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

[Resume]

There is a difference between faith and blind faith. Yes, you do need faith to believe in Christianity just like you need faith to believe 10 billion trillion stars came from something smaller than an atom.

Nope. You need a telescope and an understanding that from our point of vantage we're +/- 13 billion light years from the expanding edge of the observable universe.

Your superstition? Mostly bald, uncorroborated assertion.

 

[John Jones]

Well as I have said before the title of this thread was taken from Geisler's book Chapter 11 on the spur of the moment. He was probably referring to himself and his co-author. If I had to do it over I would title this thread "Evidence that the NT writers were telling the truth". And I believe some of that evidence can be found in post 13104. I will bring in some more evidence within 12 days or so, when I get the time to properly present it.

And in case you missed it, a definition for evidence was stated in post #13.

DOC, do you want to know what I think?

I think you should abandon this thread as a total loss, and start another about Geisler's book.

Only don't make references to evidence you can't provide, and don't repeat the number of times you have posted.

John Jones

 

[X]

And don't use Geisler.

Use someone with a little more credibility. Kirk Cameron, perhaps...

 

[Toke]

The banana of faith?

 

[joobz]

Here is some of what Wiki says on "Stoning:

"In AD 30, {right around the time of Jesus' ministry} forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment. As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.
<snip>
Prior to early Christianity, particularly in the Mishnah, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the morality of capital punishment in general and stoning in particular. The laws make it clear that the death penalty was used only rarely.
<snip>

In other words, even 2000 years ago people realized that the morality taught in the old testament was outdated and barbaric.
Just like how we now realize that the morality taught in the new testament (e.g., condoning slavery, advocation of thought crimes,...) is outdated and barbaric.

 

[Simon39759]

Here is some of what Wiki says on "Stoning:
"In AD 30, {right around the time of Jesus' ministry} forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment. As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

That's interesting... After all, stoning figures quite heavily as a plot devide in the whole sequence of Jesus and the adulteress (as related in John 7:53-8:11). If stoning had been abolished at the time, this story makes no sense...
That would suggest a made up story by somebody with only a passing imperfect understanding of the legal climate of the time...

Well, guess what, looking into it deeper, it would seem that the story was not included in the original manuscripts. And that the scholarly majority view for Jesus and the woman taken in adultery^WP is that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."

So, another cool example of the New Testament not telling the truth. Thanks for pointing that to me...

 

[X]

That's interesting... After all, stoning figures quite heavily as a plot devide in the whole sequence of Jesus and the adulteress (as related in John 7:53-8:11). If stoning had been abolished at the time, this story makes no sense...
That would suggest a made up story by somebody with only a passing imperfect understanding of the legal climate of the time...

Well, guess what, looking into it deeper, it would seem that the story was not included in the original manuscripts. And that the scholarly majority view for Jesus and the woman taken in adultery^WP is that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."

So, another cool example of the New Testament not telling the truth. Thanks for pointing that to me...

Poor DOC.

Now he either has to admit that stoning was not abolished¹, or he has to accept the scholarly view of the New Testament².

1) Which is contrary to his claim in the post you quoted
2) Which indicates that the gospels were written/copied/adapted by anonymous authors long after the events and that several parts were added later still.


Well, I know which I'd choose.
(hint: follow the evidence)

 

[joobz]

Poor DOC.

Now he either has to admit that stoning was not abolished¹, or he has to accept the scholarly view of the New Testament².

1) Which is contrary to his claim in the post you quoted
2) Which indicates that the gospels were written/copied/adapted by anonymous authors long after the events and that several parts were added later still.


Well, I know which I'd choose.
(hint: follow the evidence)

You forgot option 3: Pretend that there is no conflict and make bizarre non sequitor appeals to authority.

 

[bikerdruid]

That's interesting... After all, stoning figures quite heavily as a plot devide in the whole sequence of Jesus and the adulteress (as related in John 7:53-8:11). If stoning had been abolished at the time, this story makes no sense...
That would suggest a made up story by somebody with only a passing imperfect understanding of the legal climate of the time...

