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

[Lothian]

Doc,

You tell us that two religions can not both be true. Therefore the truth of another religion is very relevant to this thread as it will prove to you that the NT authors were not telling the truth.
This thread is about evidence. To provide that evidence for other beliefs I need to know what you consider evidence.

Please confirm or deny the following. A simple Yes or No will do.

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?
* Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?
* Do you accept that, 1000s of years after people started writing, a tale has been passed by oral tradition, is evidence that the story is true?
* Do you accept the fact that a story is included in a re-titled compendium of stories is evidence that the story is true?

And here are some more writings from Peter, Paul, and Luke describing the danger and difficulty of preaching in those times. Certainly conditions ripe for being martyred in the Roman Empire.

1 Peter 4: 12-19
1 Peter 5: 8-9
1 Peter 2: 19-21
1 Peter 4: 1-4

Phil 1: 29-30
Thesalonians 3: 7-8
Acts 22: 4-5
Romans 5: 3-4
1 Cor 4: 11-13

* Do you accept that providing writings about danger and difficulty is evidence that the story is true?

In post #15129 some biblical passages were listed that would seem to be unlikely inventions. Here are some more biblical passages from the Gospel of John that seem unlikely to be made up.

From the article: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Frank Turek Chapter 10 (Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?)....

* Do you accept that passages that seem unlikely to be made up is evidence that the story is true?

 

[Lucian]

In post #15129 some biblical passages were listed that would seem to be unlikely inventions. Here are some more biblical passages from the Gospel of John that seem unlikely to be made up.

From the article: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Frank Turek Chapter 10 (Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?)
___

<snip>

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

So, you've gone back to cutting and pasting from the discredited book that started this thread? Great.

 

[kmortis]

So, you've gone back to cutting and pasting from the discredited book that started this thread? Great.

Cue the Pharoah and his circular graphic....

 

[Aepervius]

Cue the Pharoah and his circular graphic....

I am sorry but the circular wheel while perfectly fitting, is not enough anymore to shows the poor reasoning of DOC. He now has the ability to make 2 fallacy in the same sentence, 5 before breakfast. 10 day of research ? Pah. 10 seconds maybe.

No, what we need is some sort of moebius circular reasoning, but half broken and destroying itself as it rolls.

After all as said in this thread, DOC *did* enough to make somebody doubt his/her belief.

 

[zooterkin]

In post #15129 some biblical passages were listed that would seem to be unlikely inventions. Here are some more biblical passages from the Gospel of John that seem unlikely to be made up.

From the article: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Frank Turek Chapter 10 (Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?)
___

39. Proper identification of Caiaphas father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6... (18:13)... the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact that former high priests maintained great influence.

40. John's claim that the high priest knew him (18:15) seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.

42. Identification of a relative of Malchus (the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off) is a detail that John would not have made up (18:26); it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.

43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus (18:28ff.): Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job (the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him with, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar" 19:12); the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met (To Gaius 38.301-302).

45. The Jews exclaiming We have no king but Caesar! (19:15) would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70 {the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70}. (This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have no king but Osama Bin Laden!")

50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water (19:34). Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium.12 John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.13

51. Joseph of Arimathea (19:38), a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention (more on this in the next chapter).

52. Josephus (Antiquities 17.199) confirms that spices (19:39) were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.

53. Mary Magdalene (20:1), a formerly demon-possessed woman (Luke 8:2), would not be invented as the empty tombs first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story (more on this later as well).

55. "Rabboni" (20:16), the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.

56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" (20:17) does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.

57. One hundred fifty-three fish (21:11) is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.

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 body.

59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions (21:18); so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention.

{some obvious typos were corrected}

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Oh. So you really didn't do any research after all? Darn; I had such high hopes.

 

[Resume]

Logical analyzation of the writings and their likelihood of being made up has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

Sorry but using the bible to prove the bible (once again) is indeed circular. And it's not history. And it's not convincing.

 

[Toke]

50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water (19:34). Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium.12 John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.13

Yes, medical science at the time were rather simple, and no one in Roman occupied territories would have any idea about the little practical detail of a crucifixion.

 

[joobz]

And here are some more writings from Peter, Paul, and Luke describing the danger and difficulty of preaching in those times. Certainly conditions ripe for being martyred in the Roman Empire.

1 Peter 4: 12-19
1 Peter 5: 8-9
1 Peter 2: 19-21
1 Peter 4: 1-4

Phil 1: 29-30
Thesalonians 3: 7-8
Acts 22: 4-5
Romans 5: 3-4
1 Cor 4: 11-13

You can't quote the bible to verify the truth of the bible. You wouldn't believe me if I quoted Harry Potter to demonstrate that harry potter is real. Why should I accept yours?

In post #15129 some biblical passages were listed that would seem to be unlikely inventions. Here are some more biblical passages from the Gospel of John that seem unlikely to be made up.

"seem unlikely to be made up" is not the same thing as saying "it's true".
Further, as has been said multiple times, the truth of some parts isn't evidence of truth of other parts. The bible is NOT a reliable source of history.

 

[Toke]

"The little mermaid" is a pretty unlikely story, no one could possible have made that up.

 

[X]

DOC: Your quote of Turek's book is evidence only that Turek is a class-A moron.

Do you really want to be parroting and following a moron, DOC?

Of course not.

So put Turek down. He's already made you a laughingstock. Bail out, before things get worse.

