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

[zooterkin]

I was going to write that! You stole it! What do you think the punishment should be when you steal the only funny line a person has ever thought of? Cake or death? Or a sunburn?

Console yourself that I'm never, ever, going to write anything like your wonderful long posts. My only chance of a TLA is if one of my comments strikes a chord or tickles enough funnybones; if that ever happens (I did make the poll a couple of times, but didn't challenge the winners), I think I'll ask people to call me Mr Pithful...

 

[Helen]

Console yourself that I'm never, ever, going to write anything like your wonderful long posts. My only chance of a TLA is if one of my comments strikes a chord or tickles enough funnybones; if that ever happens (I did make the poll a couple of times, but didn't challenge the winners), I think I'll ask people to call me Mr Pithful...

Flattery gets you everywhere. So you can have cake. But not chocolate, though, that would be going too far. Sponge with jam, I think. Nothing too exciting.

And you tickle me often enough, Mr Pithful

 

[kmortis]

Flattery gets you everywhere. So you can have cake. But not chocolate, though, that would be going too far. Sponge with jam, I think. Nothing too exciting.

And you tickle me often enough, Mr Pithful

Do you two need a room?

 

[Helen]

Do you two need a room?

Would it have a mini-bar?

 

[carlitos]

No, I didn't say that, I'm saying I don't believe the books and their topics (some of which are listed in post #16152) are written at a 6th and 7th grade level.

Well, you are partly right. Congratulations. What would have been better would have been if you provided EVIDENCE for your assertion above. Since I'm feeling charitable, I will provide some for you. Here are a selection of paragraphs from the book that discuss the topics DOC referenced and their corresponding reading grade levels. (note that the online reading-level calculator I used inserted the "/" for some quotation marks; this didn't appear to affect the result)

6.4th grade:

10th grade:

10.7th grade:

8th grade:

Last comment to DOC - can you think of a reason why it would be better if the book was written at the 6th or 7th grade level?



]ust an aside - I found it difficult to keep myself from correcting the grammar in much of the text I entered above. Also, many of DOC's posts sound like they may have come directly from this book, especially the incredulous, non-sequitur parenthetical asides.



PS - The above are from Geisler only. I don't have the will to slag through Muncaster.


ETA - DOC, Now that I have spent time providing evidence for your argument, could you possibly answer the following question:

WHERE AND WHEN DID SIMON THE ZEALOT DIE?

 

[Rincewind]

Carlitos,

Puhlease!

When, where and HOW!

Maybe it'll be simpler for DOC to come up with some evidence that Simon the Zealot actually exisited?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well, you are partly right. Congratulations. What would have been better would have been if you provided EVIDENCE for your assertion above. Since I'm feeling charitable, I will provide some for you. Here are a selection of paragraphs from the book that discuss the topics DOC referenced and their corresponding reading grade levels. (note that the online reading-level calculator I used inserted the "/" for some quotation marks; this didn't appear to affect the result)

6.4th grade:[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_334674cbdc11e2abe7.png[/qimg]

10th grade:[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_334674cbdc1359d929.png[/qimg]

10.7th grade:[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_334674cbdc1469a84f.png[/qimg]

8th grade:[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_334674cbdc15696629.png[/qimg]

Last comment to DOC - can you think of a reason why it would be better if the book was written at the 6th or 7th grade level?



]ust an aside - I found it difficult to keep myself from correcting the grammar in much of the text I entered above. Also, many of DOC's posts sound like they may have come directly from this book, especially the incredulous, non-sequitur parenthetical asides.





ETA - DOC, Now that I have spent time providing evidence for your argument, could you possibly answer the following question:

WHERE AND WHEN DID SIMON THE ZEALOT DIE?

There is something seriously whacked with that reading comprehension calculator: The passage on Jesus of Nazareth gets a 10.7th grade level. Seriously, that passage sounds like stuff a Sunday School teacher tells to 4th graders.

And as an aside: this passage...WOW...Hume and Kant violate the Law of Non-Contradiction??? I do this 6 times before breakfast. What a typical Apologist; resorting to the Greek First Principles of Rhetoric .

It's not like The Law of Non-contradiction is even a "law", it's just a principle agreed upon for the sake of argument, and is debatable in and of itself.

GB

 

[carlitos]

There is something seriously whacked with that reading comprehension calculator: The passage on Jesus of Nazareth gets a 10.7th grade level. Seriously, that passage sounds like stuff a Sunday School teacher tells to 4th graders.

Yeah, maybe I should try another calculator. Unfortunately, since you can't copy / paste from Google books, I had to actually type that stuff myself, so my motivation is quite low.

 

[kmortis]

Would it have a mini-bar?

Yes, but it would only be stocked with Vodka and Vinegars^©.

 

[DOC]

... Also, many of DOC's posts sound like they may have come directly from this book...