Well, guess what, looking into it deeper, it would seem that the story was not included in the original manuscripts. And that the scholarly majority view for Jesus and the woman taken in adultery^WP is that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."

So, another cool example of the New Testament not telling the truth. Thanks for pointing that to me...

in all fairness....
doc's source said that stoning was abolished in about 30AD.
if the biblical scholars are correct, jesus was born around 6BC. he would have been dead by 30AD, so this does not refute the gospel account of the 'about to be stoned adultress'.

 

[zooterkin]

Here is some of what Wiki says on "Stoning:

"In AD 30, {right around the time of Jesus' ministry} forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment. As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.

(Your interpolation is bolded above.)

As they were under Roman law at the time, wasn't this a moot point?

And the OT talks of those laws, but the only actual stonings that come to mind is that of the martyr Stephen who was one of the first deacons of the new church.

Um, since that supposedly happened around 34AD, doesn't that suggest that stoning wasn't effectively abolished in 30AD? Or, perhaps, Stephen wasn't stoned to death?

Much of the Jews whole identity of that era was their religion.

Really? Not their whole culture?

Just as much of our identity is to be a citizen of our country. The US has the death penalty for treason, but few actually receive it.

Well, very few have been prosecuted for treason in the last fifty years; on the other hand, many receive the death penalty for other crimes.

When you think about it, rebelling against the one and only God who created you and the universe (whom they of that era certainly believe existed) should be a more serious offense then rebelling against your country.

What definition of thinking are you using? Why should your God need to inflict such barbaric punishments on people for using the free will he allegedly created them with, especially when he is supposedly able to punish any offenders after their death?

 

[Lothian]

There is a difference between faith and blind faith. Yes, you do need faith to believe in Christianity just like you need faith to believe 10 billion trillion stars came from something smaller than an atom.

Also 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT) says this:

"Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it."

Observation shows the stars expanding from a singularity. That is evidence for the big bang. Please supply one bit of evidence, as strong as the expansion of the universe, that the NT authors told the truth.

To help you out

• Person A believes religion B is true.
• Person C thinks the story in holy book D is likely to be true
• The place E in the story F exists
• Person G cut out the stuff he though was made up in Holy book H
• Person I reported that people believed J
• The number of copies of holy book K
• The spread of belief L by peaceful means
• Including difficult saying M
• The inclusion of embarrassing story N about Character O in holy book P
• Q changing their long held belief R to belief S
• The inclusion of moral law T which seems right today in holy book U
• Ignorant People not understanding that V does not need a designer
• The belief of Lawyer W
• The belief of astrophysicist X
• The belief of professor Y and
• People dying believing Z

Are not evidence of truth.

 

[Lothian]

Here is some of what Wiki says on "Stoning:

"In AD 30, {right around the time of Jesus' ministry} forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment. As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.
<snip>
Prior to early Christianity, particularly in the Mishnah, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the morality of capital punishment in general and stoning in particular. The laws make it clear that the death penalty was used only rarely.
<snip>
In the Sahih Bukhari, however, stoning is mandated by Mohammed at least 34 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

____

And the OT talks of those laws, but the only actual stonings that come to mind is that of the martyr Stephen who was one of the first deacons of the new church.

Much of the Jews whole identity of that era was their religion. Just as much of our identity is to be a citizen of our country. The US has the death penalty for treason, but few actually receive it. When you think about it, rebelling against the one and only God who created you and the universe (whom they of that era certainly believe existed) should be a more serious offense then rebelling against your country.

So what you are saying is that a council of 23 mortal men decided that God was wrong to order stoning, however there is no evidence of Jesus ever withdrawing his (Dad's) law, so for true Christians it should still be followed.

 

[Mojo]

in all fairness....
doc's source said that stoning was abolished in about 30AD.
if the biblical scholars are correct, jesus was born around 6BC. he would have been dead by 30AD, so this does not refute the gospel account of the 'about to be stoned adultress'.

