• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether or not they believed what they were writing was true is probably unimportant at this point. We really know nothing about the people who wrote the autographs for a number or reasons. The chief reason is that we don't actually have any of the autographs so we don't know what the first authors wrote. We know what is in subsequent versions but that's it.

The real problem here is that there is no exercise in logic, historical source and literary analysis that could possibly support the veracity of the Bible. The only thing that could support even the suspicion that the Bible could be an accurate historical account is proof that the Natural Laws that govern the universe could be suspended. The Loaves and Fishes story violates conservation of matter. A human being unaided by some floatation device cannot walk on water. You cannot simply put a severed ear back on someone. You cannot wish water into wine. If any one of these things could be repeated it would profoundly change our understanding of the universe. Absent evidence that any of this is possible there is no purpose in looking for history in the Bible.
 
amb said:
If christianity has the proof of the truth that you think it has, then why don't the rest of humanity all become christians including the muslims.
Why do you think that your god is the true one when more than three quarters of the world's population don't believe it? Why do you think you're beliefs are the right ones and not Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist etc,etc.
Click to expand...

Umm... More important question is why are there jews around.
I mean if Jesus performed all those lovely miracles, surely all the local jews would have surely rushed to join the new religion.

Yet they don't. In fact, DOC, jews mock you for following a false prophet preety much the same way you look at Muhamad or Joseph Smith.

Why is that?
 
Even if all the Jews (and everyone else around, Harrod was really a cosmopolitan sort and there were people from all over the Roman Empire in Palestine) that would only indicate that they saw something they found really impressive. That still does not prove you can multiply loaves and fishes.
 
Cleon said:
No, really, we mock him for altogether different reasons.
Click to expand...

GrandMasterFox said:
I ment "you = christians" not "you = DOC".
If the latter was the case... Well... too many to mention.
Click to expand...


A point well worth making, I reckon. I gave up seeing DOC as a Christian ages ago.

Atheist I might be, but there's no way I'd insult my Christian friends by lumping them in with people who believe whatever it is that DOC believes.
 
Craig4 said:
Even if all the Jews (and everyone else around, Harrod was really a cosmopolitan sort and there were people from all over the Roman Empire in Palestine) that would only indicate that they saw something they found really impressive. That still does not prove you can multiply loaves and fishes.
Click to expand...


It's hard to believe that after all this time we haven't even got around to those nuts and bolts aspects of DOC's silly fairytale.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing him invent explanations for the miracles that Jeebus was supposed to have performed.

Although that still pales in comparison to my anticipation of him explaining Revelation. That's going to be pure Comedy Electrum.
 
He could easily provide youtube evidence that the zombie plague after the crucification have at least happened elsewhere and is therefore not completely extraordinary.
 
For the Bible to be accurate the evidence is not that he was crucified. He has to have been crucified, died, and come back to life. I'll be generous here and say with other crucifications the person doesn't have to be dead for three days buried underground, only that the person would have to have been crucified been clinically dead and returned to life without medical intervention.

There are instances of people surviving crucification but not being clinically dead and returning to life.
 
Craig4 said:
Whether or not they believed what they were writing was true is probably unimportant at this point. We really know nothing about the people who wrote the autographs for a number or reasons. The chief reason is that we don't actually have any of the autographs so we don't know what the first authors wrote. We know what is in subsequent versions but that's it.

The real problem here is that there is no exercise in logic, historical source and literary analysis that could possibly support the veracity of the Bible. The only thing that could support even the suspicion that the Bible could be an accurate historical account is proof that the Natural Laws that govern the universe could be suspended. The Loaves and Fishes story violates conservation of matter. A human being unaided by some floatation device cannot walk on water. You cannot simply put a severed ear back on someone. You cannot wish water into wine. If any one of these things could be repeated it would profoundly change our understanding of the universe. Absent evidence that any of this is possible there is no purpose in looking for history in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, now you've done it. You've gone and used the word "autograph." I predict DOC is going to dust off his "we don't have Caesar's autograph" post. I know you aren't using "autograph" in the sense of "signature," but I doubt that will matter.
 
Akhenaten said:
But . . . but . . . we have Julius Caesar's autograph now. It's on all the money.

:)
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. I have an autographed copy of the Last Supper Dinner Menu. It clearly reads "Jesus H. Christ".

Look, these relics were easily obtained in the 1970s if anyone were to take the trouble to look!!!eleven!11
 
DOC said:
According to the information received when you click on the # of replies figure, it says I have made 2,205 posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

Actually DOC you've made the same post 2,205 times.
 
Sorry. I probably should not have used the technical term autograph without explaining my it. In the study of ancient texts the term autograph refers to the first copy of the work. The first copy of Mark, the one written by the original author would be the autograph.

Of course the autographs don't matter if you cant prove that the Natural Laws that govern the universe can be suspended. Even if we had them it would not prove that you can turn water into wine.
 
Craig4 said:
Sorry. I probably should not have used the technical term autograph without explaining my it. In the study of ancient texts the term autograph refers to the first copy of the work. The first copy of Mark, the one written by the original author would be the autograph.

Of course the autographs don't matter if you cant prove that the Natural Laws that govern the universe can be suspended. Even if we had them it would not prove that you can turn water into wine.
Click to expand...

No worries. I think most of us in this thread know exactly what you meant by "autograph." My area is medieval English literature, with secondary concentrations on Old Norse and Shakespeare. "Autograph" is used in Shakespeare studies, even though that is well into the printing press era (no autograph copies [aka, the "foul papers"] of Shakespeare's plays survive). It's just that there is one member who tends to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "autograph." I was just making a mild funny.
 
John Jones said:
I don't see the problem. I have an autographed copy of the Last Supper Dinner Menu. It clearly reads "Jesus H. Christ".

Look, these relics were easily obtained in the 1970s if anyone were to take the trouble to look!!!eleven!11
Click to expand...

So, Judas got stuck with the tab?
 
Craig4 said:
Sorry. I probably should not have used the technical term autograph without explaining my it. In the study of ancient texts the term autograph refers to the first copy of the work. The first copy of Mark, the one written by the original author would be the autograph.

Of course the autographs don't matter if you cant prove that the Natural Laws that govern the universe can be suspended. Even if we had them it would not prove that you can turn water into wine.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, do scholars know what happened to the originals? Were they destroyed in some Roman purge, or was it just a case of them falling apart or some accidental fire or something?

Has some kind of tradition ever grown up around what happened to the original writings?

Is it possible that they are hidden away somewhere in the Vatican or somewhere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom