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

[Mojo]

Hello, I did not die.

Hello, Mad Dan.

What time is it?

 

[zooterkin]

Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.

 

[DOC]

...According to these data, there’s no real EVIDENCE that any of the apostles were martyred...

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

So we have historical writings from a known great historian that the apostles were continuing to preach even though they had been put in jail and flogged for it and warned not to do it anymore. Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely. So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred and we have historical evidence that the apostles were daily engaged in activities that could have gotten them at the very least put in jail and flogged; and if fact did get them put in jail and flogged.

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet. These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would. The fact that their writings became part of a book (the Bible) officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the historicity of those writings (especially regarding Luke).

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Does that sound like a dangerous thing to do under the reign of Nero who was impaling Christians and setting them on fire to provide light for his parties?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

 

[paximperium]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.<Snipped garbage>

Luke...Luke who?
The guy who never met this Jesus character?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

No. What complete nonsense.

 

[zooterkin]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

So we have historical writings from a known great historian that the apostles were continuing to preach even though they had been put in jail and flogged for it and warned not to do it anymore. Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely. So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred and we have historical evidence that the apostles were daily engaged in activities that could have gotten them at the very least put in jail and flogged; and if fact did get them put in jail and flogged... Oh I know now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet. These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would. The fact that their writings became part of a book officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the
historicity of those writings.

DOC, how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in, that you can't use the New Testament as evidence that the New Testament is true?

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

How do we know?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

And one more thing that hasn't sunk in yet. Oral tradition was important in the absence of written records. It doens't automatically become more reliable as a result.

 

[Mojo]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

Do I really need to explain why this can not be valid as evidence for the truth of the NT?

 

[DOC]

Do I really need to explain why this can not be valid as evidence for the truth of the NT?

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

 

[paximperium]

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

Why would it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So are you saying that...

Did you ever notice that these don't work out so well for you, DOC?

 

[shawmutt]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

So we have historical writings from a known great historian that the apostles were continuing to preach even though they had been put in jail and flogged for it and warned not to do it anymore. Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely. So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred and we have historical evidence that the apostles were daily engaged in activities that could have gotten them at the very least put in jail and flogged; and if fact did get them put in jail and flogged.

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet. These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would. The fact that their writings became part of a book (the Bible) officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the historicity of those writings (especially regarding Luke).

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Does that sound like a dangerous thing to do under the reign of Nero who was impaling Christians and setting them on fire to provide light for his parties?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

This is all you have after 10 days of research? Really? This is just pathetic--no wonder Christianity is sinking as a religion. I'm unsubscribing from this podunk thread, but I'll be sure to bookmark it to use to de-convert my Christian friends.

And DOC, consider yourself on ignore for ignorance for 10 days.

 

[Resume]

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

None of the "above" was reasonable. It took you ten days to recycle this pap, though I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[joobz]

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

yes, that is exactly what is being said. The bible, which modern scholars have discovered to be historically unreliable, can not be used as evidence of events which are only described in the bible. It is the only logically sound conclusion.

 

[Lucian]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

So we have historical writings from a known great historian that the apostles were continuing to preach even though they had been put in jail and flogged for it and warned not to do it anymore. Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely. So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred and we have historical evidence that the apostles were daily engaged in activities that could have gotten them at the very least put in jail and flogged; and if fact did get them put in jail and flogged.

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet. These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would. The fact that their writings became part of a book (the Bible) officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the historicity of those writings (especially regarding Luke).

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Does that sound like a dangerous thing to do under the reign of Nero who was impaling Christians and setting them on fire to provide light for his parties?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

You seem to have decided that it is an established fact that Luke was a great historian. It is not. You base this idea on the opinion of one long-dead scholar. Ramsay's opinion is not fact. Luke was not a historian at all in the modern sense of the word.

 

[Elizabeth I]

DOC, how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in, that you can't use the New Testament as evidence that the New Testament is true?

But you forget that that argument doesn't count any more because when the New Testament writers wrote the New Testament they didn't call it the New Testament or know that it would be called the New Testament so it's not really the New Testament so verses from the New Testament are not really from the New Testament and can be used as evidence that the New Testament (which, although now called the New Testament, contains those very same verses) is true.

I'm pretty sure that's what doc said up there.

 

[Simon39759]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

So we have historical writings from a known great historian that the apostles were continuing to preach even though they had been put in jail and flogged for it and warned not to do it anymore. Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely. So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred and we have historical evidence that the apostles were daily engaged in activities that could have gotten them at the very least put in jail and flogged; and if fact did get them put in jail and flogged.

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet. These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would. The fact that their writings became part of a book (the Bible) officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the historicity of those writings (especially regarding Luke).

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Does that sound like a dangerous thing to do under the reign of Nero who was impaling Christians and setting them on fire to provide light for his parties?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

Wait a little bit of a minute here.
Rincewind was saying that there is no corroborating evidence for the martyrdom described by New Testament. That Christians traditions likely emerged as embellishment on these traditions.

