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

[TubbaBlubba]

Something that occurred to me: The great Karl Marx, whose writings would come to greatly influence mighty nations like the USSR and China, maintained that religion was the opiate of the masses.

That's something worth thinking about!

 

[Akhenaten]

Another question is when did the lying stop and the fiction of the earliest writers and story tellers come to be accepted as fact by the later writers and promoters of Christianity.

Nobody will be expecting this:

​

 

[Rincewind]

OK!

OK!

I confess as well!

 

[Akhenaten]

OK!

OK!

I confess as well!

Too late!!! Biggles! Bring in the comfy chair!

 

[John Jones]

Something that occurred to me: The great Karl Marx, whose writings would come to greatly influence mighty nations like the USSR and China, maintained that religion was the opiate of the masses.

That's something worth thinking about!

But do we have his signature on record?

 

[davefoc]

Something that occurred to me: The great Karl Marx, whose writings would come to greatly influence mighty nations like the USSR and China, maintained that religion was the opiate of the masses.

That's something worth thinking about!

Seems like the great Karl Marx main proposal was to create a new opiate for the masses, the results of which were pretty horrific.

 

[amb]

I think the only truth that can be extracted from the whole bible for that matter, is the names of a few people who actually did exist, plus the various names of localities and cities or towns, and a very rough guide of time lines. For example, there is nothing in any of the gospels about the Jewish war with the Romans in 66-70 CE. which probably influenced the writers somewhat into thinking the messiah was on his way to usher in a new kingdom of David. Every nut case who preached fire and brimstone may have been him they thought, hence, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Seems like the great Karl Marx main proposal was to create a new opiate for the masses, the results of which were pretty horrific.

I think you're confusing Marx with Stalin here.

 

[davefoc]

I think you're confusing Marx with Stalin here.

I think you're confusing the reality of communism with a communist paradise that is not possible given the nature of people and the reality of economic laws. Whether it is communist zealots or religious zealots in charge the results can be very similar for people if they happen to not be part of the grand design. Either way look for massive death and destruction.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think you're confusing the reality of communism with a communist paradise that is not possible given the nature of people and the reality of economic laws. Whether it is communist zealots or religious zealots in charge the results can be very similar for people if they happen to not be part of the grand design. Either way look for massive death and destruction.

I think you're confused about what this thread is about (as well as confusing Marx with Stalin).

GB

 

[davefoc]

I think you're confused about what this thread is about (as well as confusing Marx with Stalin).

GB

OK, I'm ready to hear some compelling evidence for why the New Testament writers told the truth. Or even some compelling evidence for why they didn't that hasn't been covered in the last 408 pages of this thread.

 

[davefoc]

Well, this is disappointing. I thought for sure there'd be some compelling evidence waiting here more than three hours since I posted that I was ready to hear it. OK, maybe three hours wasn't enough, but in the mean time I went looking for a little compelling evidence outside this thread. Turns out that much of the "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" is on-line: http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...h to Be an Atheist&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

OK, there it is, laid out in more than 430 pages of compelling analysis. The case for Jesus is proved. Christianity is the only true religion.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

OK, I'm ready to hear some compelling evidence for why the New Testament writers told the truth. Or even some compelling evidence for why they didn't that hasn't been covered in the last 408 pages of this thread.

Quite frankly, so are we.

So come on DOC, where's the Beef?

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well, this is disappointing. I thought for sure there'd be some compelling evidence waiting here more than three hours since I posted that I was ready to hear it. OK, maybe three hours wasn't enough, but in the mean time I went looking for a little compelling evidence outside this thread. Turns out that much of the "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" is on-line: http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...h to Be an Atheist&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

OK, there it is, laid out in more than 430 pages of compelling analysis. The case for Jesus is proved. Christianity is the only true religion.

I know it's a bit of a slog--but yeah, we've actually covered a lot of that crap in 400 + pages. I doubt anyone's going to repeat it especially for you though.

Better get cracking if you want to catch up.

(if you really think you can stand sifting through some of the absolute worst--I mean truly atrocious--Christian Apologetics I've ever seen).

GB

 

[davefoc]

I know it's a bit of a slog--but yeah, we've actually covered a lot of that crap in 400 + pages. I doubt anyone's going to repeat it especially for you though.

Better get cracking if you want to catch up.

(if you really think you can stand sifting through some of the absolute worst--I mean truly atrocious--Christian Apologetics I've ever seen).

GB

Thanks, to be serious for a moment, I read through a bit of the book and my take on it was that it made heavy use of a kind of persuasion where you bore people to death by stating the obvious and then you slip in your questionable conclusions. But I always have a lingering doubt about this sort of thing. I think it's crap, but maybe my biases are driving that conclusion.

