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

[amb]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far DOC has failed to provide any.

 

[Lothian]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far DOC has failed to provide any.

..but it is extraordinary that DOC considers his logical fallacies are evidence.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far DOC has failed to provide any.

Actually I believe that DOC considers that extrodinary claims requires emberassing evidence.

 

[Lucian]

..but it is extraordinary that DOC considers his logical fallacies are evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary logical fallacies.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary logical fallacies.

I wonder why we just keep getting fed the same old boring ones?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

That is a lie, and you are a liar.

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/9780195151428/toc.html

As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh

GB

So you lied. And it's "out there for everyone to see." Thoughts?

Thanks for saving me the trouble of digging up that post.

I wonder why we just keep getting fed the same old boring ones?

Maybe his logic 101 course didn't teach him about the really fancy fallacies with long Latin names (argumentum ad ignorantium, argumentum ad cruminam, argumentum ad ciminatio mendax etc). So all DOC's got are the same old fallacies.

GB

 

[joobz]

Maybe his logic 101 course didn't teach him about the really fancy fallacies with long Latin names (argumentum ad ignorantium, argumentum ad cruminam, argumentum ad ciminatio mendax etc). So all DOC's got are the same old fallacies.

Or maybe he's simply implementing Hitler's idea of the Big Lie.

 

[Rincewind]

How can you have "hard" evidence of the body of a famous historical person that has been missing for 2000 years. When detectives don't have a body, they look at circumstantial evidence. I've provided some of that circumstantial evidence, and also some philosophical and historical evidence in post #13104

I said I'd bring in some new evidence and here is some new historical evidence that has been right in front of our faces. But if you don't notice evidence, and then do notice it, it becomes new to you.

Some people in here talk of the NT legend. Well the following historical evidence hurts that legend theory. All of the 33 historical people mentioned below are in the New Testament and they are “all” also mentioned mentioned by Non-Christians sources. These sources include Joshephus, Tacitus, Philo, inscriptions, Seutonius, etc.. The following list is from the book cited in post #1 (pg. 270).

Jesus, Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Ananias, Annas, Aretas,

Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Caesar Augustus, Caiaphas, Claudius

Drusilla wife of Felix, Egyptian false prophet, Erastus, Felix,

Gallio, Gamaliel, Herod Antipas, Herod Archilaus, Herod the Great

Herod Philip I, Herod Philip II, Herodius, Herodias’s Daughter

Salome, James, John the Baptist, Judas the Galilean, Lysanias,

Pilate, Quirinius, Porcius, Festus, Sergius Paulos, Tiberius Caesar.

___


Some skepics might say well the NT writers were just writing an historical novel. Well, there are many problems with this theory.

1) There is no record of historical novels in Palestine during that era. In fact there are no records of novels at all (in that era of no paper). And some skeptics want us to believe all of the sudden 4 historical novels are written.

And as the book cited in post #1 states (on page 271), there are other problems with this theory

2) It can’t explain why independent non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline similar to the NT.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6366925#post6366925


3) It can’t explain why the NT writers endured persecution, torture, and death. Why would they have done so for a fictional story.

4) Novelists usually do not use the names of real people for the main characters. If they did, those real people –- especially powerful government and religious Officials {e.g. Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Caesar Augustus, Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Herod Archilaus, Herod the Great, Herod Philip I, Tiberius Caesar, (and all the descendants of these people, for example all the Kennedy descendants} would deny the story, destroy the credibility of the authors, and maybe even take punitive action against them for doing so.

5) Since the NT contains multiple independent accounts of these events by nine different authors, the historical novel theory would require a grand conspiracy over a 20 to 50 year period between those nine authors, who were spread all over the ancient world. This is not plausible either. In fact, the assertion that the NT events are part of a grand conspiracy exists only in novels. In the real world, such assertions are crushed by the weight of the evidence.

You know - I've been thinking...

At this time of the year - with holidays coming along soon (I understand some folks call these holidays "Krissmuss" or something similar) - I thought it might be nice if we had some evidence that at least one of the Holy Books had a modicum of evidence behind it.

So – DOC – this is your best shot?

As has been pointed out “Egyptian false prophet” is a really good reference… NOT!

On that basis, has anyone found a reference to a “short, balding guy selling souvenirs just outside the main Temple”? I’m sure that’ll help in the provision of some “real” evidence.

