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

[DOC]

deleted - double post

 

[DOC]

Ramsay was a Christian Apologist who died in 1939, and the bulk of his writings were between 1890 and 1910. I think that says it all.

GB

Actually it says nothing, without examples that counter Ramsay's research. And even if there were some things improved upon that wouldn't refute all of his other findings he made during his 15 years of research in biblical lands.

 

[Lothian]

And there is no evidence that the Gospel writers names were just randomly assigned. Mathew was an unpopular tax collector. If you made up a religion would you assign an IRS agent as the author when you are trying to attract the masses. If you could make up an author at that time would you assign a relatively unknown disciple like Mark (not even an apostle) to write a major gospel or a relatively unknown person like Luke. It doesn't add up to assign authorship to people like that -- translation: the authors weren't made up.

Doc, this list is ever growing. If we are to test whether something is true we need to know what represents evidence for truth. You keep putting out random statements without informing us whether you think it constitutes evidence, Can you please confirm the following. As ever a simple Yes or No will do.

* Do you accept that an author having an unpopular career is evidence that their story is true?
* Do you accept that an author being unknown prior to publication is evidence that their story is true?
* Do you accept that quoting someone in a book is evidence that they are telling the truth?
* 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?
* Do you accept that providing writings about danger and difficulty is evidence that the story is true?
* Do you accept that passages that seem unlikely to be made up is evidence that the story is true?

 

[Lothian]

Actually it says nothing, without examples that counter Ramsay's research. And even if there were some things improved upon that wouldn't refute all of his other findings he made during his 15 years of research in biblical lands.

...and lest we forget his findings. He found no evidence for any of the essential parts of the Jesus fable. All that supernatural stuff, miracles, son of God resurrections etc, he found nothing. He only found that some of the locations and mundane elements were in fitting with the time the story was set.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Actually it says nothing, without examples that counter Ramsay's research. And even if there was a some things improved upon that wouldn't refute all of his other findings he made during his 15 years of research in biblical lands.

Where's your evidence? The burden is on you to provide it. You haven't presented a shred of evidence outside of the Bible or the belief of your fellow Believers. Ramsay is just another Christian Apologist, and one from a century ago at that.

Some of his "evidence" (insofar as it has been quoted by you) has been refuted on this very thread (and confirmed regarding only some of the artifacts of the era). And the nearly century's worth of archaeological evidence that has been unearthed since he did most of his "research" has only served to to further undermine the claims of Christian Apologists.

Where's the Empirical Data? Where's the Forensic Evidence? Where are the NON-Christian Scientists and Experts who can verify your extraordinary claims for the Resurrection and Divinity of Jesus?

You want to convince us of your spectacular claims, you'll have to do better than your Appeals to (Christian) Authority, Circular Reasoning, and Special Pleading.

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!!

GB

 

[amb]

We've been over this before. We have no signature for Julius Caesar either (none, nada, zero)r even though he supposedly wrote a book, not to mention being the most powerful man on earth at one time.

And there is no evidence that the Gospel writers names were just randomly assigned. Mathew was an unpopular tax collector. If you made up a religion would you assign an IRS agent as the author when you are trying to attract the masses. If you could make up an author at that time would you assign a relatively unknown disciple like Mark (not even an apostle) to write a major gospel or a relatively unknown person like Luke. It doesn't add up to assign authorship to people like that -- translation: the authors weren't made up.

So you actually believe that the disciples wrote the gospels. Not one credible biblical scholar agrees with you. Not one!

 

[joobz]

We've been over this before. We have no signature for Julius Caesar either (none, nada, zero)r even though he supposedly wrote a book, not to mention being the most powerful man on earth at one time.

It was a bad argument before, and it is a bad argument now.

And there is no evidence that the Gospel writers names were just randomly assigned. Mathew was an unpopular tax collector. If you made up a religion would you assign an IRS agent as the author when you are trying to attract the masses. If you could make up an author at that time would you assign a relatively unknown disciple like Mark (not even an apostle) to write a major gospel or a relatively unknown person like Luke. It doesn't add up to assign authorship to people like that -- translation: the authors weren't made up.

It doesn't make sense to have a known drug addled science fiction writer start their own religion, and have people believe it. But that doesn't stop people from believing.

 

[joobz]

Actually it says nothing, without examples that counter Ramsay's research. And even if there were some things improved upon that wouldn't refute all of his other findings he made during his 15 years of research in biblical lands.

This is a dishonest lie. I have provided a link to recent scholarship on the bible which clearly shows that modern biblical scholars do NOT believe the bible to be a reliable source of history.