Unless, as Luke claims, he was born during the census of Quirenius in 6AD.

 

[Simon39759]

in all fairness....
doc's source said that stoning was abolished in about 30AD.
if the biblical scholars are correct, jesus was born around 6BC. he would have been dead by 30AD, so this does not refute the gospel account of the 'about to be stoned adultress'.

Not really, the NT chronology is very dodgy. I agree that the general consensus is about him being born around 6 BCE but the date of his death is actually less clear.
The NT makes it clear that he died AFTER John the baptist. And Josephus mentions John the Baptist as being killed around 35 or 36 CE. Luke does mention that John did not start preaching until 28-29 CE, which would be pretty consistent with that...

 

[zooterkin]

Not really, the NT chronology is very dodgy. I agree that the general consensus is about him being born around 6 BCE but the date of his death is actually less clear.
The NT makes it clear that he died AFTER John the baptist. And Josephus mentions John the Baptist as being killed around 35 or 36 CE. Luke does mention that John did not start preaching until 28-29 CE, which would be pretty consistent with that...

Saint Stephen obviously wanted to beat the rush by getting martyred in 34 CE...

 

[welshdean]

That's interesting... After all, stoning figures quite heavily as a plot devide in the whole sequence of Jesus and the adulteress (as related in John 7:53-8:11). If stoning had been abolished at the time, this story makes no sense...
That would suggest a made up story by somebody with only a passing imperfect understanding of the legal climate of the time...

Well, guess what, looking into it deeper, it would seem that the story was not included in the original manuscripts. And that the scholarly majority view for Jesus and the woman taken in adultery^WP is that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."

So, another cool example of the New Testament not telling the truth. Thanks for pointing that to me...

Are you saying that John's Gospel was 'sexed up'^WP? I wondered where Tony Bliar got the idea from.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

And the OT talks of those laws, but the only actual stonings that come to mind is that of the martyr Stephen who was one of the first deacons of the new church.

DOC, read your own holy book.

13And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

Now the fact that this particular instance was for a man that was framed means absolutely nothing. The bad guys didn't fabricate the law (just the evidence) and there doesn't seem to be much "surprise" from the public now was there?

Clearly, this was a law that was existing at the time.
(If you believe it ever happened that is)

Seriously, there was just a thread about this...

When you think about it, rebelling against the one and only God who created you and the universe (whom they of that era certainly believe existed) should be a more serious offense then rebelling against your country.

Which is exactly the notion that sets people into suicide plane crashes.
You have just proven the point DOC that this is where blind faith in your religion leads you to.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

When you think about it, rebelling against the one and only God who created you and the universe (whom they of that era certainly believe existed) should be a more serious offense then rebelling against your country.

I would also like to point out the interesting take on this from (once again) your own holy book

31 But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.”

Funny how you expect Baal to defend himself and yet your god can't do it on his own.

 

[Mojo]

When you think about it, rebelling against the one and only God who created you and the universe (whom they of that era certainly believe existed) should be a more serious offense then rebelling against your country.

So according to you the Sanhedrin committed a serious offence when, in direct contravention of the word of God, they abolished capital punishment.

 

[Garrette]

This tread is really strange.
My experience with real theologists is that they claim that faith is a question of faith, not evidence.
Perhaps DOC will return having read the bible and accept that his faith is just that.


ETA: or maybe not.

My experience is different. Primarily, believers claim there is evidence for their faith being correct when they speak with other believers but claim that faith requires no evidence when speaking to non-believers. The largest exception is when leading believers speak to non-believers but for the benefit of listening believers; in that instance they also claim evidence but realize it is not to the standards of the non-believers. The recent Dembski/Hitchens debate is a perfect example. Dembski isn't stupid; he knows his responses were vacuous from a rational POV, but Hitchens and listening atheists weren't his target.

Then there are threads such as this one when the believer attempts to claim evidence when speaking to atheists, but even here I think there are extraordinary factors that explain its extreme rarity.