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

[Elizabeth I]

doctor who is currently in his 11th life.
btw...did you know that doctor who is a real person?
he must be true, because he has been involved in many very provable historical incidents.
he fits doc's criteria for truth.

Indeed - either in this thread or the "Evidence for all other religions except Christianity" thread I proved that Jesus is really Dr. Who.

 

[Simon39759]

It's a miracle!

A miracle I tell you?

Say - you aren't Simon the Zealot are you, on your 8th life?

Perhaps you can tell us about your career?

Eight lives? Hang on, that's Doctor Who, isn't it?

Well, let just say that I do, indeed, hold a PhD and have been called 'doctor' in several occasions.
And, while I do not do it that much anymore, I used, in the past, in a, one might even say, a previous iteration of myself, used to wear a scarf...


Now, I am not saying that it is PROOF that I am THE doctor, but these facts certainly do help one to reach a conclusion...

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

The New Testament contents were decided upon by the First Council Of Nicea,with Emperor Constantine at the helm in 325 A.D.A huge number of manuscripts were submitted .The belief system is based on the Resurrection of the person called Jesus,something I do not believe in.
People have the right under the Freedom of Religion to believe whatever they wish...

Yes, many manuscripts were submitted, only a few made the cut, and many were destroyed.

Sorry, DOC, but are you actually aware that the Koptic and the Ethiopian Churches have books in their bible which are de facto considered heretical by the western churches?

How do you know these are not true? After all, they were not influrenced by the politically motivated Councils of Nicea.

I have made the point repeatedly that early Christianity was divided from Day 1 regarding both the variety interpretations of the texts that "made the cut" and by the texts that didn't at the Council of Nicea.

DOC has refused to even acknowledge such posts. If he did his whole Thesis that the NT authors were telling a singular "Truth" would collapse.

As long as DOC can pretend that the NT authors told only One Truth, he can feel free to employ every logical fallacy in the book to attempt to make his case. If he is forced to admit that there was NEVER a Singular Truth, then he wouldn't even be able to sustain his Logical Fallacies--which the refutations of he dismisses as "Opinions."

GB

 

[DOC]

...Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian...

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

Actually I haven't made anything up in the threads, and the above quote was what Oxford scholar A. N. Sherwin-White wrote. And here are some other things written by a Roman scholar, a textual critic, and a professor of ancient History, concerning biblical evidence.

From the article: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

1. Roman History Scholar - Thomas Arnold -- Arnold wrote the three-volume History of Rome and held the chair of modern history and Oxford University. He was well acquainted with the value of evidence in establishing historical facts. This great scholar wrote:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."10.

2. Textual Critic - Brook Foss Wescott

"Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."11

3. Professor of Ancient History - Paul L. Maier Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded:

"If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement."12

http://www.redeemerfw.org/resources/resurrection.html

 

[joobz]

Actually I haven't made anything up in the threads, and

Then you have one less thing in common with Luke. Afterall, he made up stuff in the new testament and is therefore not a reliable source.

 

[John Jones]

"The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe" - Frank Zappa.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

From the article: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

1. Roman History Scholar - Thomas Arnold -- Arnold wrote the three-volume History of Rome and held the chair of modern history and Oxford University. He was well acquainted with the value of evidence in establishing historical facts. This great scholar wrote:

"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."10.

<snip>

"Roman History Scholar"??!!??!!???

"Well acquainted with the value of evidence in establishing historical facts"???eleven??!!

Balderdash!


He was an ordained deacon, and a bigger apologist than even you.

Have you got a copy of this book?

Eminent Victorians by Lytton Strachey (Garden City Publishing, 1918)​

I have. Let's read some of it together, shall we?

Page 207

Thus it was natural that when the twelve noblemen and gentlemen who had determined to be guided entirely by the merit of the candidates, found among the testimonials pouring in upon them a letter from Dr. Hawkins, the Provost of Oriel, predicting that if they elected Mr. Thomas Arnold he would "change the face of education all through the public schools of England, " they hesitated no longer: obviously, Mr. Thomas Arnold was their man. He was elected therefore; received, as was fitting, priest's orders; became, as was no less fitting, a Doctor of Divinity; and in August, 1828, took up the duties of his office.

Priest's Orders????? Doctor of Divinity?????

Well, sure, he's going to be really objective, isn't he?

