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

[Lothian]

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.

But that differs from DOC's view. Doc thinks one verified fact makes the rest true.

[doc]So we know there was water and wine at the time. It make perfect sense for people drinking water to want wine. Therefore it is more likely that Jesus would turn water to wine. So, we have evidence (not but not quite proof) that it is true.[/doc]​

Of course DOC's view is hotly disputed by one of his favourite quote mining sources from the 19th century. Sir William Ramsay said you can find the truth of the mundane parts of the story but the essential parts have no evidence and require faith.

 

[Rincewind]

Has anyone seen DOC's signature?

Without that, why should we believe that he exists?

QED

 

[Filippo Lippi]

DOC's signature usually reads "Last edited by DOC"

 

[catsmate]

But there is evidence for the supernatural parts, just not proof, kind of like the big bang theory and life from non-life theory.

Really? What is this "evidence for the supernatural parts" that you claim exists?

 

[catsmate]

Oh, we've learn'd many a thing you've claimed to have studied. However, the evidence shows that if you did, indeed, study any of the things claimed (logic, theology, history, etc.) either your comprehension or retention is horrible. I think you've managed to hit every logical fallacy in this thread alone, your grasp of historical facts is laughable and even your theology is sub-standard for a Christian scholar.

Well it could have been his teachers, bible schoold aren't noted for their high academic standards or adherence to good teaching practices.
Perhaps Thomas Arnold should reform them? He was in favour of corporal punishment.

 

[catsmate]

So then you don't feel an empty tomb {justifiable according to the cannons of historical research} is some evidence for the possibility of the resurrection being true?

Nope. You'll need to provide evidence that the tome existed and was empty.
BTW which of the contradictory stories about the first visitors to the putative tomb do you believe?

 

[Akhenaten]

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

So, Judas got stuck with the tab?

Worse than that. He got forked with a lightning bolt.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

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

Market socialism is not communism. China is guided by the wise words of the late Chairman Mao Tsetung, one of the most vehement opponents of capitalism in history, which is why it is growing so greatly.

The USSR fell as Kruschev et al. abandoned the core of Marxism-Leninism. While it was led by the likes of Stalin, it was one of the mightiest nations in the world, and you simply can't deny that.

 

[catsmate]

........Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

Do you have any evidence for this ludicrous assertion or are just making stuff up again?

I asked you this forty days ago and you have refused to answer. Do I presume that you admit to fabricating this point and have no supporting evidence?

 

[zooterkin]

Nope. You'll need to provide evidence that the tome existed and was empty.

And, even more crucially, since those facts alone wouldn't prove anything significant, that the tomb was occupied by a dead body which came back to life.

BTW which of the contradictory stories about the first visitors to the putative tomb do you believe?

He's already told us that he believes the even more implausible story that the different accounts are not actually contradictory.

ETA: And the fact that they are contradictory proves they are true.

 

[Simon39759]

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.

I actually was not familiar with this usage of the word.
Now that you mention it, it does ring a bell and I probably ran upon it in the past, but it was not part of my lexicon by any stretch...

So, I learned something, and thank you heartily for that.

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?

Naw, we don't even have any reliable information about their precise authorship, date and location of writing.

We have traditions, of course. And a bunch of scholarly analysis that essentially disprove these traditions, but nothing half as elaborate as the history of the first copies...

 

[catsmate]

I whole heartedly disagree! I mean the man had one of the widest nets of writing subjects I've ever heard of. From physics, to biblical interprtation to being one of the seminal fathers of modern science fiction and on and on. You choose his biblical work to point out? Bah! BAH! I say!






All good Asimov fans know it was his limericks that were his most important works....

I prefer his Black Widowers stories. Though I find his Lucky Starr books a guilty pleasure.

 

[catsmate]

Then we've all just witnessed a miracle. We've made a 409 page thread and 16,300 posts appear from nothing.

"Appear from nothing"?

 

[kmortis]

"Appear from nothing"?

I think he attemped a joke. Another posted said that there was no evidence, so DOC replied that we'd witnessed a miracle. That miracle is that a 409 paged thread appeared from nothing.

It's not really that much better when I explain it, huh?

 

[Craig4]

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?

I don't think there are even any theories as to where they are other than they are lost to history. There have been ancient texts found in Vatican holdings over the years but those are more along the lines of "huh I didn't know we had this." The entire Codex Vaticanus is an example of that.

 

[Craig4]

But that differs from DOC's view. Doc thinks one verified fact makes the rest true.

[doc]So we know there was water and wine at the time. It make perfect sense for people drinking water to want wine. Therefore it is more likely that Jesus would turn water to wine. So, we have evidence (not but not quite proof) that it is true.[/doc]​

Of course DOC's view is hotly disputed by one of his favourite quote mining sources from the 19th century. Sir William Ramsay said you can find the truth of the mundane parts of the story but the essential parts have no evidence and require faith.

That's nice. I'd like to see Doc (or anyone else) prove it's possible to change water into wine. What the people want has no impact on what anyone is capable of doing.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

That's nice. I'd like to see Doc (or anyone else) prove it's possible to change water into wine. What the people want has no impact on what anyone is capable of doing.

I'm sure Penn and Teller could change Water into Wine.

GB

 

[kmortis]

That's nice. I'd like to see Doc (or anyone else) prove it's possible to change water into wine. What the people want has no impact on what anyone is capable of doing.

Of course it's possible to change water into wine. It's all a matter of timing.
1) Get a grape seed
2) Plant it
3) Water it
4) Let it grow into grapes (which require more water)
5) Pick them
6) Crush them
7) Strain the juice (which is mostly water)
8) Add yeast
9) When the yeast is done, you have wine.

See, water into wine in nine easy¹ steps



¹For wide range of values for "easy"

 

[Agatha]

[pointless anecdote] When I was at school, our biology teacher (Mr Summerscales*) spent several lessons giving us his rational 'take' on miracles. As I recall, the water into wine explanation was absorbent goatskin wine containers which were then used for water; the wine which was soaked into the skins then leached into the water, turning it into weak wine. [/pointless anecdote]

*I once got a week's detention for falling asleep in his class.

 

[Lucian]

I don't think there are even any theories as to where they are other than they are lost to history. There have been ancient texts found in Vatican holdings over the years but those are more along the lines of "huh I didn't know we had this." The entire Codex Vaticanus is an example of that.

Codex Sinaiticus (London, Brit. Lib. Additional MS 43725) is another old one. Both seem to be fourth century, so, though old, they're still a goodly bit removed from the time of the originals.