Shame about the paper, huh. It might have been easier had one of the neighbouring countries invented some stuff that you could write on, made out of reeds, perhaps – let’s call it papyrus, for example. And maybe in the third Millennium BCE?

Did you notice that a number of historical novels had been mentioned? Now, given that very little would have survived 2,000 years, it seems reasonable to assume that many more had been written. Also – it was pointed out that only one NT novel was needed – everybody else shamelessly plagiarised it.

NT writers enduring persecution, etc? Well – there’s no evidence for who actually wrote the NT, so how can you suggest that they (apparently all of them) were tortured? And it’s also been pointed out to you that many other religions – that you’ll probably suggest were based on fiction – have had their own martyrs. So – your point is?

“Novelists usually do not use the names of real people for their main characters” – are you being serious? There exists a huge number of historical novels that do exactly that!

At this juncture, I feel I ought to point out that you seem to have totally missed the point of your own religion, here! Way to go herectical DOC!

Jesus of Locksley and his band of merry men are supposed to be the main characters! And – as has repeatedly been pointed out, there’s no reliable independent evidence that any of them existed. So no danger of irate relatives throwing stones at you…

The invention of Paul (shouldn’t it be called Paulianity, rather than Christianity?) of a new religion could indeed be characterised as a “grand conspiracy”. Do nine people make a “Grand” conspiracy? Especially as I understand loads of the magic was added later, presumably in the (Holy) spirit of one-upmanship in the fight for members against all the other extant religions.

Myths, legends, tradition and speculation are NOT evidence. Neither is the claim that “it’s evidence because I say so!”

Oh – by the way – have you discovered how Simon the Zealot died yet?

 

[dafydd]

Or maybe he's simply implementing Hitler's idea of the Big Lie.

Wasn't that Goebbel's idea?

 

[Lothian]

but I needed to bring it up to give a proper answer to the statement about "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". If you want to read some of my thoughts on evolution you might go to this 74 page thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

That thread was closed and a part 2 created. There is a post of mine in that thread you have not given a proper answer to. Perhaps you could now.

I have copied it below. It is also relevent to this thread as we know the NT authors said the O.T. was correct. The Jesus character is reported to repeat O.T. stories as fact.

If you don't know how all the "space" in the known universe came about from something smaller than an atom just be honest and say you don't know. There is no shame in that, there are a lot of things science doesn't know, just like there are some things in Genesis that are difficult to understand or explain.

Doc, You are right science does not have all the answers yet. I note that you don’t say that there are things religion does not know, just things that are difficult to understand or explain.

That is good as I have been studying the biblical creation story and find it fascinating and want to know more. I appreciate it might be difficult for me to understand your explanations but I am willing to give it a go. Rather than bombard you with lots of questions on the whole of creation I will just start with the first day perhaps we could explore the others later.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

What was there before God created the heaven and the earth?
How long was it there?
How long ago was the beginning?
Where was God before the beginning?
Who made God?
What is GOd made from?
Where is heaven, and what did God make it from?
The earth is made up of many elements did God make it all at once or did he make the bits and then assemble it?
Were all elements made simultaneously or were some made before others?
If so in what order were they made?
Why did he make them?
Why did he make different amounts?
How did he make them?
Did they spring to being out of nothing or did God somehow transform elements from one to another? If he transformed them Why could he not make them out of nothing?
What does without form mean? Was the Earth a sphere ? Did it exist?
Where did the water come from ? How did God make it? Did he make it after making the earth or was it made at the same time ?
Where did the light come from? What was the source? Did he make the source first and then make is shine or did he make the source and the light at the same time?
How many eyes does God have or does he see in a different way to us?
Is his eye badly designed as well ?
In what way did he see Light as good ?
How did he know the earth was without form, and void without light to see?
How did God divide light from darkness?
In what way were they joined before?
Why did he make them joined and then separate them, why not make them separate?
Where did the light (which made day) come from ?
Was the sun made at this point?
Were parts of the world were in darkness and parts in light or was all the world in Day then all in night ?
How did Day turn to night?
Was the light constant and then did it switch off or did it vary?
Where did the light go?
Why did the evening come before the morning?

I am really interested in these questions. I appreciate they might be difficult and perhaps you might not be able to answer them. However I would like to know the answers. How can I find out the ones you don’t know? How do we find out how God did things or is it a secret?

 

[welshdean]

Lothian,

Good questions re Genesis, could I add one more?

