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

[kmortis]

walking on water and coming back from the dead are pretty good indicators that
some embellishments were at play.

The only thing left out of the walking on water story is the vignette between Andrew and Thomas where they speculate if Jesus will tell Peter where the rocks are. It was only a couple of lines, so I can see how they'd get dropped.

As far as Lazarus coming back, he wasn't completely dead, just mostly dead. There's a big difference between completely dead and mostly dead.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sometimes the original thought is immune to further confusion by the Chinese Whisper process.

Have over 42 US presidents claimed the teachings of Harry Potter as their religion and has Harry Potter affected the name of the year in which you or your relatives were born (aka B.C. and A.D.). And have thousands of people been martyred (or would choose martydom) for their belief in Harry Potter.

It has to make 42 more that required of the US the lesson Harry Potter like their religion is the presidents and influenced Harry Potter the name year where you or their parents had been born (aka BEFORE JÉSUS CHRIST and AFTER JÉSUS CHRIST). And thousands of people martyred (or him it would choose the martydom) for the conviction with Harry Potter.

I defy anyone to say that one of these makes more sense than the other.

 

[Mister Earl]

Maybe in my 20's but then I studied the matter, and if you read my 2,170 posts you'll learn some of the things I've studied.

While I can't say I've read them all, I can say I've read probably three-fourths. And DOC, I've got to tell you, that you read as if you're desperately grasping at straws. Your arguments are based on a tissue of misconceptions. It reads like you're saying "If A and B and C are true, during D, then maybe E is right."

I couldn't say you've even made a single convincing statement in the entire duration of this thread. Additionally, I would have to say you've considerably weakened your credibility.

I do not believe that truth is a priority for you.

 

[bikerdruid]

As far as Lazarus coming back, he wasn't completely dead, just mostly dead. There's a big difference between completely dead and mostly dead.

...as is well documented in the film "the princess bride" and, according to doc's criteria, must be true.

 

[kmortis]

...as is well documented in the film "the princess bride" and, according to doc's criteria, must be true.

1) It's not a film, it's a documentary
2) Vizzini drank first Hey! you got your Star Wars meme in my Princess Bride! You got your Princess Bride Meme in my Star Wars! You both got your movie memes in my commercial! Three great tastes that taste great together!

 

[Waterman]

DOC has refused to even acknowledge such posts.

Actually I have responded to similar points made.

In some cases you responded but your ‘response’ did not address the issues raised in our review of the text YOU provided.

If I were to ask, “What time is it?”
And if you were to reply “Apple pie is tasty.”

That is a technically a ‘response’ and even may be true but not an ‘answer.’

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.

DOC DOC DOC,
I told you back in February that if you brought Greenleaf back into the discussion I would remind you of your failure to address my and Simons dismemberment of his position regarding the admissibility of the bible as ‘evidence’ in a court of law.

This has been paraphrased and snipped for brevity I have tried to leave DOCs responses unedited to show their true lack or actually proving a direct response to the points raise.

February 18th

Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.

Hmmm, citing a guy who has been dead since 1853 (157 years) and yes you are making a factual statement regarding his OPINION on the matter. As this boils down to an opinion is does not support your opening post.

Febraury 19th
Please note that DOCs response doesn’t address the point raised

More of the if it's not recent its probably not right thinking.

<snip> while I note the approximate age of the quote I dismissed it because it was an opinion <snip>

Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics {by applying the Ancient Document Rule}. <snip>

Ancient Document Rule, … (long discussion)

<snip> The use of the Ancient Document Rule that he used as one of his founding principals does not appear to apply to the Bible with the current thinking.

Therefore his opinion on the matter doesn’t count as fact because it is opinion AND it is outdated.

February 22nd
Please note that DOCs response does not address the issue raised regarding the faults found with Greenleafs argument and tries to play the martyr.

As I've said many times, the attack the messenger mode always heats up when I bring in some important posts. Must have been the Professor Thomas Arnold quote, or Professor the Simon Greenleaf quote.

<snip> My claim is that the reasoning employed by Greenleaf as applied to the bible does not meet the criteria required by current legal interpretations of the Ancient Document Rule. Therefore his conclusion and opinion on the matter <snip of aside> does not support you opening post.

