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

[Akhenaten]

Actually I didn't respond to joobz again, I responded to Toke.

Will you be presenting some evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth any time soon now?

Perhaps you could share with us the fruits of your research into Simon the Zealot, and back up your claim that the fact he was written about proves the NT's veracity. Or can't you decided which of his martyrdoms is the most important, evidence-wise?

 

[Toke]

Maybe Simon were not actually a Christian, but a devotee of Bastet?

That would explain his many deaths.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe Simon were not actually a Christian, but a devotee of Bastet?

That would explain his many deaths.

I can't wait 'til DOC gets back to us with the results of his research so we don't have to keep guessing like this.

 

[DOC]

Perhaps you could share with us the fruits of your research into Simon the Zealot, and back up your claim that the fact he was written about proves the NT's veracity. Or can't you decided which of his martyrdoms is the most important, evidence-wise?

So there are a few accounts how this obscure apostle was martyred outside of the official bible, so what. There are a few accounts of who killed John Kennedy outside of the official Warren report but that doesn't mean Kennedy was never shot.

If you don't want to believe the obscure apostle Simon the Zealot was martyred, then don't, case closed.

 

[Lothian]

So there are a few accounts how this obscure apostle was martyred outside of the official bible, so what. There are a few accounts of who killed John Kennedy outside of the official Warren report but that doesn't mean Kennedy was never shot.

But all those accounts have him shot.

If you don't want to believe the obscure apostle Simon the Zealot was martyred, then don't, case closed.

Not all accounts have him martyred. See if you can spot the difference between the death and accounts of Kennedy and Simon.

You claimed that the martyring of this disciple, who was especially chosen by Jesus to be an apostle, was evidence of that the bible story is true. If you don’t have any evidence he was martyred it would be no surprise. It would match your lack of any evidence that the NT is true.

 

[joobz]

Joobz you're spamming again. I've already responded to your servant9/slavery2 issue probably over 70 times. I'm not going to do it again.

Why is it when I bring up again an unaddressed issue against your evidence, it's spamming, but when you repeat your discounted evidence it's "providing evidence"?

I feel like we have a George Carlin Routine here.

Fact is, Jesus condoned beating slaves. You have yet to actually demonstrate otherwise.
This is from the text you are claiming represents a virtuous person. I disagree.

And every time people (almost always joobz) who bring it up fail to mention that the servant (who was given some lashes as punishment) committed the crime of beating several men and beating several women.

I didn't mention that because that isn't true.
For instance:
1.) It is "Slave" not Servant (remember the word is Doulos)
2.) The punishment for beating other slaves was to be to"cut him in sunder" (KJV) Luke 12:46
2.) Beatings were proscribed for ANY violation of the master's will (knowingly or unknowingly) Luke 12:47-48

So, DOC, clearly I wouldn't make your claim because you are wrong.

ETA: That is deceptive in my opinion

I'll let others decide who is being deceptive and who isn't.

 

[carlitos]

Actually in Luke it's "cut him asunder" but don't worry; that's only about as painful as a sunburn. Unless you watch that Mel Gibson Passion of the Christ movie, in which case it looks quite a lot more painful.

 

[Lothian]

So there are a few accounts how this obscure apostle was martyred.....

Doc. Why do you keep calling Simon an obscure apostle?

This is all about your claim that all disciples were martyred and this somehow constitutes evidence for the truth of the NT.

You appear to be claiming that it is not important if Simon was martyred because he is obscure. You are equating obscurity with importance.

The people discovering fire and the wheel are obscure but important. We know far far more about Justin Bieber than Socrates, Henry V or Jesus. That does not mean he is more important.

Let us consider for a moment that despite the evidence, or lack of it, the bible is true. Jesus according to John fed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. According to Mark and Matthew he repeated this by feeding 4000 with 7 loaves and fish. There might be some greedy people who went to both, nevertheless there was a hell of a lot of people seeing this man perform miracles. These were not his only miracles. Fact facts there could have been 10,000's of people witnessing a miracle and acclaiming him as the messiah. Out this multitude of followers desperate to be picked he selected only a dozen to be his disciples.

Jesus with over 10,000 to choose from especially selected Simon to be an apostle.

Jesus obviously thought Simon was important. Why do you think Jesus got it so badly wrong? Explain to us where Jesus erred in choosing Simon and why Jesus should have considered him unimportant?

 

[Simon39759]

Doc. Why do you keep calling Simon an obscure apostle?

This is all about your claim that all disciples were martyred and this somehow constitutes evidence for the truth of the NT.

You appear to be claiming that it is not important if Simon was martyred because he is obscure. You are equating obscurity with importance.

The people discovering fire and the wheel are obscure but important. We know far far more about Justin Bieber than Socrates, Henry V or Jesus. That does not mean he is more important.

Let us consider for a moment that despite the evidence, or lack of it, the bible is true. Jesus according to John fed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. According to Mark and Matthew he repeated this by feeding 4000 with 7 loaves and fish. There might be some greedy people who went to both, nevertheless there was a hell of a lot of people seeing this man perform miracles. These were not his only miracles. Fact facts there could have been 10,000's of people witnessing a miracle and acclaiming him as the messiah. Out this multitude of followers desperate to be picked he selected only a dozen to be his disciples.

Jesus with over 10,000 to choose from especially selected Simon to be an apostle.

Jesus obviously thought Simon was important. Why do you think Jesus got it so badly wrong? Explain to us where Jesus erred in choosing Simon and why Jesus should have considered him unimportant?