 

[bikerdruid]

"The little mermaid" is a pretty unlikely story, no one could possible have made that up.

who would have thought.........?
in my nearly 30 years as a teacher, i heard many unlikely stories.
i just never thought, before now, that they must have been true.
my conscience will be forever shattered.
to think i could have doubted them............

 

[carlitos]

I haven't read anything specifically on that topic, but you may want to start a new thread, probably here in the History sub-forum. If you do that, I will PM a link to some people who may have better resources than I do.

Thanks for the offer, but the wikipedia article on the subject is pretty long and multi-sourced. I'm going to go through that when I have some time. If that isn't enough for my edification, I'll start a thread and let you know.

What got me thinking about it was reading somewhere how the apocraphy of Barnabas Thomas was accepted as canon up until the Council of Trent. I may be mistaken in my recollection, but it seemed odd to me, as those are clearly fantasy fiction.

 

[A Lurker]

Does he still have people on ignore? Who was it, A Lurker possibly, and that other guy, whatsisname, Aberhaten?

There was a third person, who was just outright poking fun at him as I recall; but you'd be hard pressed to find out who DOC really has on ignore, because he constantly cherry picks who he responds too based upon how well he can warp their post to leapfrog straight back to his small collection of sermons... if ever there was someone crying out to have all his threads locked, and a Moderated one opened instead, it's DOC.

 

[bikerdruid]

Logical analyzation of the writings and their likelihood of being made up has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

dude...the word is analysis'.

 

[kmortis]

I'd just like to point out that this thread will be two years old next Thursday. What're ya'll planning on getting it for its birthday? I'm thinking about getting it a bib. All two year olds need a bib.

 

[Elizabeth I]

After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water (19:34). Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium.12 John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.13

Yes, medical science at the time were rather simple, and no one in Roman occupied territories would have any idea about the little practical detail of a crucifixion.

Who knew? I guess no one ever got stabbed in or near the heart until the crucifixion.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

In post #15129 some biblical passages were listed that would seem to be unlikely inventions. Here are some more biblical passages from the Gospel of John that seem unlikely to be made up.

From the article: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Frank Turek Chapter 10 (Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony About Jesus?)
___

39. Proper identification of Caiaphas father-in-law, Annas, who was the high priest from A.D. 6... (18:13)... the appearance before Annas is believable because of the family connection and the fact that former high priests maintained great influence.

40. John's claim that the high priest knew him (18:15) seems historical; invention of this claim serves no purpose and would expose John to being discredited by the Jewish authorities.

42. Identification of a relative of Malchus (the high priest's servant who had his ear cut off) is a detail that John would not have made up (18:26); it has no theological significance and could only hurt John's credibility if he were trying to pass off fiction as the truth.

43. There are good historical reasons to believe Pilate's reluctance to deal with Jesus (18:28ff.): Pilate had to walk a fine line between keeping the Jews happy and keeping Rome happy; any civil unrest could mean his job (the Jews knew of his competing concerns when they taunted him with, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar" 19:12); the Jewish philosopher Philo records the Jews successfully pressuring Pilate in a similar way to get their demands met (To Gaius 38.301-302).

45. The Jews exclaiming We have no king but Caesar! (19:15) would not be invented given the Jewish hatred for the Romans, especially if John had been written after A.D. 70 {the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70}. (This would be like New Yorkers today proclaiming "We have no king but Osama Bin Laden!")

50. After the spear was thrust into Jesus' side, out came what appeared to be blood and water (19:34). Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium.12 John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony.13

51. Joseph of Arimathea (19:38), a member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, is an unlikely invention (more on this in the next chapter).

52. Josephus (Antiquities 17.199) confirms that spices (19:39) were used for royal burials; this detail shows that Nicodemus was not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and it also demonstrates that John was not inserting later Christian faith into the text.

53. Mary Magdalene (20:1), a formerly demon-possessed woman (Luke 8:2), would not be invented as the empty tombs first witness; in fact, women in general would not be presented as witnesses in a made-up story (more on this later as well).

55. "Rabboni" (20:16), the Aramaic for "teacher," seems an authentic detail because it's another unlikely invention for a writer trying to exalt the risen Jesus.

56. Jesus stating that he is returning to "my God and your God" (20:17) does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God.

57. One hundred fifty-three fish (21:11) is a theologically irrelevant detail, but perfectly consistent with the tendency of fisherman to want to record and then brag about large catches.

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 body.

59. The cryptic statement from Jesus about the fate of Peter is not clear enough to draw certain theological conclusions (21:18); so why would John make it up? It's another unlikely invention.

{some obvious typos were corrected}

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Where is the evidence that these are all "unlikely" inventions. Or are you just relying on the Authority of Frank Turek's suspect assertions?

Are you EVER going to present evidence for the veracity of NT authors that doesn't come from NT authors or Christian Apologists?

GB

 

[amb]

Peter Paul and Mary were a folk group of the sixties weren't they?

 

[Mojo]

And here are some more writings from Peter, Paul, and Luke describing the danger and difficulty of preaching in those times. Certainly conditions ripe for being martyred in the Roman Empire.

1 Peter 4: 12-19
1 Peter 5: 8-9
1 Peter 2: 19-21
1 Peter 4: 1-4

Phil 1: 29-30
Thesalonians 3: 7-8
Acts 22: 4-5
Romans 5: 3-4
1 Cor 4: 11-13

So you argument is that the NT authors wrote the truth because they wrote stuff?

 

[Hokulele]

Serious question, DOC. How do you tell the difference between something that is unlikely to be made up and something that is likely to be made up? What criteria do you use to judge various claims?