You are continuing to cite Greenleaf, do you disagree with my claim? Other quotes by Greenleaf or facts from his resume or other accomplishments in legal, apologetics, or anything else are not addressing my claim. Where did I err? Did he found his legal opinion on something other than applying Ancient Document Rule to the bible as is cited in Wikipedia?

February 24th
Please note that DOCs response does not address the criticisms raised regarding Greenleafs argument nor the potential points I provided that could refute my claim. He is only cited as an authority.

The opinion of a man {Simon Greenleaf} who has wrote what some call the definitive book on evidence and a founder of Harvard Law school should be considered when you talk about evidence.

<snip> Filling out his resume does not tell me where I erred in my reasoning. This is continuing in the argument from authority and is a logical fallacy. As such it is irrelevant to your OP.

Note that DOCs response does not address the criticisms raised regarding Greenleafs argument and attempts to deflect the points I made by claiming that I have failed to explain my position fully.

And you talk about the advancement of legal thinking but don't explain what that advancement is. This is similar to Pax and Hoku who often talk about recent findings of modern scholars but rarely say what those new findings are.

I most certainly did. <snip> I read a modern interpretation of the Ancient Document Rule and they would exclude the bible on a number of points. <snip>

If he did not use the Ancient Document Rule as his foundation for this then that would undermine my whole {argument}. There is a great opening for you to undermine it, show me where I erred in my reasoning.

Note that DOC does not attempt to present an actual argument but instead referred me to another source.

And rather than mainly relying on Wiki we should look at the words of Greenleaf himself. In the following article there might be a few things outdated but the article gives important information to consider with regard to the topic of this thread.
http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm

Nothing you have provided here actually addressed my point…<snip>

February 25th
My review of DOCs source:

<snip of long discussion> So there is my analysis. It is my conclusion that Greenleaf’s use of the Ancient Document Rule as it applies to the Bible is one big special pleading <snip> Based on this we can dismiss Greenleaf’s essay as provided by DOC as relevant to this discussion outline in the OP.

<snip> All the analysis is there, where have we erred in our reasoning, further writings, quotes or credentials of Greenleaf do not identify in what way we have erred. Please enlighten us in this manner.

February 28th
DOCs response to another poster without addressing the post above. Note that I did invite him to discuss this topic with me and in some of the posts I even provided him with the weaker points of my argument.

I can't even get to all the posts in this thread and you want be to argue in another about physics. <snip>

<snip> Greenleaf’s apologetics that you linked was rife with logical fallacies. We invited you to show us the error of our reasoning and you have yet to respond{directly address them}. <snip>

I would like to hear your opinion on Simons and my analysis of Greenleaf’s essay. Not more information on Greenleaf, show us where we erred in our analysis of his position.
<snip>

March 1st
DOCs response to another poster without addressing the previous posts.

That's your opinion -- I've already given evidence that two (Matthew and John) did write their gospels. And the other 2 (Mark and Luke) were companions of the apostles (Paul and Peter).

You have abandoned the discussion regarding the Greenleaf. What is your opinion regarding our discussion of his position. <snip>

March 2nd
DOCs response to another poster without addressing the previous posts.

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...92#post4099592

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me. You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

Doc, you still have not responded to the Greenleaf discussion, nor to my repeated requests for responses.<snip>

March 4th
DOCs response to my pestering note that he uses his phrase ‘responded to.’ His responses in no way address any of the points that were raised.

I’ve already responded to Waterman on Simon Greenleaf (a founder of Harvard Law School). If someone wants to learn about Simon Greenleaf, the long article written by him I brought in should satisfy them. Or read his book about the New Testament authors and the subject of evidence.

In my first post re: Greenleaf, I had identified him and what appeared to be his argument from the Ancient Documents Rule (per wikipedia) and speculated where he may have erred. <snip>

How to you ANSWER the criticisms of Greenleaf’s argument?

As you are continuing to cite Greenleaf you feel that Simon and I erred in our discussion back in February. Please help me understand in what way did we err in our evaluation of his position? Expanding on Greenleafs resume does not address the issues raised.

 

[joobz]

DOC,

Are you happy with the posting track record that Waterman clearly outlined? I most certainly wouldn't be.

 

[Rincewind]

Waterman,

Excellent post, as usual.

I have to admit I hadn't picked up the weasel word "respond" - good catch!

I suspect that DOC doesn't even have a copy of Greenleaf's signature"

 

[kmortis]

I suspect that DOC doesn't even have a copy of Greenleaf's signature"

That means that Greenleaf either doesn't exist or isn't a World Famous Hamburgerler? I always get those two things confused.

