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

[DOC]

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.

Actually, the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was generally accepted quite early, and way before they were officially canonized. In fact it has been written that if all the 4 gospel manuscripts had been destroyed nearly all of the verses of those 4 gospels would have been able to have been retrieved from the writings of the early Church writers who quoted those 4 gospels.

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"...

Your use of the wording "made the cut" is obviously designed to be flashy wording. But in reality it makes perfect sense to not allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wrote about Christ to be in the Bible. One important criteria was that the authors were apostles (like John and Matthew) or were associated with apostles in some way (like Luke and Mark).

And your point that Early Christianity was divided {actually only on a few issues like circumcision} was probably inevitable given human nature and that there was no official bible early in the church. And Luke even reports on some of these disagreements, which once again leads to the contention that Luke was not made up, because if it was made up there would probably be no disagreements between the main church leaders like Peter and Paul.

DOC has refused to even acknowledge such posts.

Actually I have responded to similar points made.

If he did his whole Thesis that the NT authors were telling a singular "Truth" would collapse...

No it wouldn't, I've already pointed out that Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard, said all 4 gospels could be admitted in a court of law, and that divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses. I've also said I have never seen one alleged discrepancy in the gospels that can't be logically explained.

And don't you think most of the bishops at the Council (who devoted their lives to Christianity) knew of the seeming conflicts. They could have edited the gospels in some way or just chosen one gospel, but they didn't probably because they realized including all the gospels told a more thorough history of Christ's time on earth.

If your mother, father, relatives, and friends wrote a biography about your life do you think there would be divergent details. Would everyone describe your personality the same. Some might say you dated 2 people your senior year (Debbie and Karen) and another might say you dated one person, Debbie, your senior year. And they both would be telling the truth. Some might say you played 2 sports in school and another says you played 3.

 

[Akhenaten]

And which poster did you not learn from?

Probably the one who wrote this drivel:

But the logical analysis of those verses [from the NT] can lead one to believe that they were not made up, which would definitely increase the probability that the NT writers were telling the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was generally accepted quite early, and way before they were officially canonized.

What authority? Generally acccepted by whom?

In fact it has been written that if all the 4 gospel manuscripts had been destroyed nearly all of the verses of those 4 gospels would have been able to have been retrieved from the writings of the early Church writers who quoted those 4 gospels.

If the manuscripts had been lost they wouldn't have been lost because there were copies.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Your use of the wording "made the cut" is obviously designed to be flashy wording.

Flashy wording? And 'short-listing' is what, bedazzling? You need to get out more, DOC.

But in reality it makes perfect sense to not allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wrote about Christ to be in the Bible. One important criteria was that the authors were apostles (like John and Matthew) or were associated with apostles in some way (like Luke and Mark).

And we know this how, DOC? Why do you insist on presenting the very nonsense that you're supposed to be providing evidence for as though it was established fact.

You lose credibility when you do this.

And your point that Early Christianity was divided {actually only on a few issues like circumcision} was probably inevitable given human nature and that there was no official bible early in the church.

Only a few issues, DOC? If that were the case then why did the Pharisees allegedly get this Jeebus feller crucified? That seems to have been a little more than just a point of order.

Apart from that, there has been an official Bible for nearly 1700 years, and yet divisions still exist within Christianity that people will actually kill to maintain.

And Luke even reports on some of these disagreements, which once again leads to the contention that Luke was not made up, because if it was made up there would probably be no disagreements between the main church
leaders like Peter and Paul.

After all this time and the hundreds of times it's been pointed out to you (with moving pictures, even) you still don't have clue one what is meant by circular reasoning, do you?

Actually I have responded to similar points made.

Yeah, ad nauseum. Unfortunately all of your responses have been devoid of meaning, so you don't get any points. Bummer.

No it wouldn't, I've already pointed out that Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard, said all 4 gospels could be admitted in a court of law, and that divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses.

Speaking of ad nauseum, what do you expect people to think when you keep ignoring that nonsense like this stuff about Greenleaf has been refuted umpteen times and trot it out again as though it was some great and enduring truth that nobody can deny?

Let me tell you DOC, there's a sea of red flags being raised out here, regardless of your expectations.

I've also said I have never seen one alleged discrepancy in the gospels that can't be logically explained.

That's because you lack any understanding of the meaning of either 'discrepancy' or 'logical explanation'.

 

[Akhenaten]

No it wouldn't, I've already pointed out that Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard, said all 4 gospels could be admitted in a court of law, and that divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses.

This particular piece of regurgitated dross needs its own response.

DOC, would you care to give us a practical, working example of how the gospels might be "admitted in a court of law"?

Would they serve, for instance, in the defence of someone who had been hauled up before the Beak on a charge of beating sun-burning his slave servant?

 

[DOC]

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...

Actually his statement that I said it wasn't called the New Testament 300 years ago would be grossly wrong and completely misleading to what I actually said, and thus has nothing to do with semantics.

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.

