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

[Gandalfs Beard]

So you don't believe when someone like Gospel writer Luke, who has been called a great historian, writes the apostle James has been martyred, or writes Stephen (one of the first deacons of the church) has been martyred, that historical evidence has been presented?

NO!

See Lothian's post.

GB

 

[Aepervius]

This is another example of you trying to transplant our culture into biblical Judea.

Can you name just one Jewish book that was considered fiction by the people in Judea during or before the time of Christ?

Yeah. multitude. The gospel .


On a more serious note, you intentionally reduced your claim on fiction not existing in that time to a SMALL region , a RIDICULLY small region.

Fiction existed. Greek fiction are an example. So instead of admitting fic6tion existed, you reduced the region as to make sure no info was available.

That is what we call, MOVING THE GOALPOST.

Fiction writter existed for a long time. In that region or nearby there was the EPIC OF GILGAMESH. So if epic were written in the general region, then YEAH fiction was written.

Gandalf Beard did a MUCH better job DOC, see for yourself, he has PLENTY of fiction.

You can't even bring yourself to admit you are wrong , right ? Otherwise it is a sloppery slope where you have to admit that among our 12000+ post, there are indeed good argument. But you are too close minded to that possibility, you have to PROVE to YOURSELF you are right. otherwise, if any bit is wrong, the whole edifice you constructed yourself fall like a card castle.

 

[imjohn]

What I can not understand is why Doc feels the need to attempt these proofs.

If a Christian says to me, "I believe that the New Testament is true because I have faith in it's truth," my only answer is OK, fair enough. Faith is faith and if it gets you through the night that's OK.

But if you attempt logical proofs that are riddled with fallacy and empty arguments you are asking for 300 pages that absolutely destroy you.

Why, Doc?

 

[amb]

The gospel writers could not possibly be telling the truth because as they wrote the gospels believed the world was flat, the moon was a lesser light not a sphere reflecting sunlight, and that the sun orbited the center of the universe earth, and up was to go to heaven not into outer space. They also believed a man dead for days could resuscitate and live again, and to top it all off, this man could bodily go straight up into heaven which as we now know would have gone into orbit around the earth or is at this moment still heading towards goodness knows where in the galaxy.

 

[Lothian]

So you don't believe when someone like Gospel writer Luke, who has been called a great historian

DOC, I know you haven't read Ramsay but you do need to understand what he said. He said that Luke could be trusted where his ‘facts’ were subject to historical confirmation. In other words where there is external evidence i.e. settlements, contemporary written records etc that back Luke up. Ramsay made clear that this trust was limited and the rest needs faith if you are going to believe it.

You are free to say Ramsay called Luke a great historian, although amb’s link in post 15541 makes clear that Ramsay lost credibility among historians with his later works, including the one in which he rates Luke.

You can not however use Ramsay’s description of Luke to add credibility to Luke’s writing which have no external evidence. Ramsay was very specific about that. The evidence he uncovered did match the account of Luke, but in the big scheme of things he found very little evidence for Luke’s story and most of Luke falls into the ‘faith’ category.

Take the martyrdom of James. That could be something for which Ramsay found independent historical support for the account in Luke. In that case he would have published that evidence and you would be able to bring it here. Alternatively it is something for which he found no evidence and considered it something which can only be believed if you have faith.

It follows that if you call Luke a great historian but have no external evidence to support Luke’s account you are misquoting Ramsay and deliberately trying to deceive people.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

The gospel writers could not possibly be telling the truth because as they wrote the gospels believed the world was flat, the moon was a lesser light not a sphere reflecting sunlight, and that the sun orbited the center of the universe earth, and up was to go to heaven not into outer space. They also believed a man dead for days could resuscitate and live again, and to top it all off, this man could bodily go straight up into heaven which as we now know would have gone into orbit around the earth or is at this moment still heading towards goodness knows where in the galaxy.

Actually, a spherical Earth was proposed by Pythagoras as early as the 6th century BCE, and this was thoroughly established by independent Hellenistic scholars well into the time of Ptolemy (90-168 CE). This information was well known throughout the ancient world, spreading to India and the Middle East, and was a given to most sailors. This was also understood by most of the educated classes even into the Medieval Christian era of Europe.

It was only a segment of the Church that propagated the Flat Earth, or Disc Shaped Flat Earth theory, and it may have been the accepted view of uneducated land-lubbers.