Pages 209-210

He married young, and settled down in the country as a private tutor for youths preparing for the Universities. There he remained for ten years -happy, busy and sufficiently prosperous. Occupied chiefly with his pupils, he nevertheless devoted much of his energy to wider interests. He delivered a series of sermons in the parish church; and he began to write a History of Rome, in the hope, as he said, that its tone might be such "that the strictest of what is called the Evangelical party would not object to putting it into the hands of their children." His views on the religious and political condition of the country began to crystallise. He was alarmed by the "want of Christian principle in the literature of the day", looking forward anxiously to "the approach of a greater struggle between good and evil than the world has yet seen"; and, after a serious conversation with Dr. Whately, began to conceive the necessity of considerable alterations in the Church Establishment. All who knew him during these years were profoundly impressed by the earnestness of his religious convictions and feelings, which, as one observer said, "were ever bursting forth. "It was impossible to disregard his "deep consciousness of the invisible world" and "the peculiar feeling of love and adoration which he entertained towards our Lord Jesus Christ." "His manner of awed reverence when speaking of God or of the Scriptures" was particularly striking. "No one could know him even a little, " said another friend, "and not be struck by his absolute wrestling with evil, so that like St. Paul he seemed to be battling with the wicked one, and yet with a feeling of God's help on his side."

my bolding​

Think he might have had an agenda running there, DOC?


I'll deal with your other pathetic Appeals to Authority in due course.

 

[Lucian]

Following up on Akhenaten's points about Arnold: Brooke Foss Westcott was Bishop of Durham and Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. According to Wikipedia,

His theological work was always distinguished by the place which he assigned to Divine Revelation in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of history. His own studies have largely contributed in England to their current understanding of the doctrines of the Resurrection and the Incarnation.

Again, hardly a disinterested observer. The only non-Victorian in this new list, Paul L. Maier, is perhaps best known for appearing on Penn and Teller's ********. He didn't come off particularly well in that show, although he may not have been treated and edited fairly. It is also worth pointing out that he merely says that the tomb was empty: he doesn't claim, in the passage DOC quoted second hand, that there is any real evidence of the resurrection.

Fun fact, not only was Thomas Arnold the father of Matthew Arnold, he was the great grandfather of Julian and Aldous Huxley.

 

[Akhenaten]

Further . . .


Paul L. Maier

He is the son of Walter A. Maier I (1893-1950), founder and long time Speaker of the Lutheran Hour. Not unlike his father, Paul strongly identifies as Christian and his role as an apologist has recently become apparent in his co-writing of "The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?" with Christian apologist Hank Hanegraaf. The book is a critical rebuttal of Dan Brown's 2003 topseller "The Da Vinci Code".
my bolding

source​

Maier's areas of interest include the Ancient Near East; Ancient Greece; Ancient Rome; Christianity and the Roman Empire; and the Reformation Era.

He is the author of sixteen published books, both historical fiction and non-fiction. His historical fiction includes the #1 national best-seller in religious fiction A Skeleton in God's Closet (1993), as well as Pontius Pilate (1968), The Flames of Rome (1981), More Than A Skeleton (2003), and the children's book The Very First Christmas (1998). Maier's non-fiction work includes Josephus: The Essential Works, a translation and abridgement of the writings of Josephus; and The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea, a translation of Eusebius' Church History.

Maier co-wrote The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? with Christian apologist Hank Hanegraaf. The book is a critical rebuttal of Dan Brown's 2003 topseller The Da Vinci Code. In addition, he has published well over 200 articles and reviews in such journals as Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, Church History, Harvard Theological Review, Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie, Concordia Theological Quarterly, Concordia Journal, Mankind, Christian Century, Christianity Today, and Christian Herald.

He travels and lectures frequently. In 2004, he was featured on the Christian daily talk show, 100 Huntley Street in Canada for the entire year. He is a frequent guest on the show.

source​

It makes sense, I suppose, that a preacher will refer to other preachers in the course of his preaching, but since what you're supposed to be doing here is providing evidence rather than preaching, your mission appears doomed.

So, DOC, how about you stop preaching and start evidencing?

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually I haven't made anything up in the threads, and the above quote was what Oxford scholar A. N. Sherwin-White wrote. And here are some other things written by a Roman scholar, a textual critic, and a professor of ancient History, concerning biblical evidence.

<snip>

2. Textual Critic - Brook Foss Wescott

"Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."

<snip>

Just by the way, DOC, you misspelled the name of one of your star witnesses. You lose credibility when you do that.

Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was an English churchman and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death.

source​

So you describe him as a 'textual critic' when he was, in fact, the Bishop of Durham. That should raise a red flag. Or is it attacking the messenger? I always get those two mixed up.

Whatever . . .

B.F. Westcott worked on the committee of the Revised Version of the Bible. The Revised Version, was commissioned only to supposedly correct any errors in the King James Bible. The committee was ordered not to change manuscripts, or to use any manuscripts not used in the King James Bible, and also that any and all revisions made had to be incredibly limited.

This was the plan . . . though misguided by the thought that there were errors in the King James Bible, they were decent in wanting to keep to the manuscripts that had been proven to be true and reliable. However, Westcott, and Hort, did not have convictions that the Bible was the Word of God, and were deceived into believing and teaching that the manuscripts used to put together the King James Bible of 1611, should be discarded.