 

[Waterman]

Waterman,

Excellent post, as usual.

I have to admit I hadn't picked up the weasel word "respond" - good catch!

I suspect that DOC doesn't even have a copy of Greenleaf's signature"

Thank you, I noticed that the word has been used that way for sometime.

 

[Rincewind]

Thank you, I noticed that the word has been used that way for sometime.

It gives rise to an interesting conundrum, doesn't it?

Is DOC deliberately using the word to try to cover up the fact that s/he's just not really answering the questions posed?

Or is it just accidental?

 

[zooterkin]

Thank you, I noticed that the word has been used that way for sometime.

I'm pretty sure he's been picked up on it before (I think I did it at least once), but like most other things that have been pointed out to him, he ignored it and carried on posting the same thing as if nothing had been said.

DOC, how about responding to the posts about Sunday worship being prescribed in the Bible?

 

[Akhenaten]

Waterman,

Excellent post, as usual.

Seconded. It's a shame DOC will wave it away with another accusation of "attacking the messenger" or similar drivel.

I have to admit I hadn't picked up the weasel word "respond" - good catch!

Ooh my wordy lordy yes. DOC even considers something like "I'm now putting you on ignore" or "Explain" to be a response.

I suspect that DOC doesn't even have a copy of Greenleaf's signature"

That should raise a red flag.

 

[RoboTimbo]

i'm pretty sure he's been picked up on it before (i think i did it at least once), but like most other things that have been pointed out to him, he ignored it and carried on posting the same thing as if nothing had been said.

Doc, how about responding to answering the posts about sunday worship being prescribed in the bible?

ftfd

 

[DOC]

DOC, 80% of your posts refer to the number of posts you've made,

10% at the very most and that's being liberal, so you are at least 70% off, so what does that say about the rest of your no new information post that does not respond to any quote of mine. And any troll who has not read one of my posts could come in here and say something similar to what you said. Another no information attack the messenger post.

the remaining 20% are contorted and strangulated examples of circular reasoning.
To be frank, I can honestly say I've seen no evidence as to the veracity of the 'truth' contained in the new teste-ment in any of your posts. However, I would like to thank you though. I had a visit from a pair of JW's on Saturday, I filtered your posts from this thread (and it's sister thread) and they agreed with me that the levels of dishonesty amongst some 'christians' is shameful and detrimental to their (and I assume your) message. Oh Doc, the shame of it, the shame of it!

 

[Lothian]

10% at the very most and that's being liberal, so you are at least 70% off, so what does that say about the rest of your no new information post that does not respond to any quote of mine. And any troll who has not read one of my posts could come in here and say something similar to what you said.

Another no information attack the messenger post.

 

[DOC]

You've presented that link before and I have responded to it before.

I stand by my statement. There is no historical evidence for the resurrection.

You've got the right to your opinion just as these academics have the right to theirs:

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

 

[RoboTimbo]

You've got the right to your opinion just as these academics have the right to theirs:

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

Admitting that it is just those mens' opinions is a small but important step for you, DOC. Eventually, you will get to the point where you finally acknowledge that there is no evidence for the truth of the magic parts of the bible, just a lot of wishing it were true.

 

[kmortis]

You've got the right to your opinion just as these academics have the right to theirs:

From the article: The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?

<snippage>

All around the cobbler's bench
The monkey chased the weasel;
The monkey thought 'twas all in fun,
Pop! goes the weasel.

A penny for a spool of thread,
A penny for a needle—
That's the way the money goes,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Jimmy's got the whooping cough
And Timmy's got the measles
That's the way the story goes
Pop! goes the weasel.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have to share this. I just spent an hour with some JWs who came to the door and I haven't had so much fun since I was a pup. One older lady and one teen girl, of course the older lady did most of the talking. (The girl was really cute.)

Anyway, I dug up so many things that I have learned from this thread that I have to thank everyone for sharing their biblical knowledge. Well, not everyone.

They talked a lot about the bible and so did I! I had to keep from laughing when the girl mentioned that she likes that the bible still applies in today's world. Guess what I said? "You mean like how Jesus gave us rules on how to treat our slaves?", and then they discovered that it was later than they thought and they had better be getting along.

Thanks joobz and everyone else who has actually read the bible!