However, just because the Hellenized cultures (including the Israelites of the time) of the Eastern Mediterranean believed some things that were true, doesn't mean everything they believed was true.


GB

 

[Mojo]

So you don't believe when someone like Gospel writer Luke, who has been called a great historian, writes the apostle James has been martyred, or writes Stephen (one of the first deacons of the church) has been martyred, that historical evidence has been presented?

The New Testament cannot be used as evidence that the New Testament is true. How many times do you have to be told this?

Whether you can quote-mine comments about Luke is irrelevant, as is the number of times you repeat those quote-miend comments.

 

[joobz]

This is another example of you trying to transplant our culture into biblical Judea.

Can you name just one Jewish book that was considered fiction by the people in Judea during or before the time of Christ?

Gandalf's beard did a much better job than I could...

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/9780195151428/toc.html

As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh

GB

Ouch.

 

[Mojo]

I've might have missed posts, not had enough time to respond, etc... Mojo, you (and only you, since I don't have time to address everyone) are welcome to point out any single post I did not respond and I will respond to it.

I wasn't saying that you had not responded, but that you had not addressed the arguments. But how about this one?

For argument that you haven't addressed, how about Rincewind's post mentioned here, which you failed to address because you merely repeated a whole load of material from the NT itself?

That's just to pick a couple of examples from the current page.

I fear nothing from any post.

Do you have a pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, by any chance?

 

[amb]

Actually, a spherical Earth was proposed by Pythagoras as early as the 6th century BCE, and this was thoroughly established by independent Hellenistic scholars well into the time of Ptolemy (90-168 CE). This information was well known throughout the ancient world, spreading to India and the Middle East, and was a given to most sailors. This was also understood by most of the educated classes even into the Medieval Christian era of Europe.

It was only a segment of the Church that propagated the Flat Earth, or Disc Shaped Flat Earth theory, and it may have been the accepted view of uneducated land-lubbers.

However, just because the Hellenized cultures (including the Israelites of the time) of the Eastern Mediterranean believed some things that were true, doesn't mean everything they believed was true.


GB

Nevertheless. The bible being the word of god says the world was flat. That's good enough for a literal reading of the scriptures and it's authors.

 

[Aepervius]

What I can not understand is why Doc feels the need to attempt these proofs.

If a Christian says to me, "I believe that the New Testament is true because I have faith in it's truth," my only answer is OK, fair enough. Faith is faith and if it gets you through the night that's OK.

But if you attempt logical proofs that are riddled with fallacy and empty arguments you are asking for 300 pages that absolutely destroy you.

Why, Doc?

You won't get any answer. An often cited hypotheses is that DOC is attempting to convince himself, and nobody else.

 

[nvidiot]

Any objective way to prove that hypothesis? Without imput from Doc I think it would be difficult.

I agree it's the likely reason though.

 

[Rincewind]

Doc,

This is beginning to get tedious.

Clearly, in everybody's view except yours, you have failed to address my points about martyrdom.

Let's try again with something very, very simple:

According to various Christian traditions, Simon the Zealot was martyred:
by crucifixion in Armenia in AD 74
by crucifixiion in Samaria
by being sawn in half at Suanir, Persia
unspecified in Caucasian Iberia
unspecified in Caistor, modern Lincolnshire
executed following a failed Jewish revolt against the Romans

oh, and he died peacfully at Edessa.

So - he apparently died seven times - I guess you just can't keep a good Apostle down, huh?

He mananged to comfortably beat Jesus's record for resurrection!

DOC - you're the self-proclaimed expert - just how did he die?

thanks

 

[catsmate]

You won't get any answer. An often cited hypotheses is that DOC is attempting to convince himself, and nobody else.

That's my take. He's trying to quiet the internal voice that's telling him it's all nonsense. As Adams said:

If they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working.

 

[Mojo]

As Adams said:

That's two HHGG references within half a dozen posts.

 

[Lothian]

That's my take. He's trying to quiet the internal voice that's telling him it's all nonsense.

I think you are right. If he was trying to convert others he would make some attempt to counter the criticisms put forward. I don't recall him ever trying to disprove a criticism.

All he does is repeat his mantras occasional adding 'new' 'information' which to him appears to support his position. He is unable to say why our criticisms are wrong. The nearest we get is “I disagree and so does [insert dead person of your choice here]”.