Because of this, Westcott (and Hort), subtly introduced other manuscripts and caused the committee to slowly completely depart from the Manuscripts they were told to strictly use.

They did so subltly because if it was realized what was being done, they would have most likely been kicked off the committee. Westcott succeeded in doing just what he wanted, and the end result was that when the Revised Bible was completed, it was no longer a 'more correct' King James Bible, but a completely different Bible, with Different manuscripts and corruptions galore. Researching, it becomes evident that these corruptions were in line with the unbiblical beliefs of Westcott (and Hort).

my bolding

source​

As if it's not bad enough that you dishonestly continue to try and use the bible as evidence for its own veracity, now you're going to attempt to use one of its authors as a witness.

You have no credibility left to lose when you do this. That's a lucky break, isn't it?

 

[Mojo]

From the page Wikipedia cited above by Akhenaten:

Maier co-wrote The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?...

...

Maier appeared in a 2004 episode of the Showtime TV show, ********!, entitled The Bible: Fact or Fiction?.

I think I see a common theme here.

 

[Rincewind]

Well, let just say that I do, indeed, hold a PhD and have been called 'doctor' in several occasions.
And, while I do not do it that much anymore, I used, in the past, in a, one might even say, a previous iteration of myself, used to wear a scarf...


Now, I am not saying that it is PROOF that I am THE doctor, but these facts certainly do help one to reach a conclusion...

Well - that convices me, your doc-ship...

Oops sorry!

 

[Akhenaten]

He evidently didn't understand this point last time I made it either, since that was several days before his most recent use of this argument.

As they say in the classics . . .

Jeremiah 5:21 (King James Version)

²¹Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.

I was thinking about simply referring back to your post as that part of my response but then I noticed something:

Mark 2:17 (King James Version)

¹⁷When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance".

Luke 5:31-32 (King James Version)

³¹And Jesus answering said unto them, "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick."

³²"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Different authors, eh? Writing independent accounts?

Hands up everybody who believes that crock.

And I'm not even on ignore.

As the famous commentator, Sir Rincewind, has observed:

At some levels we're all on ignore!

 

[Rincewind]

you know, I've just realised that the basic premise that we could have any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth is completely busted.

And we have DOC to thank for this bombshell!

He stated some 300 years ago that it wasn't called the NT when is was being written.

So - on that basis, and following DOC's "scholarship", this whole thread is based on a false premise!

So there you go, who'd have thought it, huh?

I'd like to take the opportunity to add my comments to those of other posters.

This thread has been enjoyable, and I've learnt a lot, though sadly not from one particulat poster.

I'm in awe of the knowledge of many of the denizens of these forums, and their willingness to share it - I think you know who you are...

 

[Rincewind]

As the famous commentator, Sir Rincewind, has observed:

​

Oh - I've come over all embarrassed....

Thank you Sir Pharoah - and thank you for keeping us informed and amused over all these dark and dangerous posts.

 

[Akhenaten]

ANKH UDJA SENEB (Life, Prosperity, Health)​

 

[Yithmas]

Yes, many manuscripts were submitted, only a few made the cut, and many were destroyed.



I have made the point repeatedly that early Christianity was divided from Day 1 regarding both the variety interpretations of the texts that "made the cut" and by the texts that didn't at the Council of Nicea.

DOC has refused to even acknowledge such posts. If he did his whole Thesis that the NT authors were telling a singular "Truth" would collapse.

As long as DOC can pretend that the NT authors told only One Truth, he can feel free to employ every logical fallacy in the book to attempt to make his case. If he is forced to admit that there was NEVER a Singular Truth, then he wouldn't even be able to sustain his Logical Fallacies--which the refutations of he dismisses as "Opinions."

GB

Ah, I see. I thought the point had in some way been brought up before. And since DOC posted right after you and did not comment at all, your point is also adequately demonstrated.

 

[Lothian]

2. Textual Critic - Brook Foss Wescott

"Taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."11

Doc this is either empty rhetoric or it is true. Lets do a very quick test. I have picked pick a random event that would have been history to Brook Foss Wescott. The battle of Little Big Horn,

We have an Eye witness testimonies from Lakota Chief Red Horse

We have pages of evidence from the Reno enquiry (3 years later)

We have 5000 archaeological artefacts from the site.

and most importantly we have George Armstrong Custer signature,

So what better and more varied evidence is there that shows the resurection is more believable than the Battle of Little Big Horn?

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

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

<snip>

I prefer 'The Pauline Heresy'

 

[catsmate]

Indeed - either in this thread or the "Evidence for all other religions except Christianity" thread I proved that Jesus is really Dr. Who.

He loves all creatures. Except Daleks.