I'll just let people read my long statement in context so they will know what I actually said:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6332384#post6332384

 

[Akhenaten]

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...

Actually his statement that I said it wasn't called the New Testament 300 years ago would be grossly wrong and completely misleading to what I actually said, and thus has nothing to do with semantics.

They're your exact bloody words, DOC. Are you trying to say Hokulele has misquoted you?

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.

Have you Googled "weasel words" yet, DOC? You should.

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.

I'll just let people read my long statement in context so they will know what I actually said:

Apart from the fact that all you ever do is say the same few things over and over, such that we can all repeat your stock phrases ad lib for our own amusement and the edification of the host unseen, a link to your original post was included in Hokulele's quote, DOC. Your implication that it was not is a disgrace, and I look forward to reading your apology.

 

[joobz]

Actually, the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was generally accepted quite early, and way before they were officially canonized. In fact it has been written that if all the 4 gospel manuscripts had been destroyed nearly all of the verses of those 4 gospels would have been able to have been retrieved from the writings of the early Church writers who quoted those 4 gospels.

You know, I bet we could take the Twilight series, Buffy the Vampire series, Angel, True Blood, Interview with a Vampire... and recreate Dracula.

Your use of the wording "made the cut" is obviously designed to be flashy wording. But in reality it makes perfect sense to not allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wrote about Christ to be in the Bible. One important criteria was that the authors were apostles (like John and Matthew) or were associated with apostles in some way (like Luke and Mark).

By, TOm Dick and Harry; I assume you mean:
The Apostle Thomas, The Apostle James, and Mary Magdalene.

No it wouldn't, I've already pointed out that Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard, said all 4 gospels could be admitted in a court of law, and that divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses. I've also said I have never seen one alleged discrepancy in the gospels that can't be logically explained.

If that's the case, you should actually try to logically explain them away then. Remember that logical fallacies render your argument null.

Let's keep this simple. start by explaining the conflicting geneologies of Jesus.

And don't you think most of the bishops at the Council (who devoted their lives to Christianity) knew of the seeming conflicts. They could have edited the gospels in some way or just chosen one gospel, but they didn't probably because they realized including all the gospels told a more thorough history of Christ's time on earth.

Well, we do have evidence of the gospels being edited.

If your mother, father, relatives, and friends wrote a biography about your life do you think there would be divergent details. Would everyone describe your personality the same. Some might say you dated 2 people your senior year (Debbie and Karen) and another might say you dated one person Debbie your senior year. And they both would be telling the truth. Some might say you played 2 sports in school and another says you played 3.

So, your faith in The Resurrected son of god (for which there is zero historical evidence) is best supported by a hypothetical high school girlfriend?

 

[Lucian]

If your mother, father, relatives, and friends wrote a biography about your life do you think there would be divergent details. Would everyone describe your personality the same. Some might say you dated 2 people your senior year (Debbie and Karen) and another might say you dated one person, Debbie, your senior year. And they both would be telling the truth. Some might say you played 2 sports in school and another says you played 3.

Well, while they may not be lying about what they believed happened during my high school years, their accounts definitely wouldn't all be accurate and inerrant. It's possible, indeed likely, that all of them would be wrong to some degree.

Now, if they came up with significantly different accounts of that time in sophomore year when I died (accompanied by earthquakes and a zombie plague), was buried and then rose from the dead a few days later, that would be weird. I mean it would be odd if only Aunt Brunhilda said, "Remember, right after she died, all those zombies rose from their graves and started rampaging through town?" while Mom, Dad and Uncle Thorvald said, "Errr, no, I mean I remember the ground shaking, and some folks were kinda pale at the funeral, but I don't remember any zombies."

 

[Akhenaten]

I see that DOC still doesn't understand the dishonesty of editing a post after someone has responded to it.

These two paragraphs were added half an hour after I'd posted my response:

And don't you think most of the bishops at the Council (who devoted their lives to Christianity) knew of the seeming conflicts. They could have edited the gospels in some way or just chosen one gospel, but they didn't probably because they realized including all the gospels told a more thorough history of Christ's time on earth.

Well, we do have evidence of the gospels being edited.

If your mother, father, relatives, and friends wrote a biography about your life do you think there would be divergent details. Would everyone describe your personality the same. Some might say you dated 2 people your senior year (Debbie and Karen) and another might say you dated one person Debbie your senior year. And they both would be telling the truth. Some might say you played 2 sports in school and another says you played 3.

So, your faith in The Resurrected son of god (for which there is zero historical evidence) is best supported by a hypothetical high school girlfriend?

You not only lose credibility when you do this, DOC, but you force people to question your integrity.

After you've apologised to Hokulele for falsely accusing her of misquoting you, you can get busy with an apology to me for this bit of subterfuge.

 

[Lucian]

Actually, I'm not convinced DOC is being weaselly about the "NT writers didn't know they were writing the NT" thing. I just think that his reading comprehension and undersanding of hyperbole are...uh...slightly sub par. Rincewind said:

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

DOC's explanation of why Rincewind is wrong:

Actually his statement that I said it wasn't called the New Testament 300 years ago would be grossly wrong and completely misleading to what I actually said, and thus has nothing to do with semantics.

