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

[Filippo Lippi]

"There will be more joy in heaven over one cyberman who repents..."

 

[amb]

And much rejoicing if DOC makes just one single convert to his cause.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I think the cyberman thing is much more likely

 

[Lothian]

[qimg]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnyz6gkT57hv2TM:http://www.ancient-future.net/uploaded_images/The-Saints-Fran-Angelico-719244.jpg&t=1[/qimg]

And much rejoicing if DOC makes just one single convert to his cause.

Are there women in that picture? I thought the bible was quite clear. There is only room for 144,000 men in heaven.

That is why the bible authors choose to name heaven after the london night club.

 

[Mojo]

ANKH UDJA SENEB (Life, Prosperity, Health)​

Are you a Vulcan?

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you a Vulcan?

Sometimes, but Ankh, Udja, Seneb is an ancient Egypytian greeting or blessing.


Vulcan looks more like this:

or occasionally:

 

[Rincewind]

[qimg]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbnyz6gkT57hv2TM:http://www.ancient-future.net/uploaded_images/The-Saints-Fran-Angelico-719244.jpg&t=1[/qimg]

And much rejoicing if DOC makes just one single convert to his cause.

Not to mention total astonishment!

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

I think some of us do a bit of a disservice to B.F. Westcott here. Although he became a bishop (and was actually a very good Bishop of Durham) he wasn't the simple apologist that DOC's usual dishonest quote-mining portrays him as. As a devout Christian, it isn't surprising that he thought that the resurrection was well attested.

But - and here is the important bit - as a biblical scholar, he rejected what he saw as false interpolations in the gospels. Included in this is the ending of Mark. The Revised Version, which Wescott edited along with F.J.A. Hort, was massively controversial when it was issued precisely because it did not include the disputed ending to Mark. Because it was not sufficiently attested within the manuscript tradition (the differences between which DOC ignores entirely because he has no intellectual honesty) Westcott and Hort rejected the traditional ending to Mark.

So, DOC, will you follow Westcott and reject the end of Mark as printed in your barely read bible?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think some of us do a bit of a disservice to B.F. Westcott here. Although he became a bishop (and was actually a very good Bishop of Durham) he wasn't the simple apologist that DOC's usual dishonest quote-mining portrays him as. As a devout Christian, it isn't surprising that he thought that the resurrection was well attested.

But - and here is the important bit - as a biblical scholar, he rejected what he saw as false interpolations in the gospels. Included in this is the ending of Mark. The Revised Version, which Wescott edited along with F.J.A. Hort, was massively controversial when it was issued precisely because it did not include the disputed ending to Mark. Because it was not sufficiently attested within the manuscript tradition (the differences between which DOC ignores entirely because he has no intellectual honesty) Westcott and Hort rejected the traditional ending to Mark.

So, DOC, will you follow Westcott and reject the end of Mark as printed in your barely read bible?

Actually, I think most of the more intellectual scholars and Apologists that DOC quotes from would be quite appalled at DOC's reasoning skills.

GB

 

[Lucian]

I think some of us do a bit of a disservice to B.F. Westcott here. Although he became a bishop (and was actually a very good Bishop of Durham) he wasn't the simple apologist that DOC's usual dishonest quote-mining portrays him as. As a devout Christian, it isn't surprising that he thought that the resurrection was well attested.

But - and here is the important bit - as a biblical scholar, he rejected what he saw as false interpolations in the gospels. Included in this is the ending of Mark. The Revised Version, which Wescott edited along with F.J.A. Hort, was massively controversial when it was issued precisely because it did not include the disputed ending to Mark. Because it was not sufficiently attested within the manuscript tradition (the differences between which DOC ignores entirely because he has no intellectual honesty) Westcott and Hort rejected the traditional ending to Mark.

So, DOC, will you follow Westcott and reject the end of Mark as printed in your barely read bible?

Actually, I think most of the more intellectual scholars and Apologists that DOC quotes from would be quite appalled at DOC's reasoning skills.

GB

Oh, absolutely. Most of the authors whom DOC's sources quote-mine were respected scholars (and often churchmen) who did solid work in their time and in their fields. Of course, in most cases, "their time" is long past, and it's reasonable to point out that these men were not the objective academics that they are sometimes represented as being. But from time to time, it behooves us to point out that their work is being misrepresented or presented in a misleading manner and acknowledge the good work that they did.

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not including Geisler and his ilk among the academics whose work deserves some admiration.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think some of us do a bit of a disservice to B.F. Westcott here. Although he became a bishop (and was actually a very good Bishop of Durham) he wasn't the simple apologist that DOC's usual dishonest quote-mining portrays him as. As a devout Christian, it isn't surprising that he thought that the resurrection was well attested.

That would mainly be me and in fairness, yes, I was a bit selective in my characterisation of the good man. I guess I was reacting to DOC's description of him as a 'textual critic' and omitting any mention whatsoever of his being a Bishop.

But - and here is the important bit - as a biblical scholar, he rejected what he saw as false interpolations in the gospels. Included in this is the ending of Mark. The Revised Version, which Wescott edited along with F.J.A. Hort, was massively controversial when it was issued precisely because it did not include the disputed ending to Mark. Because it was not sufficiently attested within the manuscript tradition (the differences between which DOC ignores entirely because he has no intellectual honesty) Westcott and Hort rejected the traditional ending to Mark.