On our camping vacation this year I happened to pick up a book that somebody was reading and it struck me as exactly the same kind of pseudo intellectual crap that people are forced to read in college by pontificating professors whose analytical capabilities are so weak that they can't state clearly what their point is. As usual, I expressed my opinion, in a fairly tactless way and was criticized by everybody for forming an opinion with so little knowledge and being unfair to the writer. I thought maybe they were right and tried to understand a little bit better what the guy was saying by reading a little more. It still seemed like crap to me, but I made some conciliatory comments and moved on. My point here is that it is difficult in this world to distinguish between what seems like crap and what is crap.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Thanks, to be serious for a moment, I read through a bit of the book and my take on it was that it made heavy use of a kind of persuasion where you bore people to death by stating the obvious and then you slip in your questionable conclusions. But I always have a lingering doubt about this sort of thing. I think it's crap, but maybe my biases are driving that conclusion.

On our camping vacation this year I happened to pick up a book that somebody was reading and it struck me as exactly the same kind of pseudo intellectual crap that people are forced to read in college by pontificating professors whose analytical capabilities are so weak that they can't state clearly what their point is. As usual, I expressed my opinion, in a fairly tactless way and was criticized by everybody for forming an opinion with so little knowledge and being unfair to the writer. I thought maybe they were right and tried to understand a little bit better what the guy was saying by reading a little more. It still seemed like crap to me, but I made some conciliatory comments and moved on. My point here is that it is difficult in this world to distinguish between what seems like crap and what is crap.

(My bold)
Difficult but I think its the most important skill anyone can have. Its more than that though; its also an attitude. Trying to reach a best possible understanding of what is true and not takes effort, and like many things, you get better with practice.

The god-awful alternative is plain to see in this thread.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Thanks, to be serious for a moment, I read through a bit of the book and my take on it was that it made heavy use of a kind of persuasion where you bore people to death by stating the obvious and then you slip in your questionable conclusions. But I always have a lingering doubt about this sort of thing. I think it's crap, but maybe my biases are driving that conclusion.

On our camping vacation this year I happened to pick up a book that somebody was reading and it struck me as exactly the same kind of pseudo intellectual crap that people are forced to read in college by pontificating professors whose analytical capabilities are so weak that they can't state clearly what their point is. As usual, I expressed my opinion, in a fairly tactless way and was criticized by everybody for forming an opinion with so little knowledge and being unfair to the writer. I thought maybe they were right and tried to understand a little bit better what the guy was saying by reading a little more. It still seemed like crap to me, but I made some conciliatory comments and moved on. My point here is that it is difficult in this world to distinguish between what seems like crap and what is crap.

It usually involves a lot of heavy book lifting, and sifting for information before being able to comment with any sort of credibility to back your argument. This means actually reading the crap. I'm not sure DOC even reads half the stuff he posts. And he often doesn't seem to have read much of the Bible either.

A lot of people automatically assume that CS Lewis was a crap Apologist. I've actually slogged through a fair bit of his post-Atheist Christian Apologetics very carefully. And I discovered a far more Liberal "Theologian" than many Atheists and Agnostics give him credit for--often straying way over the Border into Universalist territory (has to do with his primal pagan urges if you ask me).

My point being; it's sometimes worth the effort of putting on your intellectual wading boots and slogging through the intellectual mud and sewage to find the gems. And it helps that you bring to the table your own intellect, biases and all. Discernment requires not necessarily "tactlessly" stating an uninformed opinion, but actively "tactlessly" questioning the opinion of others after you've figured out what they're on about.

You'll still piss people off, but if you've done the legwork you have something to back up your opinions, and no-one can accuse you of being uninformed.

GB

 

[DOC]

Something that occurred to me: The great Karl Marx, whose writings would come to greatly influence mighty nations like the USSR and China, maintained that religion was the opiate of the masses.

That's something worth thinking about!

Yes, and the USSR in on the ash heap of history and Christianity and capitalism is growing in China.

 

[Brainache]

Yes, and the USSR in on the ash heap of history and Christianity and capitalism is growing in China.

It won't be the first time China had a problem with opium.

 

[DOC]

I think the only truth that can be extracted from the whole bible for that matter, is the names of a few people who actually did exist, plus the various names of localities and cities or towns, and a very rough guide of time lines. For example, there is nothing in any of the gospels about the Jewish war with the Romans in 66-70 CE. which probably influenced the writers somewhat into thinking the messiah was on his way to usher in a new kingdom of David. Every nut case who preached fire and brimstone may have been him they thought, hence, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

A more likely scenario is that most or all of the gospels were written before 66-70 AD. Not reporting on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans after 70 ad is kind of like writing a book in 2003 on the history of New York city during the decade of 1990 to 2000 and mentioning the car bomb that went off in the basement of one of the towers in the 1990's but not saying a word about 9/11.