Which posts?

WHERE AND WHEN DID SIMON THE ZEALOT DIE?

Why don't you tell us since you and some others are so interested in this lesser known apostle.

 

[Akhenaten]

... Also, many of DOC's posts sound like they may have come directly from this book...

Which posts?

That line was pathetic the first time you used it, DOC, and now it's just another one of the joke phrases that people reading this thread associate with many of your posts.

WHERE AND WHEN DID SIMON THE ZEALOT DIE?

Why don't you tell us since you and some others are so interested in this lesser known apostle.

Because it's your bloody fairytale, DOC, not ours. For the most part we don't believe that these characters even existed, and you are the one who has the onus of providing evidence that they did. So, DOC, what does your book tell you?

WHERE AND WHEN DID SIMON THE ZEALOT DIE?

As an aside, how does it come about that Simon gets the epithet of "this lesser known apostle"? One would assume, Shirley, that all of them would be equally well known.

Fact is, this fellow in particular seems very well known, given the number of people enquiring of you about him.

 

[DOC]

Why is the evidence for N/T any clearer or truer than say the
Veda, the epic of Gilgamesh, The Egyptian Book Of the Dead, or any other ancient fable?

Well one argument why one might say it is truer and clearer is because the New Testament motivated a person like Thomas Jefferson to take the time to cut out 900 verses of it and paste them in a book and call Jesus' teachings the most moral, pure, and sublime ever taught by man.

Yes, I know the not perfect Jefferson wasn't a mainline Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ but one has to wonder who created these most moral, pure, and sublime teachings that would cause Jefferson to do and say such a thing -- the lying Gospel writers.

The above -- along with the fact that solid historical evidence leads us to believe that it is more likely than not that the tomb of the historical person of Jesus was empty 3 days after he received the supreme punishment from Pontius Pilate (at least that is what the Roman Senator/historian Tactitus said - Christus received the supreme punishment from Pilate) -- all lead us to believe (along with the many other things I've mentioned in this thread) that the the NT is truer and clearer.

And as I've said before it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is (without the Resurrection being true) because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion, as even the apostle Paul basically stated.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And an empty tomb is evidence that the person who should be within has resurrected?

 

[Akhenaten]

Why is the evidence for N/T any clearer or truer than say the
Veda, the epic of Gilgamesh, The Egyptian Book Of the Dead, or any other ancient fable?

Well one argument why one might say it is truer and clearer is because the New Testament motivated a person like Thomas Jefferson take the time to cut out 900 verses of it and paste them in a book and call Jesus' teachings the most moral, pure, and sublime ever taught by man.

The main problem with this pathetic and hackneyed appeal to authority is that the authority you're appealing to disagrees with you.

Yes I know the not perfect Jefferson wasn't a mainline Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ but one has to wonder who created these moral, pure, and sublime teachings that would cause Jefferson to do and say such a thing -- the lying Gospel writers.

No, DOC, they were only lying about the source of the teachings. There's no doubt that there are indeed some moral, pure and sublime teachings in the Bible, but Dog knows, that's not where they originally came from.

Everyone knows all the best bits were stolen from the Egyptians.

The above along with the fact that solid historical evidence leads us to believe that it is more likely than not that the tomb of the historical person of Jesus was empty 3 days after he received the supreme punishment from Pontius Pilate (at least that is what the Roman Senator/historian Tactitus said - Christus received the supreme punishment from Pilate) all lead us to believe (along with other things I've mentioned in this thread) that the the NT is truer and clearer.

Yes, we do have some evidence for the truth of the NT, the moral, sublime, and pure teachings, and historical trail that points us to an empty tomb.

That's just an outright lie, DOC.

And as I've said before it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is (without the Resurrection being true) because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion, as even the apostle Paul basically stated.

An argument from incredulity ≠ evidence, DOC. Why are you unable to understand this?

 

[joobz]

Well one argument why one might say it is truer and clearer is because the New Testament motivated a person like Thomas Jefferson to take the time to cut out 900 verses of it and paste them in a book and call Jesus' teachings the most moral, pure, and sublime ever taught by man.

Considering that Jefferson called the bible a pile of crap, that would be a terrible argument.

Of course, we've been over this before.

And as I've said before it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is (without the Resurrection being true) because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion, as even the apostle Paul basically stated.

Christianity is true because people believe it is. Very very convincing.
It's not evidence.

 

[Elizabeth I]

the lying Gospel writers.

<<sigh>> How many more times do you need to be told that the writers of the New Testament - whoever they may have been - did not have to be lying. They could have been simply wrong - sincerely believing in the truth of what they wrote, but WRONG. In fact, that's what many of us trying to communicate with you think.

