With over 36,000 references to the NT by the writers mentioned (according to Geisler) I have a feeling if you pick one or two you will be able to find some references.
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The claim, to remind you, is:
Simply finding references to the NT in some of the writings does not prove the highlighted part.
ETA: I'm a little puzzled by the qualification in that claim, "their non-biblical writings". What does this mean? If the writers are quoting the bible, how is that "non-biblical"?
Last edited:
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's a given. So far DOC is using the gospels to defend the gospels.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
@ Mojo: To be fair to DOC and Geisler, Geisler provides a reference in the book; it is simply that the page with the reference on it is not scanned into Google Books.
@Roger_Pearse: And there's the assumption you deny making. You assume, without having done any reading of the thread, without even knowing the topic, that no research has been done. You have come into a linear process and assumed that the process began when you joined.
Beyond that, your description of the ideal argument presumes the environment of a collegiate debate in which both sides have been assigned a position and instructed to defend it. That is not the case here. One side has made the positive claim, unbidden, that he would provide evidence of X. Requiring that he actually provide evidence of X is entirely consistent with reason and logic.
@DOC: Do you have Geisler's book in hard copy? Can you provide the reference he gives? Have you ever checked Geisler's claims by going to the source?
@Roger_Pearse: And there's the assumption you deny making. You assume, without having done any reading of the thread, without even knowing the topic, that no research has been done. You have come into a linear process and assumed that the process began when you joined.
Beyond that, your description of the ideal argument presumes the environment of a collegiate debate in which both sides have been assigned a position and instructed to defend it. That is not the case here. One side has made the positive claim, unbidden, that he would provide evidence of X. Requiring that he actually provide evidence of X is entirely consistent with reason and logic.
@DOC: Do you have Geisler's book in hard copy? Can you provide the reference he gives? Have you ever checked Geisler's claims by going to the source?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
My point was that while the book may provide evidence in its references, the version on Google Books, lacking the references, does not actually include the evidence that it uses to back up its assertions, although DOC has repeatedly cited his having posted a link to the Google Books version as providing evidence. This is not, by the way, a criticism of Geisler, merely of the way DOC is failing to present his evidence.
Ah. Got it. Thanks. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
pizzadeliveryninja
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 96
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't quite see where the entire "christians quoted a work they see as holy writ" argument gets us. It's hardly shocking to think that over the course of a few centuries the various church fathers and other Christian figures quoted almost the entirity of the present NT canon. I would imagine that if you took the entire corpus of Shakespearean scholarly literature from the 20th century you could equally reconstruct the complete works of Shakespeare from their quotes.
What does it prove?
What does it prove?
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Again, you are drawing conclusions based upon limited information. Those questions are the conclusions of a variety of counter arguments which have been made. In effect, you are listening to the punchline without hearing the set up, and then concluding that the joke isn't funny.
For example:
The question:
"Who saw Jesus at the tomb?"
It was presented that there were "eye witnesses" to the empty tomb and that the gospels represented accounts of this event. However,
1.) None of the gospels agree on the details of the encounter. one has a single man, another has a group of men, one has them inside the tomb, the other has them outside. It was argued that these differences are expected from different sources. However, they are so contradictory that it is ludicrous to consider them reliable.
2.) the witnesses of the tomb are a variety of people, none of whom are the supposed authors of the gospels. As such, they are hearsay and not evidence.
This is what is referenced when the question "Who Saw Jesus at the tomb".
DOC: Page 228 {in the book cited in post #1}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.
Mojo: What evidence does it cite to support this?
Here is what the footnote 14 says: For a breakdown of these quotations see Norman Geisler and William Nix, "General Introduction to the Bible" (1986) Pg. 431.
According to Amazon this is a 700+ page book that has received the highest rating of 5 stars. You are also able to look at some of its contents on this link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TXZ30PTRZSD7FX388B6
But the scholar Geisler is not the only one who says this. Former skeptic and biblical scholar Ralph Muncaster says something very similar but he says all but 10 verses are included in the writings of that time (instead of 11) and he names more writers.
From the article: "Copies of Copies of Copies of Copies" from Remnant Report.com :
"In fact, the lives of the early Church Fathers overlap one another starting around 50 A.D. onward. There are no "gaps" in time when they could have departed from the teachings of their predecessors without oversight or criticism from their peers.
