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

[amb]

I disagree and many of my 2200 posts give the reasons for my disagreement.

And for the record you have said there is 0 evidence that the NT writers were telling the truth. So that means post 13104 has 0 evidence the NT writers were telling the truth according to your opinion. Since you offered your opinion I'll offer mine. I think it really hurts the credibility of some skeptics to say there is 0 evidence the NT writers were telling the truth. I can see you saying OK there is some evidence, but just not enough to convince me.

And I'm glad several skeptics have said that because in my opinion it tells me several skeptics are totally biased about this topic and I think besides hurting those skeptics credibility it could be telling those unbiased people who might be on the fence (who really think about this), hey maybe some of these skeptics do have an agenda since they seem to be so biased. And it could be telling those unbiased people that it looks like it is just not in some skeptics make up (whatever the reason) to admit to one speck of evidence (even in post 13104).

ETA: And that seems odd for people who are supposed to be unbiased intellectuals not to admit to one speck of evidence in a thread like this. One has to wonder why, why can't some admit to one speck of evidence? People have got to really think about that?

Some skeptics may be biased? What, you're not?

 

[Mojo]

I disagree and many of my 2200 posts give the reasons for my disagreement.

Are you capable of either linking to the specific posts, or just posting "the reasons for [your] disagreement" again? Just saying that they are somewhere in "2200 posts" is no use whatsoever, and makes you look evasive. It is almost as if you are trying to avoid identifying "the reasons for [your] disagreement" because you don't want to see them demolished yet again.

 

[Waterman]

Which parts of the "evidence" which Waterman addressed in the post I quoted have you given up using, because they have been shown to be flawed? Which specks?

Wow, I've still be reading and it's kind of cool to be quoted so often. I have nothing new to add becuase nothing new has been added to comment upon. Carry on...

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Yes, in post #13104, and I'll bring in some new evidence within 2 weeks.

Fail.

 

[DOC]

So you're saying that the Holy Spirit is Joseph Smith?

Jesus also said there would come false prophets who would deceive many.

 

[DOC]

Fail.

Actually no, I did bring in new historical evidence.

 

[DOC]

One could start with this post, for example. It is biased because the believer really wants it to be true, and thus discards reason and critical thinking. He tries to use the text, that he wants to prove true, as evidence that it is true.

Just too bad that things don't work that way. The same poster has made many more posts in this thread that try to weasel around, constantly failing to give any shred of evidence. Same poster also fails to address the points raised by others, and tries to handwaive them away.

No specifics in your answer, just an opinion with no explanation of an example.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually no, I did bring in new historical evidence.

No specifics in your answer, just an opinion with no explanation or an example.

 

[Garrette]

Jesus also said there would come false prophets who would deceive many.

How do you determine which prophets are false and which are true?

Actually no, I did bring in new historical evidence.

No.

No specifics in your answer, just an opinion with no explanation of an example.

Did you really, really, miss the point that badly?

 

[zooterkin]

Did you really, really, miss the point that badly?

Unlike the rest of us, it's pretty clear that, as for his own bible, DOC hasn't read most of his own posts.

 

[DOC]

Actually no, I did bring in new historical evidence.

No.

So then you already knew that relatively unknown people like

Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Drusilla wife of Felix, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel Archilaus, Herodias’s Daughter Salome, Lysanias, Porcius, Festus, and Sergius Paulos,

are all included in the NT and they are all mentioned by non-Christian sources also (as was shown in post 16856).

Because of historical evidence like this, the NT doesn't sound like a legend to me, it sounds like stone cold history.

 

[zooterkin]

So then you already knew that relatively unknown people like

Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Drusilla wife of Felix, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel Archilaus, Herodias’s Daughter Salome, Lysanias, Porcius, Festus, and Sergius Paulos,

are all included in the NT and they are all mentioned by non-Christian sources also (as was shown in post 16856).

Because of historical evidence like this, the NT doesn't sound like a legend to me, it sounds like stone cold history.

Come on DOC, don't come the raw prawn. How many times have you had it pointed out to you that by that same reasoning, Harrys Potter, Flashman and Palmer were real?

 

[Elizabeth I]

So then you already knew that relatively unknown people like

Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Drusilla wife of Felix, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel Archilaus, Herodias’s Daughter Salome, Lysanias, Porcius, Festus, and Sergius Paulos,

are all included in the NT and they are all mentioned by non-Christian sources also (as was shown in post 16856).

Because of historical evidence like this, the NT doesn't sound like a legend to me, it sounds like stone cold history.

I see you've deleted the "false Egyptian prophet" from your list of "historical personages" mentioned in the NT. Good job.