 

[zooterkin]

And even if there were some things improved upon that wouldn't refute all of his other findings he made during his 15 years of research in biblical lands.

That's just a general statement with no examples and no sources.

 

[Aepervius]

Best MISQUOTE ever.

Originally Posted by Fiona View Post
DOC I asked you a while ago about fiction: have you ever read any apart from the bible?

I never liked to read fiction that much

(I just deleted a letter from the post of fiona, if you can't tell)

 

[Helen]

DOC, I have a very sincere question for you: Who do you think you may convince with what you present here as evidence?

You must have realised by now that there is a number of people here who are very well versed in the Bible, and in theology. You can't be hoping to convince them, I am sure. Since you mostly refer to the Bible itself as evidence, or to different apologetics, that would be naive.

There are also people like me here. I am an atheist, but have never read all that deeply about the subject of religion. I have read the Bible, parts of it a couple of times, as I have an interest in mythology, but did not find it as enthralling as some of the stories about gods - the Greek have always been my favourites. But even if I lack knowledge, I'm not going to be convinced by someone like you, when you keep referring to the NT to give evidence for the NT. If that had worked, I would have been convinced already when I read it myself. And that, I imagine, would be true for others such as myself.

The above argument should be true for people of different faiths as well, don't you think? If they were trying to convince you, they wouldn't succeed by just referring to their sacred texts and scholars, would they?

So who are you trying to convince? All that seems to remain are people who already believe as you do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*So who are you trying to convince? All that seems to remain are people who already believe as you do.

Himself, I suspect.

Hans

 

[Aepervius]

Himself, I suspect.

Hans

That hypotheses has been mentioned a few dozen time already. It is coming out of what DOC write so starkly, that it pokes you in the eye.

 

[joobz]

I never liked to read fiction that much

In other words, When it was explained to you that your evidence in the OP wasn't logically sound as they are all common aspects of many works of fiction, you had no basis to reject our statements.

An honest person at that point would admit that they were unaware of it and would resend the claim. Instead, you continued to push those arguments as though you had a basis by which to support your claims. Unfortunately, you have now just admitted your only basis for supporting those arguments was ignorance.

As a refresher:

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.
...
Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.
...
Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.
...
Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.
...

There you go. Each of these points can be found in many works of fiction. They are, in no way, evidence of truth.

 

[zooterkin]

An honest person at that point would admit that they were unaware of it and would resend the claim.

DOC only did the second part.



(I think you meant rescind, or, better, retract, but like 'apologise', I don't think those are in DOC's lexicon.)

 

[joobz]

DOC only did the second part.



(I think you meant rescind, or, better, retract, but like 'apologise', I don't think those are in DOC's lexicon.)

grrr...

 

[A Lurker]

In other words, When it was explained to you that your evidence in the OP wasn't logically sound as they are all common aspects of many works of fiction, you had no basis to reject our statements.

An honest person at that point would admit that they were unaware of it and would resend the claim. Instead, you continued to push those arguments as though you had a basis by which to support your claims. Unfortunately, you have now just admitted your only basis for supporting those arguments was ignorance.

It's worse than that; think of all the things DOC considers "fiction", and it should become obvious that not only is he not likely to have done any reading beyond Christian apologetics, but that he is also a profoundly dishonest person, because he tries to lay claim to the benefits of such a personal quality as a wider education, when he thinks it will help him lie for Christ.

Remember that "Logic Course" he refers too? We can all work out that it was actually a course in Theological Logic; after all, any logic that doesn't lead to Christ must be fiction, and he "doesn't like" to read such. But he dare not confirm this, coward that he is. So he tries to take the credit from the more respectable parent skill, and claims to have studied "Logic" instead. Another lie for Christ.

Remember how he claimed to have read about Evolution, but that the whole concept is a fiction too? It's obvious in turn that he's only read religious tracts on Evolution in reality, because they tell him the religious "truth". But Doc, you objectively lie to us no matter what you personally believe when you claim to have read the original material. We can all see you clearly haven't.

He's not even read Geisler, but a summary of Geislar in another text book; because someone earlier went back and found the pages the quotes are cherry picked from, and it bears no relations to the claims made. And how deceptive a debater do you have to be to try and steal the honour from a long dead man who, even though he mostly agreed with you, you still have to force words into his mouth to pretend he was exactly like you? DOC, you are not Geisler and don't deserve even the credit he may have earned during his life... because it, and his voice, is his alone.

