Mojo
Mostly harmless
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
pizzadeliveryninja
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 96
It strikes me that DOC and the woeful apologists he endlessly cites seem to have a quite strange image of book publishing 2000 years ago. Their arguments assume that once a book is written it is - as in the modern age - available to be read by all and sundry. Thus, writing anything critical of the Romans is seen by them as an incredibly risky/brave thing to do - and in their desperate search for straws to clutch becomes some sort of 'evidence' for the truth of the bible.
But this is surely to completely misinterpret the nature of writing in the period. A book, once written existed as a single copy. To spread, it had to be hand-copied by others and then those copies copied by others (with the ensuing errors that every biblical scholar is familiar with and every DOC-like apologist deliberately ignores).
We have no idea of the circulation of the books which now constitute the NT in the 1st century AD. None at all. I seem to recall someone posting earlier a comprehensive list of 2nd century Christian apologists who displayed little familiarity with the canonical gospels as we now have them. Most probably, they didn't have access to copies of them. The earliest fragment of gospel that has survived dates from c. 125-150AD. The earliest complete copies of NT texts date from around 200AD.
In short, there is little to suggest that the authors were massively exposing themselves to risk if they wrote a single book which would hardly have been visible to any authorities, should they have been interested. It is only later that the copies proliferated, long after the original authors would have died.
But this is surely to completely misinterpret the nature of writing in the period. A book, once written existed as a single copy. To spread, it had to be hand-copied by others and then those copies copied by others (with the ensuing errors that every biblical scholar is familiar with and every DOC-like apologist deliberately ignores).
We have no idea of the circulation of the books which now constitute the NT in the 1st century AD. None at all. I seem to recall someone posting earlier a comprehensive list of 2nd century Christian apologists who displayed little familiarity with the canonical gospels as we now have them. Most probably, they didn't have access to copies of them. The earliest fragment of gospel that has survived dates from c. 125-150AD. The earliest complete copies of NT texts date from around 200AD.
In short, there is little to suggest that the authors were massively exposing themselves to risk if they wrote a single book which would hardly have been visible to any authorities, should they have been interested. It is only later that the copies proliferated, long after the original authors would have died.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I was thinking that "analysation of the writings" might mean taking them and shoving them in the other end...
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Either that, or someone is talking through his asp.
I guess it's all the same in the end, so to speak.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Hmm. According to my thirty seconds of research, apparently the appropriate gifts are paper, cotton or china. So perhaps a cotton bib? Or a book, The Bible For Dummies? Christianity For Dummies? Lost Books of the Bible For Dummies?
Non-sequitur, and a strawman. It is a strawman because I've never said once in my 2100 posts that this fact (or facts) in the bible prove the bible is true.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Little semantic games now, DOC? You lose credibility when you do that.
Also, your attempts to 'name that fallacy' raise a red flag.
But just to try and keep up with your relocatable goalposts, lets just rework Resume's post a little so you can try and weasel out of answering again.
Go!
I can quote important historical figures like Paul and Peter (who had tremendous historical importance by greatly changing the mighty Roman Empire) when I'm talking of the historical environment of the time.
And what historical changes in any empire or country has the non-historical figure Harry Potter caused?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I can quote important historical figures like Mohammed and Imam Abu hanifa (who had tremendous historical importance by greatly changing the mighty Ottoman, and earlier the Mongol Empire which was the largest the world has ever seen) when I'm talking of the historical environment of the time.
Harry Potter Cos-play around the world;
Harry Potter Theme Park in Orlando, America;
People having Harry Potter themed weddings and honeymoons;
Creation of real-world holy Potter pilgrimages;
And then, let's not forget this...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=87554
Doc... you... know .... NOTHING about the modern world, about history, about anything except your own religious prejudices.
Last edited:
True, but the greater the probability something is not made then the greater the probability it is true.
True, but if we know someone like Gospel writer Luke is highly detailed and accurate on non-supernatural facts it makes it more unlikely that he'd be loosey goosey and sloppy on reporting the 35 miracles he reported Christ, Paul and some other apostles performed, especially when he records them in the same matter of fact manner as he did all the other highly detailed facts he got right.
Then why did Sir William M. Ramsay call gospel writer Luke one the world's greatest historians (with regard to facts that can be proven through historical and archaeological means)?
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Because he was mistaken and relied on OLD evidence, modern study showed that the bible is totally unreliable when it comes to historical fact.
In physic you don't cite newton when speaking of modern theory like big bang or relativity. You cite Einstein at least, or maybe more modern theorist from the past 10 / 20 years.
YOUR citing of old geezer from the past century is equivalent to cite newton while ignoring Einstein, and pretending it describe the universe perfectly.
DOC, as "a lurker" said, people are laught *AT* you.
Yithmas
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 106
I herewith proclaim Terry Partchett a prophet of the Great God Hex.
We all know that Terry Pratchett exists, and he explais the world quite neatly in his prophetic works "The Science of Discworld".
Since these books make absolute sense, we can therefore safely assume that
a) our universe is in a jar in Unseen University
b) Hex exists
and therefore:
c) Terry Pratchett is a prophet in direct contact with Hex.
And: I guess some people here have actually met Terry Pratchett, whcih makes the claims even more true.
We all know that Terry Pratchett exists, and he explais the world quite neatly in his prophetic works "The Science of Discworld".
Since these books make absolute sense, we can therefore safely assume that
a) our universe is in a jar in Unseen University
b) Hex exists
and therefore:
c) Terry Pratchett is a prophet in direct contact with Hex.
And: I guess some people here have actually met Terry Pratchett, whcih makes the claims even more true.
Harry Potter accurately recorded the existence of London's King Cross station, indeed there is even a signpost now indicating where you can board the magical train to Hogwarts... does this mean that Hogwarts is thus more likely to be real?.
Now I personally think the Potter series are appallingly badly written and incredibly derivative myself, but at least I acknowledge their success in the real world... I'm not such a dishonest debater that I try and mentally put JK Rowling on ignore and pretend she doesn't exist.
- Status