You answer by quoting the acts (and a bit of Luke's Gospel), with a totally absurd semantic point about how the books were called at the time.

So, you DO agree with Rincewind that the NT is the only "evidence" we have to go by?

 

[Akhenaten]

...According to these data, there’s no real EVIDENCE that any of the apostles were martyred...

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred.

DOC. this isn't the Humor sub-forum. Even if it was, this running joke of yours is so stale and hackneyed that even if it had been funny in the first place, people are completely over it now.

It's even gone beyond embarrassment now, and only serves to annoy anyone who tries to read this thread. You really should cut it out.

That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

What's the point, if you choose to completely ignore what they say?

Despite your fervent desire that certain posts and posters cease to exist, it isn't actually going to happen.

You need to do more research than just Wiki. Your statement is false and I will go more in depth within 10 days.

You need to stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.

Make sure you include Gibbon in your 'research' over the next ten days, DOC.

In the time of Tertullian and Clemens of Alexandria [late 2nd - early 3rd centuries] the glory of martyrdom was confined to St Peter, St Paul and St James.

It was gradually bestowed on the rest of the apostles by the more recent Greeks, who prudently selected for the theatre of their preaching and sufferings some remote country beyond the limits of the Roman empire.

The monks of succeeding ages, who in their peaceful solitudes, entertained themselves with diversifying the deaths and suffering of the primitive martyrs, have frequently invented torments of a much more refined and ingenious nature.

– Chapter 15, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon.​

Thinking on this further, I have a couple of questions for DOC.

Have you read any of the non-canonical writings from the early Christian period? Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels?

Why do you think these were left out of the New Testament when many of these supported the things you are claiming better than some of the books that were left in (such as Revelation)? If inconsistency is OK and oral tradition is so important, why did early church leaders go through so much effort to stamp much of it out?

DOC might like to add this book to his library to help him with his research.

We know relatively little of the mother-church in Judaea. Most of the twelve disciples disappear from history . . .

By the 3rd century romantic legends began, describing the missionary travels of the twelve . . . They are derived from the apocryphal romances about the apostles which became widespread popular reading in the latter half of the 2nd century.

– Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Page 17)​

Real historians DOC. We even have their signatures.

Not only that but this great historian . . .

DOC, it hasn't even been established that this bloke actually existed. If he did, it hasn't been established that he actually wrote the book that bears his name. It most certainly hasn't been established that he was any kind of historian at all.

Your ridiculous, unfounded assertions don't make the slightest difference to this.

Luke reports

<drivelsnip>

You can't use the mythical writings of the mythical Luke to prove the authenticity of the mythical writings of the mythical Luke. Every time you try this nonsense you are told the same thing. There are words to describe that sort of behaviour, DOC. Bad words.

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible.

That's because it's circular reasoning, DOC. You've been told this hundreds of times. Which bit of circular reasoning are you having the most trouble understanding?

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

More myths? Srsly?

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

That's ten days work for you, is it? Ten days to cobble that little bit of drivel together?

DOC, In the last ten days I've created 178 posts. Do you wonder that your constant quoting of your own pathetic post count gives me the giggles?

 

[Akhenaten]

Do I really need to explain why this can not be valid as evidence for the truth of the NT?

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

DOC, DOC, DOC . . .

 

[Rincewind]

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

Well I guess that'll teach me to miss a day or so....

Thanks to all who posted what I would have posted.

I would ask DOC where's the evidence for the existence of Luke, but don't really want to receive the travelogue of the Middle East again.

DOC - as other have just posted, if you still think that using the Bible to "prove" the Bible is OK, then that just confiirms how realy, really thin your arguments is.

It all seems to boil down to the classic argument - I believe "X" because I want to believe "X", and I'll ignore any contrary arguments.

In summary, all you've proved is that you have no evidence.

DOC - this is a DISCUSSION site - just repeating the same old stuff endlessly isn't discussion, it's preaching. You ought to know by now, just what most of the folks here think about that. If you want to discuss, then discuss!

So - do you want the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well I guess that'll teach me to miss a day or so....

Thanks to all who posted what I would have posted.

I would ask DOC where's the evidence for the existence of Luke, but don't really want to receive the travelogue of the Middle East again.

DOC - as other have just posted, if you still think that using the Bible to "prove" the Bible is OK, then that just confiirms how realy, really thin your arguments is.

It all seems to boil down to the classic argument - I believe "X" because I want to believe "X", and I'll ignore any contrary arguments.

In summary, all you've proved is that you have no evidence.

DOC - this is a DISCUSSION site - just repeating the same old stuff endlessly isn't discussion, it's preaching. You ought to know by now, just what most of the folks here think about that. If you want to discuss, then discuss!

So - do you want the five minute argument, or the full half hour?

After missing about 5 days, I second your motion.

GB

 

[Mojo]

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

I'm saying that THE NEW TESTAMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS TRUE.

Got that yet? "Because it says so" is not evidence.

All the events that take place in Moby-Dick were written about by Herman Melville. By your reasoning that is evidence that they are true.