Very nice point.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So there are a few only accounts how this obscure apostle was martyred outside of the official bible, so what.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Akhenaten]

So there are a few accounts how this obscure apostle was martyred outside of the official bible, so what.

So what? (note the question mark)

So this:

Well it's been asked how did "Simon the Zealot" die. I don't know how this relatively obscure apostle died but just the fact he is written about can be considered evidence the NT writers told the truth because it doesn't make sense to give someone the same name as the lead apostle Simon Peter. If I wrote a book about some fictional football offense I wouldn't name the quarterback Ted and name the wide receiver Ted also.

my bolding​

What I'm asking is that you explain why the fact that this bloke was written about is evidence in support of your claim that the NT writers told the truth.


Your answer will of course need to include the following:

• What does the "official bible" itself have to say about the matter?
  
  
• How does the account in the "official bible" square with extra-biblical sources?

What your answer should not include is:

• Your opinion of what does or doesn't make sense.
  
  
• The naming conventions that either yourself or some other hypothetical writer ought to observe when writing a novel (unless you've come to the conclusion that the Bible is, in fact, a novel).

There are a few accounts of who killed John Kennedy outside of the official Warren report but that doesn't mean Kennedy was never shot.

Some questions for you to ponder, DOC:

• Do any of the accounts you mention claim that Kennedy was killed other than by gunshot?
  
  
• Do any of the accounts claim that the assassination occurred other than in Dallas, Texas?
  
  
• Do any of the accounts seek to explain their differences to other accounts as being due to Kennedy's status as a "relatively obscure" president?
  
  
• Do any of the accounts gain credibility because the main character had the same first name as a famous astronaut?
  
  
• Do any of the accounts claim that they are evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

If you don't want to believe the obscure apostle Simon the Zealot was martyred, then don't, [. . .]

My beliefs (and your beliefs) matter not one whit, DOC. This is Evidence Land™, the happiest kingdom of them all. Start producing some.

[. . .] case closed.

You wish.

 

[Akhenaten]

ETA: That is deceptive in my opinion

I'll let others decide who is being deceptive and who isn't.

As it happens, the results are already in, although I note that despite them being posted a number of times, DOC has yet to comment on them.

Summary

DOCs: 1
Agree with DOC: 2
Neutral/Undetermined: 4
Disagree with DOC: 318​

You are in no position to be casting aspersions about other people's credibility, now are you, DOC?

Whether you like it or not, your pathetic mini-rants about how you'd like to think other posters are perceived are a running joke amongst the 300+ contributors to this thread.

People wouldn't trust you to tell them the time, DOC, much less take your word on the evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

My editorialising in the original post. It's good to be Pharaoh.​

 

[Rincewind]

And every time people (almost always joobz) who bring it up fail to mention that the servant (who was given some lashes as punishment) committed the crime of beating several men and beating several women.

ETA: That is deceptive in my opinion

And with the lashes, some eye-shadow and blusher.....

 

[Rincewind]

Hi DOC,

If, for a minute, I accept that Simon the Zealot was insignificant, what about the other martyrs?

My search for information about them produced similar details - "according to tradition" seems to be the source for pretty much all of the tales of martyrdom.

So - do you have ANY information regarding the martyrdom of ANY of the disciples?

I'm sure that many here would be interested.

Thanks.

 

[Rincewind]

DOC,

There's an excellent piece of detectoring from Welshdean (post #18520, to save you falling back on one of your normal responses) that I note you haven't commented on.

What this appears to demonstrate is that early Christians seem to have felt the need to lie for Jesus very early on.

Could this be because there's actually no untainted evidence for the collection of myths known as the New Testament, so they had to fall back on deceit?

I'm sure we'd all like to know what you feel about this....

 

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

In the "Do Most Atheists know that Science..." thread I mentioned Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" a few times because of its clear explanations of scientific theories. But, yes, they did talk about more than science.

In chapter 11 of their book they give the top 10 reasons we know the New Testament writers told the truth. I'll mention some of those reasons and maybe expound on them as time permits.

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

Muslims believe that Gospel is originally a divine revelation.

 

[Lothian]

Muslims believe that Gospel is originally a divine revelation.

I prefered his "You Think You're A Man".

 

[DOC]

Logical Evidence for early wriiten Gospels

On page 238 of the book cited in post #1 it gives logical evidence why it doesn't make sense that none of the NT books mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. (the NT does talks about the Temple but no mention of its prophecized destruction). Translation: the books were written before 70 A.D. I mentioned this a little before but the book goes into greater detail. Unfortunately the link doesn't also give page 237. To read page 238 go to this link and hit the arrows at top until you get to 238. People outside of the US won't be able to read this information.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

ETA

Also page 244 in the above link responds to the argument the Gospels weren't early enough.

And page 236 gives info about the early writings of the 2nd century writers we talked about a few pages back.

 

[Akhenaten]

On page 238 of the book cited in post #1 it gives logical evidence why it doesn't make sense that none of the NT books mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (even though the NT does talk about the Temple) if those books were written after 70 A.D.. I mentioned this a little before but the book goes into greater detail. Unfortunately it doesn't also give page 237. To read page 238 go to this link and hit the arrows at top until you get to 238. People outside of the US won't be able to read this information.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

What the hell are you talking about, DOC?

This entire post is non sequitur gibberish and I can't even read your 'references' to see what it's meant to be all about.

 

[Akhenaten]

Muslims believe that Gospel is originally a divine revelation.

I prefered his "You Think You're A Man".

"Born to be Cheap" was pretty good too.