I have to feel a bit sorry for these fellers. The conflicts between their faith and their scholarship must have caused them both a good deal of anxiety. I can't help wondering how differently things would have turned out if they'd been born a hundred years later, with the benefit all that extra knowledge that we (well, most of us) now have.

So, DOC, will you follow Westcott and reject the end of Mark as printed in your barely read bible?

You've hit the nail on the head there, I think. He'd have to actually read it, and then somehow gain an understanding of it, before any kind of discernment can be applied.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Oh, absolutely. Most of the authors whom DOC's sources quote-mine were respected scholars (and often churchmen) who did solid work in their time and in their fields. Of course, in most cases, "their time" is long past, and it's reasonable to point out that these men were not the objective academics that they are sometimes represented as being. But from time to time, it behooves us to point out that their work is being misrepresented or presented in a misleading manner and acknowledge the good work that they did.

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not including Geisler and his ilk among the academics whose work deserves some admiration.

I couldn't agree more.

GB

 

[maatorc]

In the "Do Most Atheists know that Science..." thread I mentioned Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" a few times because of its clear explanations of scientific theories. But, yes, they did talk about more than science.
In chapter 11 of their book they give the top 10 reasons we know the New Testament writers told the truth. I'll mention some of those reasons and maybe expound on them as time permits.......

This is an interesting if circular thread.

The bottom line is:
1. All primary religious texts are legends.
2. A legend is a literary-verbal device which transmits a myth.
3. A myth is a knowledge system.
4. Religious legends transmit the ideal of human perfectibility.
5. In the legend transmitted myth, to become perfect humans must transform their entire being.
6. To transform their entire being humans must transform their entire anatomy.
7. Occult anatomy transmits the method of attaining human perfectibility through transformation.
8. Their are many religious-spiritual legends transmitting the ONE-ONLY myth of occult anatomy, the best known in the West being Horus in Egypt, Jesus in the New Testament, and the Grail Legend. Others around the world regardless of culture, race, or form of presentation are similarly dealing with occult anatomy.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, that wraps it up then. We can all go home.

It's hard to believe that such an obvious and simple solution didn't occur to anybody else at some stage during the last two years.

 

[Lothian]

Well, that wraps it up then. We can all go home.

It's hard to believe that such an obvious and simple solution didn't occur to anybody else at some stage during the last two years.

Didn't DOC make the same point around about the 8000's. Actually no I remember now. He said slavery was good, carry on....

 

[Mojo]

I thought "Life, Prosperity, Health" might just be a dodgy translation.

 

[Akhenaten]

I thought "Life, Prosperity, Health" might just be a dodgy translation.

In a manner of speaking - it is.

The Vulcan salute first appeared in 1967 on the Star Trek second season opening episode, Amok Time.

The accompanying spoken blessing, "Live long and prosper" (Tich tor ang tesmur in Vulcan language as spoken in Star Trek: The Motion Picture) also appeared for the first time in Amok Time, scripted by Theodore Sturgeon.

The less-known reply is "Peace and long life." This format is similar to common Middle Eastern greetings (Shalom aleichem in Hebrew and Salaam alaykum in Arabic), meaning "peace be upon you", and its reply, "upon you be peace".

An even more ancient variation can be found with the Ancient Egyptians: the blessing "ankh wedja seneb," usually translated as "may he live, be prosperous, be healthy."​

Wikipedia


ETA: Given time, I'd say we could probably produce more evidence that the Vulcans wrote the bloody New Testament than DOC has for his assorted martyrs, historians and slave-beaters having done the job. And everyone knows that Vulcans always tell the truth.

 

[Lucian]

In a manner of speaking - it is.

The Vulcan salute first appeared in 1967 on the Star Trek second season opening episode, Amok Time.

The accompanying spoken blessing, "Live long and prosper" (Tich tor ang tesmur in Vulcan language as spoken in Star Trek: The Motion Picture) also appeared for the first time in Amok Time, scripted by Theodore Sturgeon.

The less-known reply is "Peace and long life." This format is similar to common Middle Eastern greetings (Shalom aleichem in Hebrew and Salaam alaykum in Arabic), meaning "peace be upon you", and its reply, "upon you be peace".

An even more ancient variation can be found with the Ancient Egyptians: the blessing "ankh wedja seneb," usually translated as "may he live, be prosperous, be healthy."​

Wikipedia


ETA: Given time, I'd say we could probably produce more evidence that the Vulcans wrote the bloody New Testament than DOC has for his assorted martyrs, historians and slave-beaters having done the job. And everyone knows that Vulcans always tell the truth.

Hmm, could be. Pretty sure the Klingons wrote the Old Testament though.

 

[DOC]

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.

Of course I never said this.

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.

And which poster did you not learn from?

 

[Hokulele]

Of course I never said this.

Now, I do realize that you are going for some record when it comes to semantic weaseling, but you really did express this idea, even if it wasn't your exact wording.

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet.

Trying to use the argument, "they didn't use the term 'New Testament' or Bible, therefor this isn't using the contents of the NT as evidence for the veractity of the NT" is simply wrong.