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

[DOC]

Page 228 tells us that the New Testament was quoted so much by 2nd and 3rd century writers (over 36,000 times) that you could reconstruct the entire NT (except for 11 verses) just from their non-biblical writings.

What evidence does it cite to support this?

Well he does list some of the writers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. He also gives a footnote (14) which I don't have at this time since I don't have the book with me.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well he does list some of the writers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. He also gives a footnote (14) which I don't have at this time since I don't have the book with me.

This is what you call evidence is it, DOC?

It's utter drivel.

 

[Mojo]

He also gives a footnote (14) which I don't have at this time since I don't have the book with me.

Have you tried looking for it at http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false? You claim that the book is available there.

 

[joobz]

Actually it is very much the truth as Norman Geisler points out in his book cited in post #1 of this thread. Here is a link to that book. After it downloads hit the arrows at the top until you get to page 228.

DOC, he references his claim as (14). However, I can not access the bibliography. Would you mind providing the source for his claim? It would be useful to confirm his argument.

I must admit that given Geisler's willingness to publish books with containing wholly fabricated claims (e.g., university is NOT a compound word of unity and diversity), I simply do not trust him as a source and need to confirm any claim he makes.

ETA:
Happy Birthday, Aberhaten.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks joobz.

 

[amb]

Thanks joobz.

Happy birthday oh mighty one. May you have many centuries more.

 

[Garrette]

Actually it is very much the truth as Norman Geisler points out in his book cited in post #1 of this thread. Here is a link to that book. After it downloads hit the arrows at the top until you get to page 228. Those outside of the US will not be able to download the contents of the book. But you can get a used copy of the 448 page book on Amazon for $4.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 228 tells us that the New Testament was quoted so much by 2nd and 3rd century writers (over 36,000 times) that you could reconstruct the entire NT (except for 11 verses) just from their non-biblical writings.

Others have addressed this, but as I am the one who brought it up I will chime in, too.

My response: Balderdash.

Geisler has been shown so often and so thoroughly to be so completely unreliable that your continued reliance on him is sufficient in itself to discount your entire thread.

Nonetheless, let's look at what Geisler says. Here it is for those who didn't click the link:

Because the early Church fathers—men of the second and third centuries such as Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian and others—quoted the New Testament so much (38,289 times to be exact) that all but eleven verses of the New Testament can be reconstructed just from their quotations.¹⁴

Most obvious and critical is what has been pointed out: Geisler is not to be trusted without checking the source; your online link does not allow us to see what that source is. My original post stands: I do not believe Geisler. He is lying, but that is not the only problem.

Every name he provides is, as per conditions of your claim, someone who lived well before the Council of Nicea. The New Testament was not defined until that Council. If there were 38, 289 quotations of biblical sources, I do not believe that they just happened to confine themselves to the canon.

What will you say about the veracity of the Apocrypha, DOC, when those quotations happen to include references to them?

Ah, well.

Nothing has changed. Geisler lied. Until you (yes, you) track down his source and demonstrate that I am wrong, then there is no cause to believe you or Geisler, and no apology is forthcoming.

ETA: If I were not so fearful of gaining the attention of deities, I, too, would wish Akhenaten Happy Birthday. As it is, i will simply trust that his most high excellency will simply know of my desires for his continued well being and treat me with the mercy I so obviously do not deserve.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

I went to a Star Wars party once. So many people quoted so many lines from the films that you could recreate almost the entire holy trilogy from what was said at the party. I never realised at the time that it was evidence George Lucas told the truth.

 

[welshdean]

I went to a Star Wars party once. So many people quoted so many lines from the films that you could recreate almost the entire holy trilogy from what was said at the party. I never realised at the time that it was evidence George Lucas told the truth.

Oh dear Ninja, your not one of 'them' are you?




No apologies for the lies yet then DOC? No substantiation of the baseless Geisler assertions?

You really do make the Pharaoh weep, on his birthday too. Shame on you.



Pen-blwydd hapus i chi, Akhenaten

 

[roger_pearse]

Every name he provides is, as per conditions of your claim, someone who lived well before the Council of Nicea. The New Testament was not defined until that Council.

Just a note: The First Council of Nicaea did not discuss the canon of the New Testament. The idea that it did is a modern myth.

Nothing has changed. Geisler lied. Until you (yes, you) track down his source and demonstrate that I am wrong, then there is no cause to believe you or Geisler, and no apology is forthcoming.

I don't know what the thread is about (sorry), but this sounds a little like "I deny it(whatever it is); now prove it to me." That's a form of argument favoured by the lazy, and you may want to meet your opponent half-way by doing some elementary research yourself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Mojo]

DOC, he references his claim as (14). However, I can not access the bibliography.