 

[Garrette]

So then you already knew that relatively unknown people like

Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Drusilla wife of Felix, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel Archilaus, Herodias’s Daughter Salome, Lysanias, Porcius, Festus, and Sergius Paulos,

are all included in the NT and they are all mentioned by non-Christian sources also (as was shown in post 16856).

Because of historical evidence like this, the NT doesn't sound like a legend to me, it sounds like stone cold history.

To echo zooterkin's comment in a different manner:

The issue isn't what I knew or did not know (and for the record, I have read the entire NT and know of the historical figures mentioned therein). The issue is whether citing them is evidence that the NT writers told the truth.

Of course, if you are taking the title of your thread to mean "Did the NT writers ever tell the truth, then demonstrating that at several points they acknowledged the existence of known historical figures fits the bill in a very trivial way.

But if you are taking the title of your thread to mean "Did the NT writers tell the truth regarding the divinity of Jesus" then your list of names is less than trivial.

So please clarify for me, DOC: Is this thread about the alleged truth of Jesus' divinity as explained by the NT writers? Or is it simply a search for something that isn't untrue regardless how mundane it is?

 

[Garrette]

Now then, DOC:

In responding to me you ignored the most important part of my post. I'll quote it for you:

How do you determine which prophets are false and which are true?

It's not a trick question, DOC, and it is in response to something you brought up so it's on topic.

 

[carlitos]

Prince Charles features prominently in a new thriller I'm reading. As does Lord Mountbatten and much of the British Royal Family. I guess Ted Bell's Warlord is "stone cold history" in DOC-land.

 

[Mister Earl]

So then you already knew that relatively unknown people like

Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Drusilla wife of Felix, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel Archilaus, Herodias’s Daughter Salome, Lysanias, Porcius, Festus, and Sergius Paulos,

are all included in the NT and they are all mentioned by non-Christian sources also (as was shown in post 16856).

Because of historical evidence like this, the NT doesn't sound like a legend to me, it sounds like stone cold history.

The book series of Ender's Game mentions Earth, a planet which does indeed exist, and many nations, including the United States, Russia, India, Iran, and about a dozen others, which also exist. The planet Earth in the book shares the same calendar format as ours, it is merely further along on the calendar than we are. By DOC's logic, this book is stone cold logic, and it is from the future. I say we need to prepare for the Formic threat NOW! Why wait until Mazer Rackham is born?

 

[joobz]

Jesus also said there would come false prophets who would deceive many.

So you're saying your a false prophet?

 

[Lothian]

Jesus also said there would come false prophets who would deceive many.

This thread is about evidence.

I presume that you have as much evidence that the NT authors correctly reported Jesus's words about false prophets as you do about any other event reported. None.

 

[Sun Countess]

DOC was explaining why the NT trumps the OT and wrote:

Jesus brought new Godly revelation on divorce. Jesus said Moses' (who allowed divorce) teachings were different because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Thus Jesus is basically saying Moses had a reason for his teachings (at that time), but Jesus is implying that the time and conditions are now right for a greater revelation on divorce. The same could be said about slavery. The people and economic conditions of Jesus' time were most likely just not ready for any change in that institution. This might be why Jesus said there were things that he did not say because they would be too much for the apostles to bear. It is reasonable to postulate those teachings would come about through the Holy Spirit which Jesus said He would send and who would teach all things.

So yes, Jesus does not deny the OT like he did not deny what Moses taught about divorce. He just implies that now is the time for greater revelation. And he also implies that there is more to be taught after he is gone because he stated he will send the Holy Spirit who will teach all things.

I asked if that means that Joseph Smith is the Holy Spirit, because he obviously made even greater, and more recent revelations since the time that Jesus died. Now DOC says:

Jesus also said there would come false prophets who would deceive many.

How are we supposed to know who's a false prophet and who's a true prophet? Is it possible that Jesus was a false prophet? It's been shown time and again in this thread that there's the same amount of evidence that Joseph Smith told the truth as that the NT writers told the truth.

DOC, I was hoping you could address this, from the preceding page:

Because the evidence is zero. All the evidence points to the writers believing what they wrote is true, or writing what they knew was untrue, but would be enough to convince other gullible people into believing, thus attempting to secure some power for themselves, by gathering followers for their cult.

Did Joseph Smith believe what he wrote was true? Or did he write what he did so that he could start his own little cult and gather up multiple wives in the process?

You still haven't clearly stated why there's more evidence that the unknown NT writers told was the truth, while what the Qu'ran writers and Joseph Smith wrote was not the truth. I mean, you've given reasons, but they're all entirely prejudicial.

Or would you agree that there's some slight bit of evidence that either Joseph Smith or the Qu'ran writers told the truth? If you think their evidence is zero, then please explain your reasoning.