Instead, Church Fathers form an unbroken, overlapping group of teachers and students. The dates of their lives and writings show unbroken unity as they quote one another and the New Testament writings. In fact, all but ten verses of the New Testament are included in their writings. These provide scholars with valuable information about the early New Testament documents. Let's look at the overlapping dates of their lives or writings:
We have John writing Revelation in about A.D. 95.
The Didache, a manual of first-century church practices
Clement of Rome, 30-100
Ignatius, 35-107
Papias, 60-163
Polycarp, 69-155
Justin Martyr, 100-165
Irenaeus, 125-202
Clement of Alexandria, 150-315
Tertullian, 160-220
Hippolytus, 170-235
Origen, 185-253
Cyprian, 200-258
Eusebius, church historian (time of Constantine) 263-339
(Muncaster 2005, 89; Bercot 1998, xvii; The Didache, 2002)
http://www.remnantreport.com/cgi-bin/imcart/read.cgi?article_id=483&sub=22
Mojo: What evidence does it cite to support this?
Here is what the footnote 14 says: For a breakdown of these quotations see Norman Geisler and William Nix, "General Introduction to the Bible" (1986) Pg. 431.
According to Amazon this is a 700+ page book that has received the highest rating of 5 stars. You are also able to look at some of its contents on this link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0TXZ30PTRZSD7FX388B6
But the scholar Geisler is not the only one who says this. Former skeptic and biblical scholar Ralph Muncaster says something very similar but he says all but 10 verses are included in the writings of that time (instead of 11) and he names more writers.
From the article: "Copies of Copies of Copies of Copies" from Remnant Report.com :
"In fact, the lives of the early Church Fathers overlap one another starting around 50 A.D. onward. There are no "gaps" in time when they could have departed from the teachings of their predecessors without oversight or criticism from their peers.
Instead, Church Fathers form an unbroken, overlapping group of teachers and students. The dates of their lives and writings show unbroken unity as they quote one another and the New Testament writings. In fact, all but ten verses of the New Testament are included in their writings. These provide scholars with valuable information about the early New Testament documents. Let's look at the overlapping dates of their lives or writings:
We have John writing Revelation in about A.D. 95.
The Didache, a manual of first-century church practices
Clement of Rome, 30-100
Ignatius, 35-107
Papias, 60-163
Polycarp, 69-155
Justin Martyr, 100-165
Irenaeus, 125-202
Clement of Alexandria, 150-315
Tertullian, 160-220
Hippolytus, 170-235
Origen, 185-253
Cyprian, 200-258
Eusebius, church historian (time of Constantine) 263-339
(Muncaster 2005, 89; Bercot 1998, xvii; The Didache, 2002)
http://www.remnantreport.com/cgi-bin/imcart/read.cgi?article_id=483&sub=22
Last edited:
It hurts the ol' Bart Ehrman copies of copies of copies argument.
http://www.remnantreport.com/cgi-bin/imcart/read.cgi?article_id=483&sub=22
DOC, I had already planned to look at the copy of the first Geisler book to get the reference at the library, but they do not have the Geisler & Nix book, so I can't look at that page.
Setting aside that Geisler cites himself (not unheard of, assuming the primary source is legit), we need to know what that page says. Despite your repeated use of "scholar" in reference to Geisler, he has not earned that appellation and so has not earned blind trust in his claims.
Since you have countered pizzadeliveryninja's point about the truth of this claim offering evidence for the veracity of the NT, you need to actually drive it home; if not, it remains non-evidence.
Tell me, please:
1. Which eleven (or ten) verses cannot be reconstructed from those quotations?
2. Which books are you (Geisler) including in the NT? Does it include the books in the Catholic version of the NT?
3. Can quotations from those same writers or other writers of the time be used to reconstruct any books from the Apocrypha?
Setting aside that Geisler cites himself (not unheard of, assuming the primary source is legit), we need to know what that page says. Despite your repeated use of "scholar" in reference to Geisler, he has not earned that appellation and so has not earned blind trust in his claims.
Since you have countered pizzadeliveryninja's point about the truth of this claim offering evidence for the veracity of the NT, you need to actually drive it home; if not, it remains non-evidence.
Tell me, please:
1. Which eleven (or ten) verses cannot be reconstructed from those quotations?
2. Which books are you (Geisler) including in the NT? Does it include the books in the Catholic version of the NT?
3. Can quotations from those same writers or other writers of the time be used to reconstruct any books from the Apocrypha?
- Status