 

[kmortis]

QFD

This just demonstrates what I've said before, DOC is terrified to define one speck of evidence and I think that hurts his credibility.

I can see Doc saying, well yes that is some evidence if it is for the bible but it is not enough for another belief, but to just come out and admit that will demonstrate 2,150 posts from a closed mind

Prove me wrong and 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?

 

[CriticalThanking]

Note: this is addressed to all, not Joobz. I'm lazy and didn't quote everyone who may have expressed a desire to shut down/moderate this thread.

This site is dedicated to logic, critical thinking and evidence.
You have only provided logical fallacies*, dishonesty** and NO evidence.
Why would you think your thread deserves to remain active?

* e.g., appeal to authority (Ramsay), appeal to numbers (List of presidents) and Special pleading (Martyr argument)

**You have insinuated to not have seen my post regarding modern biblical scholarship, and after presenting it, you have conveniently ignored it.


Note that I will not provide links to either of these points as they are clear in this thread. My guess is you will claim this is an "unevidenced" post, which would be further evidence of your dishonesty.

Does DOC's thread "deserve" to stay open?

• Lying for Jesus is not against forum rules.
• Repeatedly spouting howling logical fallacies as support for his thread is not against forum rules.
• Ignoring inconvenient questions about his facts or logic is not against forum rules.
• Quote mining (either deliberately or through failing to understand the entire quote) to support his thread is not against forum rules.

Yes, DOC's thread deserves to stay open in the same way that any dishonest poster's thread should.

Another skeptic who wants this thread shut down, that encourages me. You need to seriously ask yourself why, and take some quiet time to think about that.

As painful as it is, I agree with DOC in this instance. Ask yourself why. I understand the frustration of teaching a pig to sing. DOC also appears to have a persecution/martyr complex about this topic. He is encouraged at the frustration that has boiled over. As silly as it may be, he seems to see it as scoring "points": he has managed to irritate atheists (though as others have pointed out, some of those trying to educate him are Christians), and he sees the "persecution" as a positive thing.

Sigh - while I fear that if every one of the posters who valiantly tried to correct DOC's howlers left he would appear to "win" as no one would be left to refute the crap, I vote to leave the thread open for all to see the the sad remains of the OP.

CT

And lest I be accused of failing to give full context, I reproduce the rest of DOC's message for posterity.

And new information does come out periodically. For example this new post shows many things about the bible that many people have never really thought about.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6344362#post6344362

And the information about important NT figure Caiaphus' ossury being found, and also the passage in Peter that admits to there being unjust servant/slave owners are relatively new information. If the speed of the new information that comes out is too slow for you then just don't come into the thread, it's very simple.

Translation: "You don't like how I post? Then leave." Thanks, DOC.

CT

 

[joobz]

Note: this is addressed to all, not Joobz. I'm lazy and didn't quote everyone who may have expressed a desire to shut down/moderate this thread.



Does DOC's thread "deserve" to stay open?

• Lying for Jesus is not against forum rules.
• Repeatedly spouting howling logical fallacies as support for his thread is not against forum rules.
• Ignoring inconvenient questions about his facts or logic is not against forum rules.
• Quote mining (either deliberately or through failing to understand the entire quote) to support his thread is not against forum rules.

Yes, DOC's thread deserves to stay open in the same way that any dishonest poster's thread should.

Actually,
1.) Threads are not just closed because of rule violation. They can be closed if the thread topic has met a conclusion. I have seen it done in other topic sections.
2.) I did not state I wanted the thread closed. I was only turning the question back at DOC as to why he thinks this thread should be open. Afterall, he has failed at all levels to formulate a effective argument.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Actually,
1.) Threads are not just closed because of rule violation. They can be closed if the thread topic has met a conclusion. I have seen it done in other topic sections.
2.) I did not state I wanted the thread closed. I was only turning the question back at DOC as to why he thinks this thread should be open. Afterall, he has failed at all levels to formulate a effective argument.

Interesting. I had not seen threads closed outside of Forum Management. Ah, well - there are some sub-fora in which I fear to tread (e.g. Politics and Conspiracy Theories). Others also mentioned moderated thread status, etc. I should have been more specific.

You are correct - asking someone why it should stay open is not the same as saying it should be closed. I fear for my account should we ever hold posters responsible for making positive contributions. You, sir, would not only survive such a judgement, but be held up as a stellar example along with several others, if just for this thread alone. My thanks.

CT