Are you saying that the link that DOC is claiming as evidence does not include the references?

 

[Mojo]

I don't know what the thread is about (sorry), but this sounds a little like "I deny it(whatever it is); now prove it to me." That's a form of argument favoured by the lazy, and you may want to meet your opponent half-way by doing some elementary research yourself.

The thread is about the claim that there is "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth." This claim is DOC's. It is therefore up to him to provide the evidence to support it, not for others to do DOC's "elementary research" for him.

We've seen the "do some elementary research yourself" gambit before. It is a form of argument frequently favoured by those who don't have any good evidence to back up their assertions, because if others look for evidence and what they turn up is unconvincing, then DOC will be able to say "that wasn't the evidence I meant". Let him present the evidence he wants to be considered.

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

 

[Elizabeth I]

¡Feliz cumpleaños!​

 

[Aepervius]

I can quote a lot of the HP Lovecrat books, and so can a lot of other book buff.

That does not mean we will summon the great cthulhu if we intone the following line together : "IA IA Cthulhu ! Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn !" or even if we quote lovecraft. That will ONLY mean that the text existed.

PS: Frohes Geburstag Ho großes Pharaoh !

 

[Lothian]

.
Sorry, I'm going to need more embarrassing details before I believe that it's The Pharaoh's birthday. Start dishing, brother.

Also, we're going to need a martyr or two -- who's willing to drink themselves into an early grave on his behalf?

.

Abkvberh abberkhatg akveeken akhebn oooo wossisn ame my beshtest mate. Gish another beer

 

[joobz]

Are you saying that the link that DOC is claiming as evidence does not include the references?

Nope.
It's an e-book, and skips the pages where references may exist.

 

[Garrette]

Welcome to both the forum and the thread, Roger.

Just a note: The First Council of Nicaea did not discuss the canon of the New Testament. The idea that it did is a modern myth.

Thank you for clarifying. It amplifies my point rather than diminishing it.

I don't know what the thread is about (sorry), but this sounds a little like "I deny it(whatever it is); now prove it to me."

When you determine what the thread is about you could possibly have a point. Not doing that basic research and then commenting on others is a form of argument favored by the lazy, and you may want to do your basic due diligence before mistakenly attributing to others what applies more appropriately to yourself.

When you have determined what the thread is about and learned that every single bit of research done in this thread has been done by people other than the person claiming to have evidence, you will realize that you still have no basis for your conclusion.

That's a form of argument favoured by the lazy, and you may want to meet your opponent half-way by doing some elementary research yourself.

You assume that no work or research has been done by me or others opposing DOC. Regardless, it is not lazy or wrong to insist that even a credible person present evidence let alone insist that a person without credibility present evidence to support an assertion from a source known to lack credibility and honesty.

All the best,

And to you.

 

[Garrette]

Are you saying that the link that DOC is claiming as evidence does not include the references?

As Joobz says, the ebook has references (or at least numbers referencing endnotes), but the references/endnotes are not included in the ebook.

I suspect that Geisler actually lists a source or two, and if DOC has the hard copy of the book he should be able to provide it/them.

What I further suspect is that

(a) The sources themselves are specious

OR

(b) The sources do not say what Geisler claims


There remains the possibility that I am wrong; biblical scholarship is not an area of expertise for me, and if that is the case, I will admit it and apologize, but I do not expect that to be the case.

 

[roger_pearse]

I don't know what the thread is about (sorry), but this sounds a little like "I deny it(whatever it is); now prove it to me."

When you determine what the thread is about you ...<insults>.

Sounds as if I got that one bang on the nail.

That's a form of argument favoured by the lazy, and you may want to meet your opponent half-way by doing some elementary research yourself.

You assume that no work or research has been done by me or others

It would be a safe assumption in nearly any forum!

But in fact I made no assumption about you, whoever you are -- I merely pointed out that your argument did your position -- whatever it was -- no favours.

Since you responded by mouthing off, evidently you WERE being lazy.

Regardless, it is not lazy or wrong to insist that even a credible person present evidence ...<snip reiteration>

Any ignorant idiot can make demands that others prove things to him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Lucian]

As Joobz says, the ebook has references (or at least numbers referencing endnotes), but the references/endnotes are not included in the ebook.

I suspect that Geisler actually lists a source or two, and if DOC has the hard copy of the book he should be able to provide it/them.

What I further suspect is that

(a) The sources themselves are specious

OR

(b) The sources do not say what Geisler claims


There remains the possibility that I am wrong; biblical scholarship is not an area of expertise for me, and if that is the case, I will admit it and apologize, but I do not expect that to be the case.

I assume you don't mean to imply that "biblical scholarship" actually describes Geisler's outpourings