DOC, if the babble is 'the inerrant word of your particular flavour of god, why are there two different versions of the genesis myth? Don't be coy and insist that there aren't differences, that would just be dishonest. In order to preserve your integrity, I will indicate the differences below:


First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. AND

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



So come on DOC, why are there such obvious differences and which should we believe and why?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Lothian,

Good questions re Genesis, could I add one more?

DOC, if the babble is 'the inerrant word of your particular flavour of god, why are there two different versions of the genesis myth? Don't be coy and insist that there aren't differences, that would just be dishonest. In order to preserve your integrity, I will indicate the differences below:


First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. AND

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



So come on DOC, why are there such obvious differences and which should we believe and why?

And while we're on Genesis let's ask DOC where Cain and Seth's wives came from (Christians always seem to get uncomfortable when positing that God allowed them to marry their sisters , another one of those "Teleological Suspensions of the Ethical" I suppose).

And we can also ask DOC if he believes that Lilith was actually Adam's first wife in Genesis 1. DOC puts a lot of stock in the Hebraic Oral Tradition, so that should be easy for him to answer.

GB

 

[Elizabeth I]

And while we're on Genesis let's ask DOC where Cain and Seth's wives came from (Christians always seem to get uncomfortable when positing that God allowed them to marry their sisters , another one of those "Teleological Suspensions of the Ethical" I suppose).

And we can also ask DOC if he believes that Lilith was actually Adam's first wife in Genesis 1. DOC puts a lot of stock in the Hebraic Oral Tradition, so that should be easy for him to answer.

GB

Someplace else in the forum (and, sorry, I don't feel like looking it up) someone cited an "explanation" that it was okay for Cain and Seth to marry their sisters because, even though they had been expelled from the Garden, they were only the first generation after the perfectly created Adam and Eve, and so didn't have all those nasty heritable traits whose effect could be multiplied by inbreeding.

 

[kmortis]

Someplace else in the forum (and, sorry, I don't feel like looking it up) someone cited an "explanation" that it was okay for Cain and Seth to marry their sisters because, even though they had been expelled from the Garden, they were only the first generation after the perfectly created Adam and Eve, and so didn't have all those nasty heritable traits whose effect could be multiplied by inbreeding.

Plus, the sisters were HAWT!

 

[Lucian]

Someplace else in the forum (and, sorry, I don't feel like looking it up) someone cited an "explanation" that it was okay for Cain and Seth to marry their sisters because, even though they had been expelled from the Garden, they were only the first generation after the perfectly created Adam and Eve, and so didn't have all those nasty heritable traits whose effect could be multiplied by inbreeding.

Here's what the Creation Museum says:

​

The cut-off sentence continues, "there was nothing wrong with close relatives marrying in early biblical history." This is on a huge sign titled, "WHERE DID CAIN GET HIS WIFE." Interestingly, Seth is not mentioned.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Here's what the Creation Museum says:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=277&pictureid=3075[/qimg]
​

The cut-off sentence continues, "there was nothing wrong with close relatives marrying in early biblical history." This is on a huge sign titled, "WHERE DID CAIN GET HIS WIFE." Interestingly, Seth is not mentioned.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=277&pictureid=4086[/qimg]​

Thanks for that cite. I notice they totally don't mention the ickiness factor. And don't seem to answer the question of whether incest is a sin or not, or did it just get to be a sin relatively recently, and if so, when and why?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Here's what the Creation Museum says:

The cut-off sentence continues, "there was nothing wrong with close relatives marrying in early biblical history." This is on a huge sign titled, "WHERE DID CAIN GET HIS WIFE." Interestingly, Seth is not mentioned.

Funny how Fundie Christians get the facts wrong about the Bible they allegedly take literally and gloss over the ACTUAL "Biblical Doctrine" of One man Many Women.

And Seth probably gets a miss because the Gnostics made a big deal out of him.

GB

PS: I've even run into a few fundies that double down on the "Ick Factor" and posit that Cain lay with his Mum.

 

[Toke]

I wonder how they can accept "mutations in the human genome" but not evolution?

 

[Fiona]

I wonder how they can accept "mutations in the human genome" but not evolution?

They believe in devolution, is all

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I wonder how they can accept "mutations in the human genome" but not evolution?

They employ pseudo-scientific terms like Micro-evolution (change within a species) and Macro-Evolution (speciation) and pretend or believe that they aren't driven by precisely the same mechanism and that Natural Selection makes no such distinction.

GB