So DOC seems to think that Rincewind was saying that DOC said that the New Testament wasn't called the New Testament c. 1710. In fact, Rincewind, perhaps feeling that this thread has lasted an eternity, suggested that DOC made this pronouncement 300 years ago. More confused than weaselly in this instance, I suspect.

 

[Rincewind]

Actually, I'm not convinced DOC is being weaselly about the "NT writers didn't know they were writing the NT" thing. I just think that his reading comprehension and undersanding of hyperbole are...uh...slightly sub par. Rincewind said:



DOC's explanation of why Rincewind is wrong:



So DOC seems to think that Rincewind was saying that DOC said that the New Testament wasn't called the New Testament c. 1710. In fact, Rincewind, perhaps feeling that this thread has lasted an eternity, suggested that DOC made this pronouncement 300 years ago. More confused than weaselly in this instance, I suspect.

Lucian - thank you for clarifying my position exactly.

I was using 300 in a kind-of biblical way meaning "a long, long time ago" - at least that's the way I've heard that numbers can be used in the Bible.

Sadly, I should have realised that DOC (Devoid of Content?) would have the opportunity to misread what I wrote, and respond in a totally inaccurate manner.

Sorry - my bad!

Howerver, I think an apology from DOC for his/her apparently deliberate misreading of the post is probably in order. And unlikely - I suspect I'll have to wait for 300 years for that to happen.

Anyway - DOC - have you put together the details of how and when Simon the Zealot died?

Not replying, of course, isn't doing your credibility any good.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was generally accepted quite early, and way before they were officially canonized. In fact it has been written that if all the 4 gospel manuscripts had been destroyed nearly all of the verses of those 4 gospels would have been able to have been retrieved from the writings of the early Church writers who quoted those 4 gospels.

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

Your use of the wording "made the cut" is obviously designed to be flashy wording. But in reality it makes perfect sense to not allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wrote about Christ to be in the Bible. One important criteria was that the authors were apostles (like John and Matthew) or were associated with apostles in some way (like Luke and Mark).

And your point that Early Christianity was divided {actually only on a few issues like circumcision} was probably inevitable given human nature and that there was no official bible early in the church. And Luke even reports on some of these disagreements, which once again leads to the contention that Luke was not made up, because if it was made up there would probably be no disagreements between the main church leaders like Peter and Paul.

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

Actually I have responded to similar points made.

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

No it wouldn't, I've already pointed out that Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard, said all 4 gospels could be admitted in a court of law, and that divergent details are normal with eyewitnesses. I've also said I have never seen one alleged discrepancy in the gospels that can't be logically explained.

And don't you think most of the bishops at the Council (who devoted their lives to Christianity) knew of the seeming conflicts. They could have edited the gospels in some way or just chosen one gospel, but they didn't probably because they realized including all the gospels told a more thorough history of Christ's time on earth.

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

If your mother, father, relatives, and friends wrote a biography about your life do you think there would be divergent details. Would everyone describe your personality the same. Some might say you dated 2 people your senior year (Debbie and Karen) and another might say you dated one person, Debbie, your senior year. And they both would be telling the truth. Some might say you played 2 sports in school and another says you played 3.

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

 

[Lothian]

But in reality it makes perfect sense to not allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wrote about Christ to be in the Bible. One important criteria was that the authors were apostles (like John and Matthew) or were associated with apostles in some way (like Luke and Mark).

We know the bible is true because it makes perfect sense for Matthew to be included as an author

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

We know the bible is true because it makes no sense for Matthew to be included as an author.


Heads you commit a logical fallacy, tails you commit a logical fallacy.

 

[Rincewind]

Lothian,

I think we're all looking at this from the wrong perspective.

Whereas we read "logical fallacy", DOC only reads as far as "logical" - and therefore that makes everything correct, explaining his/her view of the Bible.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

We know the bible is true because it makes perfect sense for Matthew to be included as an author

We know the bible is true because it makes no sense for Matthew to be included as an author.


Heads you commit a logical fallacy, tails you commit a logical fallacy.

Lothian - King of this Thread!

 

[Akhenaten]

Lothian - King of this Tread!

It's actually a co-regency, but I haven't made joobz's plaque yet.

 

[Lothian]

Lothian - King of this Thread!

We all know Kings are largely ceremonial, they simply regurgitate what they remember far wiser and more intelligent people telling them.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I'm writing that down... hold on...

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm writing that down... hold on...

Wouldn't it be more important if it was maintained as an oral tradition?

 

[kmortis]

By, TOm Dick and Harry; I assume you mean:
The Apostle Thomas, The Apostle James, and Mary Magdalene.

I was thinking the same thing. And, if DOC's logic was true, wouldn't Thomas, James and Mary Magdalene be better witnesses than Luke, Mark or Paul?

Of course, as we all know, we're still missing the Gospel of Levi.