot Net has been logging, and laughing at online lunatics since 1997, for instance. And that had approximately 10,400 visits in the last month alone. So... you're on a web page here where you have no friends, on the internet that recognises no virtues or public restraints in general. Now why do you really think you're getting those hits? It's because people are coming to your thread is to see you trapped in your own self inflicted bedlam, and to laugh at it.

They watch you writhe around, distorting even your own precious Bible in your desperate attempts to keep your demons away; One minute the Bible is true because it gives perfect message, the next it's true because the messages are conflicted, confusing and nonsensical... just like you are.

They sit on the sidelines and laugh as you debase yourself, for who knows what reason; come watch the mad man declare publicly he's going to pretend people don't exist, because he doesn't want to listen to them! Watch him play out Little Napoleon complexes, or set dates for his Papal forgiveness!

They hurl the rotten fruit of invective, as you sit gibbering in the corner, endlessly repeating yourself; "Geisner says... Civil War... Signatures... Geisner... Signatures... As my 1000 posts say.... Civil War... Geisner... Signatures... As my 2000 posts say... Geisner... Geisner... Signatures!"

Oh, many people here are trying to debate with you rationally... they want to help you, or at least warn others away from following you down the same road to irrationality... but the peanut gallery? They don't care. Don't kid yourself that they do DOC. They are just watching and wondering how you'll top this weeks insanity in next weeks show. And putting them on ignore only blocks up your ears, it doesn't close their ravenous eyes... they are the ones out there, still watching you DOC.

And they're the ones who'll bust out laughing every time 2,000 becomes 3,000 because they know exactly what that means; you've been laughed at another 1,000 times since, and still haven't salvaged any dignity from it all. Cruelty has a stomach that can never be filled... but if you insist on feeding yourself to it, so be it DOC. But don't say you haven't be warned plenty of times before...

Very nicely said, A Lurker.

ETA: Have you seen any of the Mozina threads in Science? Same thing over there, staggering really...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom