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

[bikerdruid]

Do you have any evidence for this ludicrous assertion or are just making stuff up again?

the answers for this are, no and then yes.
huh?? evidence??
....luke supplies all the .evidence for his own veracity.
....cuz he writes so clearly and doc has told us so hundreds of times in his 2 thousand plus posts,
.... so naturally, the roman writers believed him, even though they never told us.
but we can believe luke cuz doc told us so..
....and.....
huh??

 

[joobz]

Why should it as long a people continue to learn things that can affect their eternity.

But it doesn't do that. Therefore, by your own qualifier, your thread is not useful.

 

[Waterman]

Why should it as long a people continue to learn things that can affect their eternity.

But it doesn't do that. Therefore, by your own qualifier, your thread is not useful.

I for one have learned a number of things. However none of them support that the New Testament is anything other than a collection of myths and fables that have grown up around an apocryphal preacher of a breakaway Jewish sect. I didn’t actually know that the Bible, as a book, was assembled well after the fact and that they authorship of the various portions are unclear except by tradition.

I have learned a lot about the logical fallacies that are often used to argue a particular position. They are hard to miss when they hit you over the head. The wielder envisions them to be substantial weapons to batter down the opposing position however they are no more substantial than feathers and even tickle a bit.

I have learned that some believers are willing to close both eyes, both ears and 75% of their brain rather than take on an argument head on. They prefer to preach to non-believers pretending to be engaging in discussion when they are not hearing or ignoring anything that doesn’t fit their script or disagrees with their preconceived conclusions.

I have also learned that the posters of this board while appearing to be quite rabid to those that fail to acknowledge errors in reasoning can in fact be quite pleasant to those even some who are admitted Christians when they use sound reasoning.

I have learned that some people have so much personal investment in their argument that they see attacks on the arguments as personal attacks even though nothing personal is mentioned and every point made in the response is addressed specifically to the argument presented.

 

[Akhenaten]

I for one have learned a number of things.

Thank you very much for posting that. I might consider staying here on the strength of it.

 

[davefoc]

Carlitos responding to the idea that the author of the gospels weren't the people that they were named after.

DOC,
...

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

Actually, I think whether Luke was the author of Luke is the subject of some scholarly dispute. I don't think there is much scholarly dispute over Mark, and Mathew and maybe John. The connection was made up and nobody knows who wrote them. But was Luke an actual companion of Paul and did that Luke write Luke and Acts? I think that remains a possibility that is supported by some biblical scholars.

 

[Lothian]

Why should it as long as people continue to learn things that can affect their eternity.

This really winds me up. Why do people use the third person plural instead of the first person singular? If you are to use the English language, DOC, respect the rules.

 

[Agatha]

This really winds me up. Why do people use the third person plural instead of the first person singular? If you are you use the English language, DOC, respect the rules.

Indeed!

I have learned much from this thread. None of it is evidence for the NT's veracity, though.

 

[Akhenaten]

So you value the opinion of a Roman Senator on issues of morality. Remember the Roman Emperor Nero thought nothing of impaling Christians and setting them on fire to use as light for his parties. Not to mention killing his mother and wife.

Got any evidence for that, DOC? Remember, it doesn't count if it hasn't got Nero's signature on it.

ETA: God, where would the world be now if isn't wasn't for Christianity the Romans. I seriously believe Western Civilization might not even exist now if isn't wasn't for Christianity the Romans.

FTFY

​

 

[Simon39759]

Carlitos responding to the idea that the author of the gospels weren't the people that they were named after.

Actually, I think whether Luke was the author of Luke is the subject of some scholarly dispute. I don't think there is much scholarly dispute over Mark, and Mathew and maybe John. The connection was made up and nobody knows who wrote them. But was Luke an actual companion of Paul and did that Luke write Luke and Acts? I think that remains a possibility that is supported by some biblical scholars.

Well, it is amusing considering Lothian's following post... A significant problem with the authorship of Luke is that the two books (Gospel and Acts) refer to Luke using the third person...
So, maybe Luke was megalomaniacal, but, in my opinion, he more likely simply did not write the texts himself.
Now both the texts have a pretty detailed account of Luke's life and both of them a pretty laudatory in their treatment of the physician, so it is quite likely to me that, while not Luke himself, the author knew him personally. I imagine that he might have been Luke's personal secretary during the last years of his life and that the Gospels and acts were based on his memories (and, I'd ventures notes) from his conversation with Luke.
That would explain not only the accuracy of the descriptions but also the praising aspect. As an important representative of the Lucian tradition, it was the author's best interest to make Luke looks good...

 

[Rincewind]

Got any evidence for that, DOC? Remember, it doesn't count if it hasn't got Nero's signature on it.





FTFY

​

But what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

But what have the Romans ever done for us?

Roads, Aqueducts, and Sanitation.

GB

 

[DOC]

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.

DOC: Simple yes and no's can be a debating trick when they don't tell the whole story. Which I don't believe they do with the below questions:

* Do you accept that an author having an unpopular career is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure, it is some evidence that Matthew was indeed the author of his Gospel, because it doesn't make sense for someone to assign an author who was collecting taxes for the hated Romans as your author if you are trying to attract followers anymore than I would assign a former IRS agent as the author if I invented a religion.

* Do you accept that an author being unknown prior to publication is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure it is evidence when you had the opportunity to pick apostles like Andrew or Philip, or even a relative of Christ like James as the author of your Gospel. Why pick two relatively unknown non-apostles like Mark or Luke. It doesn't add up unless they are indeed the authors.

* Do you accept that quoting someone in a book is evidence that they are telling the truth?

DOC: If the book was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians like gospel writer Luke was called by famous academic Sir William M. Ramsay than it surely increases the probability they are telling the truth, and thus it can be considered historical evidence, yes.

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: If those embarrassing details are about your long awaited Messiah, yes it does increase the probability that what is written is true because it doesn't make sense to portray your long awaited Messiah in an embarrassing manner. And anything that increases the probability of something being true can be considered evidence because if affects my conclusions on the matter (see post 13).

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: Yes, in the case of the NT it can be considered some evidence that it is more likely to be true because if you are going to make something up in order to attract followers it doesn't make sense to write something that might turn off or confuse your prospective followers. Thus when several things like that were written in the NT it would seem that the writers were telling the truth, warts and all.

* 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?

DOC: Why pass along information in a written manner when the large majority of people can't read? Also when your leader says go into all the world and "preach" the gospel, I don't interpret that as writing everything down for people who can't read.

* Do you accept the fact that a story is included in a re-titled compendium of stories is evidence that the story is true?

DOC: explain.

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

DOC: Regarding the NT it is definitely evidence that helps support any oral tradition that the apostles were martyred? If a great historian like Luke is writing that the apostles are thrown in jail and flogged for preaching weeks after seeing their master crucified (Acts Chapter 5: 25-42). And then when they are released and told not to preach Christ anymore, they continue to go around Jerusalem and preach daily, that is definitely evidence that would support any oral tradition that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred. Also when I have evidence that Paul and Peter were in Rome preaching that helps support the oral tradition that they were martyred because at the same time they were there, Nero was impaling Christians, and lighting them on fire to provide light for his parties.

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

DOC: It's just common sense that information that leads you to believe a passage is not made up increases the likelihood that the passage it is true, and thus that information can be considered evidence supporting the truth of the story.

 

[Lucian]

DOC: Simple yes and no's can be a debating trick when they don't tell the whole story. Which I don't believe they do with the below questions:

* Do you accept that an author having an unpopular career is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure, it is some evidence that Matthew was indeed the author of his Gospel, because it doesn't make sense for someone to assign an author who was collecting taxes for the hated Romans as your author if you are trying to attract followers anymore than I would assign a former IRS agent as the author if I invented a religion.

* Do you accept that an author being unknown prior to publication is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure it is evidence when you had the opportunity to pick apostles like Andrew or Philip, or even a relative of Christ like James as the author of your Gospel. Why pick two relatively unknown non-apostles like Mark or Luke. It doesn't add up unless they are indeed the authors.

* Do you accept that quoting someone in a book is evidence that they are telling the truth?

DOC: If the book was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians like gospel writer Luke was called by famous academic Sir William M. Ramsay than it surely increases the probability they are telling the truth, and thus it can be considered historical evidence, yes.

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: If those embarrassing details are about your long awaited Messiah, yes it does increase the probability that what is written is true because it doesn't make sense to portray your long awaited Messiah in an embarrassing manner. And anything that increases the probability of something being true can be considered evidence because if affects my conclusions on the matter (see post 13).

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: Yes, in the case of the NT it can be considered some evidence that it is more likely to be true because if you are going to make something up in order to attract followers it doesn't make sense to write something that might turn off or confuse your prospective followers. Thus when several things like that were written in the NT it would seem that the writers were telling the truth, warts and all.

* 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?

DOC: Why pass along information in a written manner when the large majority of people can't read? Also when your leader says go into all the world and "preach" the gospel, I don't interpret that as writing everything down for people who can't read.

* Do you accept the fact that a story is included in a re-titled compendium of stories is evidence that the story is true?

DOC: explain.

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

DOC: Regarding the NT it is definitely evidence that helps support any oral tradition that the apostles were martyred? If a great historian like Luke is writing that the apostles are thrown in jail and flogged for preaching weeks after seeing their master crucified (Acts Chapter 5). And then when they are released and told not to preach Christ anymore, they continue to go around Jerusalem and preach daily, that is definitely evidence that would support any oral tradition that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred. Also when I have evidence that Paul and Peter were in Rome preaching that helps support the oral tradition that they were martyred because at the same time they were there, Nero was impaling Christians, and lighting them on fire to provide light for his parties.

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

DOC: It's just common sense that information that leads you to believe a passage is not made up increases the likelihood that the passage it is true, and thus that information can be considered evidence supporting the truth of the story.

In a nutshell then, your answer to Lothian's questions is "yes, but only when the situation applies to Christianity, not to any other religion." Well, that's clear.

 

[Rincewind]

Roads, Aqueducts, and Sanitation.

GB

But apart from roads, aqueducts and sanitation...

I think I'd better stop right now

 

[Simon39759]

DOC: Simple yes and no's can be a debating trick when they don't tell the whole story. Which I don't believe they do with the below questions:

* Do you accept that an author having an unpopular career is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure, it is some evidence that Matthew was indeed the author of his Gospel, because it doesn't make sense for someone to assign an author who was collecting taxes for the hated Romans as your author if you are trying to attract followers anymore than I would assign a former IRS agent as the author if I invented a religion.

* Do you accept that an author being unknown prior to publication is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure it is evidence when you had the opportunity to pick apostles like Andrew or Philip, or even a relative of Christ like James as the author of your Gospel. Why pick two relatively unknown non-apostles like Mark or Luke. It doesn't add up unless they are indeed the authors.

* Do you accept that quoting someone in a book is evidence that they are telling the truth?

DOC: If the book was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians like gospel writer Luke was called by famous academic Sir William M. Ramsay than it surely increases the probability they are telling the truth, and thus it can be considered historical evidence, yes.

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: If those embarrassing details are about your long awaited Messiah, yes it does increase the probability that what is written is true because it doesn't make sense to portray your long awaited Messiah in an embarrassing manner. And anything that increases the probability of something being true can be considered evidence because if affects my conclusions on the matter (see post 13).

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: Yes, in the case of the NT it can be considered some evidence that it is more likely to be true because if you are going to make something up in order to attract followers it doesn't make sense to write something that might turn off or confuse your prospective followers. Thus when several things like that were written in the NT it would seem that the writers were telling the truth, warts and all.

* 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?

DOC: Why pass along information in a written manner when the large majority of people can't read? Also when your leader says go into all the world and "preach" the gospel, I don't interpret that as writing everything down for people who can't read.

* Do you accept the fact that a story is included in a re-titled compendium of stories is evidence that the story is true?

DOC: explain.

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

DOC: Regarding the NT it is definitely evidence that helps support any oral tradition that the apostles were martyred? If a great historian like Luke is writing that the apostles are thrown in jail and flogged for preaching weeks after seeing their master crucified (Acts Chapter 5: 25-42). And then when they are released and told not to preach Christ anymore, they continue to go around Jerusalem and preach daily, that is definitely evidence that would support any oral tradition that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred. Also when I have evidence that Paul and Peter were in Rome preaching that helps support the oral tradition that they were martyred because at the same time they were there, Nero was impaling Christians, and lighting them on fire to provide light for his parties.

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

DOC: It's just common sense that information that leads you to believe a passage is not made up increases the likelihood that the passage it is true, and thus that information can be considered evidence supporting the truth of the story.

So, these criterion would apply just as much as evidence for other religions, then?

For example, L Ronn Hubbard being a washed-up science-fiction writer is evidence for Scientology?

Muhammad was unknown until Islam took hold, so that's evidence for Islam, right? And the Islam's teachings certainly are more demanding than the Christians ones, 5 prayers a day? A long costly pilgrimage to Mecca? And a whole month without eating or drinking under the hot Middle-Eastern sun?

Also, Harry Potter certainly went through many dangers, so that certainly counts as evidence that J. K. Rowling told the truth...

 

[joobz]

DOC: Simple yes and no's can be a debating trick when they don't tell the whole story. Which I don't believe they do with the below questions:

Your need to qualify your responses is clear evidence that you actually know the arguments you made in your OP are ridiculous. Why else would you need to add such specific qualifiers?

* Do you accept that an author having an unpopular career is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure, it is some evidence that Matthew was indeed the author of his Gospel, because it doesn't make sense for someone to assign an author who was collecting taxes for the hated Romans as your author if you are trying to attract followers anymore than I would assign a former IRS agent as the author if I invented a religion.

If this reasoning is only evidence for Matthew (or the other gospel writers) then it is an example of special pleading and NOT actually logical evidence at all.

* Do you accept that an author being unknown prior to publication is evidence that their story is true?

DOC: Sure it is evidence when you had the opportunity to pick apostles like Andrew or Philip, or even a relative of Christ like James as the author of your Gospel. Why pick two relatively unknown non-apostles like Mark or Luke. It doesn't add up unless they are indeed the authors.

Again, the question wasn't about the apostles or the gospel writers. Your response doesn't make sense.

* Do you accept that quoting someone in a book is evidence that they are telling the truth?

DOC: If the book was written by someone called one of the world's greatest historians like gospel writer Luke was called by famous academic Sir William M. Ramsay than it surely increases the probability they are telling the truth, and thus it can be considered historical evidence, yes.

Your response doesn't make any sense in relationship to the question.

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: If those embarrassing details are about your long awaited Messiah, yes it does increase the probability that what is written is true because it doesn't make sense to portray your long awaited Messiah in an embarrassing manner. And anything that increases the probability of something being true can be considered evidence because if affects my conclusions on the matter (see post 13).

If this reasoning is only evidence for a Messiah then it is an example of special pleading and NOT actually logical evidence at all.

* Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

DOC: Yes, in the case of the NT it can be considered some evidence that it is more likely to be true because if you are going to make something up in order to attract followers it doesn't make sense to write something that might turn off or confuse your prospective followers. Thus when several things like that were written in the NT it would seem that the writers were telling the truth, warts and all.

Such an argument can be made for Islam, Scientology, Wiccan, ...Sharing of embarrassing details is called establishing Ethos. It allows new recruits to relate to the leaders. Making difficult demands is also a part of all religions. IS that evidence that they are true?

If you qualify your statement to exclude them, you are once again practicing special pleading.

* 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?

DOC: Why pass along information in a written manner when the large majority of people can't read? Also when your leader says go into all the world and "preach" the gospel, I don't interpret that as writing everything down for people who can't read.

Again, you are not answering the question but answering the special pleading question.
In general, do the other written down stories (e.g., Illiad, Oddessy, Gigamesh) are both oral traditions and were written down. Using your reasoning, you would be forced to conclude that they are true. If you don't believe it, why? My guess is you have a special pleading reason.

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

DOC: Regarding the NT it is definitely evidence that helps support any oral tradition that the apostles were martyred? If a great historian like Luke is writing that the apostles are thrown in jail and flogged for preaching weeks after seeing their master crucified (Acts Chapter 5). And then when they are released and told not to preach Christ anymore, they continue to go around Jerusalem and preach daily, that is definitely evidence that would support any oral tradition that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred. Also when I have evidence that Paul and Peter were in Rome preaching that helps support the oral tradition that they were martyred because at the same time they were there, Nero was impaling Christians, and lighting them on fire to provide light for his parties.

Again, special pleading.

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

DOC: It's just common sense that information that leads you to believe a passage is not made up increases the likelihood that the passage it is true, and thus that information can be considered evidence supporting the truth of the story.

This one is a trick question that you fell face first into.
Unlikely to be made up isn't evidence for anything. It is a pure interpretation. What is really being asked is:
Do you believe that concluding something isn't made up is evidence that it isn't made up?

 

[joobz]

In a nutshell then, your answer to Lothian's questions is "yes, but only when the situation applies to Christianity, not to any other religion." Well, that's clear.

Yup. That is exactly what DOC is arguing. He will deny it, but his post couldn't be any better of a demonstration of special pleading.

 

[Rincewind]

DOC,

You've effectively stated that you'd dealt with my points regarding the apostle martyrs.

To summarise, you said that times were dangerous, and it was especially difficult for Christians when Nero was on the throne. Because of this, oral tradition regarding the martyrs is probably true. Now I'm prepared to accept that times were hard - I've read a lot of Roman History - but that's totally begging the real question.

I'll skip over the thought that this was deliberate, but you've ignored the main point of my argument.

Skim back to post #15633, and you'll see what oral tradition has said about the martyrdom of Simon the Zealot, who apparently managed to die seven times.

Now unless Simon was far better than JC at the resurrection game, only one of these can be true.

So - as I asked before - please can you tell us when, where and how did Simon die?

I'd also like to know on what grounds you have reached that conclusion.

DOC, you seem to believe that opinion is evidence.

On that basis, it's my opinion that the Jesus of the NT never existed, but his character was "knitted" together from the stories about other itinerant preachers, wandering self-proclaimed Messiahs and possibly even the occcasional terrorist. There was a lot of it about, contributing to the dangers.

This story was created by the "real" inventor of Christianity - Paul (if he existed... ). In reality, maybe the religion ought to be called Paulianity?

Therefore - that's my opinion, so I put it forward as evidence.

 

[Rincewind]

Actually to clarify the bit about the seven deaths:

Only one of the traditional deaths can be true.

By contrast - ALL of the traditional deaths can be false.

Simon - who presumably did die at some point could have died death 8.

 

[Simon39759]

DOC,


So - as I asked before - please can you tell us when, where and how did Simon die?

I am not dead.

I feel happy. I feel happy.