The above -- along with the fact that solid historical evidence leads us to believe that it is more likely than not that the tomb of the historical person of Jesus was empty 3 days after he received the supreme punishment from Pontius Pilate (at least that is what the Roman Senator/historian Tactitus said - Christus received the supreme punishment from Pilate) -- all lead us to believe (along with the many other things I've mentioned in this thread) that the the NT is truer and clearer.

Assuming the tomb you mention was the tomb of Jesus and assuming that it really was empty three days after His crucifixion, why - for the twelvty-five thousandth time - does that mean He was resurrected?

As I pointed out, King Tut's tomb (which we are sure was his tomb) is now empty but no one is claiming the Boy King was resurrected after his death. Come to think of it, you haven't replied to that one. Quelle surprise! or as we're more likely to say around here, ¡Qué sorpresa!

And as I've said before it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is (without the Resurrection being true) because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion, as even the apostle Paul basically stated.

Wow, so the fact that there are a billion-some Muslims in the world proves that Mohammed really did ascend into heaven at the site of the Dome of the Rock? (And careful with that special pleading you're so fond of...)

 

[X]

DOC: Please prove that the tomb was ever filled in the first place.

In other words, prove that the whole tomb thing really happened at all, and wasn't just some story concocted or embellished by preachers. Much like how modern preachers (and other storytellers) concoct and embellish stories.

 

[wollery]

Well one argument why one might say it is truer and clearer is because the New Testament motivated a person like Thomas Jefferson to take the time to cut out 900 verses of it and paste them in a book and call Jesus' teachings the most moral, pure, and sublime ever taught by man.

Because Thomas Jefferson had such an in-depth knowledge of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Islam, etc. that he was able to objectively judge the relative merits of each and arrive at a reasonable conclusion based on all the evidence.

Either that, or it was only the best he'd ever heard.

Which is more likely do you think, DOC?

Yes, I know the not perfect Jefferson wasn't a mainline Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ but one has to wonder who created these most moral, pure, and sublime teachings that would cause Jefferson to do and say such a thing -- the lying Gospel writers.

And the vast majority of those "most moral, pure, and sublime teachings" originate well before Jesus was supposed to have been born.

The above -- along with the fact that solid historical evidence leads us to believe that it is more likely than not that the tomb of the historical person of Jesus was empty 3 days after he received the supreme punishment from Pontius Pilate (at least that is what the Roman Senator/historian Tactitus said - Christus received the supreme punishment from Pilate) -- all lead us to believe (along with the many other things I've mentioned in this thread) that the the NT is truer and clearer.

There's no real evidence that Jesus existed as a single person, and even less that such a person was crucified. Tacitus was reporting hearsay, even assuming that that particular passage wasn't a later forged interpolation.

And as I've said before it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is (without the Resurrection being true) because the resurrection is the main focal point of the whole religion, as even the apostle Paul basically stated.

All modern Christians have is the story of what supposedly happened, and yet they still believe. That's all the early Christians needed too, a good story that promised them some sort of hope. A story doesn't have to be true to be either convincing (if not looked at too critically) or engaging.

 

[Helen]

Yes, but it would only be stocked with Vodka and Vinegars^©.

I see. I thought there would be whisky in the bar-o. Pity. You may cancel the room.

Assuming the tomb you mention was the tomb of Jesus and assuming that it really was empty three days after His crucifixion, why - for the twelvty-five thousandth time - does that mean He was resurrected?

As I pointed out, King Tut's tomb (which we are sure was his tomb) is now empty but no one is claiming the Boy King was resurrected after his death. Come to think of it, you haven't replied to that one. Quelle surprise! or as we're more likely to say around here, ¡Qué sorpresa!

I would really like to see your answer to this, DOC.

My father's tomb is empty, by the way. We know it is his tomb, the cemetery has records of it, and we were there when he was interred, but now it's empty, and there are official records of that as well. I have had night visions of him coming back from the dead many times since he died over 40 years ago, and just after he died, I predicted his resurrection (actual earwitness reports have me saying "I'm sure he'll come back, mum"), so I suppose his empty tomb is incontrovertible evidence that he has come back from the dead.

I'm just a little peeved that he hasn't come to see us. But I suppose he is busy starting a religion. You know, when I think of it, the fact that he hasn't come to see us yet, although he has clearly risen, is surely even stronger evidence of the truth of this, because it is a bit embarrassing, isn't it, to not come and see your family after being away for over 40 years.


DOC, I was intrigued by your use of the comparative form truer above ("the NT is truer end clearer"). If you say the NT is truer, then there must also be something that is truest. What would that be in your opinion?

 

[Aepervius]

My father's tomb is empty, by the way. We know it is his tomb, the cemetery has records of it, and we were there when he was interred, but now it's empty, and there are official records of that as well.

Water damage combined with a cemetery move ? It happened with the tomb of my fiancee. Sadly she hasn't visited me or my dream in 20 years.