Heck, DOC can't even manage the basic honesty of a simple statement without weasel-holes to hide in; "never liked that much"? Are you so terrified of the posts that will follow, and indeed did follow pointing out that you are obviously a deliberately self-inflicted ignoramus that you reflexively had to leave an "out" for yourself, and ensure you could say that the statement wasn't absolute, oh you have read some fiction. Maybe you'll even lie to, or just not respond to anyone who asks if you've read some relevant fiction...

Honestly DOC, your behaviour is shameful. There are Christians on these boards... and they don't have to hide in deception and sophistry, even when cruelly cudgelled by the more strident atheists on these boards. Their beliefs can survive in a competitive world... why are yours so weak that you have to ignore even the true influence of Harry Potter?!

 

[Lucian]

It's worse than that; think of all the things DOC considers "fiction", and it should become obvious that not only is he not likely to have done any reading beyond Christian apologetics, but that he is also a profoundly dishonest person, because he tries to lay claim to the benefits of such a personal quality as a wider education, when he thinks it will help him lie for Christ.

Remember that "Logic Course" he refers too? We can all work out that it was actually a course in Theological Logic; after all, any logic that doesn't lead to Christ must be fiction, and he "doesn't like" to read such. But he dare not confirm this, coward that he is. So he tries to take the credit from the more respectable parent skill, and claims to have studied "Logic" instead. Another lie for Christ.

Remember how he claimed to have read about Evolution, but that the whole concept is a fiction too? It's obvious in turn that he's only read religious tracts on Evolution in reality, because they tell him the religious "truth". But Doc, you objectively lie to us no matter what you personally believe when you claim to have read the original material. We can all see you clearly haven't.

He's not even read Geisler, but a summary of Geislar in another text book; because someone earlier went back and found the pages the quotes are cherry picked from, and it bears no relations to the claims made. And how deceptive a debater do you have to be to try and steal the honour from a long dead man who, even though he mostly agreed with you, you still have to force words into his mouth to pretend he was exactly like you? DOC, you are not Geisler and don't deserve even the credit he may have earned during his life... because it, and his voice, is his alone.

Heck, DOC can't even manage the basic honesty of a simple statement without weasel-holes to hide in; "never liked that much"? Are you so terrified of the posts that will follow, and indeed did follow pointing out that you are obviously a deliberately self-inflicted ignoramus that you reflexively had to leave an "out" for yourself, and ensure you could say that the statement wasn't absolute, oh you have read some fiction. Maybe you'll even lie to, or just not respond to anyone who asks if you've read some relevant fiction...

Honestly DOC, your behaviour is shameful. There are Christians on these boards... and they don't have to hide in deception and sophistry, even when cruelly cudgelled by the more strident atheists on these boards. Their beliefs can survive in a competitive world... why are yours so weak that you have to ignore even the true influence of Harry Potter?!

Some great points, but I think you might be confusing Geisler with the sainted Sir William Ramsay.

 

[carlitos]

We've been over this before. We have no signature for Julius Caesar either (none, nada, zero)r even though he supposedly wrote a book, not to mention being the most powerful man on earth at one time.

And there is no evidence that the Gospel writers names were just randomly assigned. Mathew was an unpopular tax collector. If you made up a religion would you assign an IRS agent as the author when you are trying to attract the masses. If you could make up an author at that time would you assign a relatively unknown disciple like Mark (not even an apostle) to write a major gospel or a relatively unknown person like Luke. It doesn't add up to assign authorship to people like that -- translation: the authors weren't made up.

DOC,
You asked for specific logical fallacies before, even though you dishonestly ignored them. Here's another one. Did the post you quoted say that the Gospel authorship was "randomly assigned?" No, it did not. Your post argues against a straw man. You're welcome.

DOC. You need to get a life. You cannot base your whole beliefs on these cretins. I have stated before, Luke was not the literal author of the gospel so named after him. The author of Luke, and three other gospels were all anonymous. None signed their names after each of the gospels. Names were given them much later, around the mid second century and later.

I don't even think most Christians dispute this fact, do they?

 

[Lucian]

Some great points, but I think you might be confusing Geisler with the sainted Sir William Ramsay.

Sorry for quoting myself, but I think I should point out that I may be confuzzled myself. Here is what I understand to be the truth about His Holiness Sir Ramsay: he included embarrassing details about himself (like how he burnt the cakes at the Last Supper); he was martyred by being crucified upside down, thrown off a cliff, beheaded and stoned to death; he was a tax collector who wrote the Gospel of Luke. He may also have been Julius Caesar because--hey--we have no signature for Caesar, so anyone could have been Caesar.

The above, at any rate, is what I have gleaned from this thread.