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

[Akhenaten]

not as impressive as Harry Potter thwarting Voldemort.

Or Gandalf defeating the Balrog.

 

[ddt]

No Jesus' prediction was more impressive, to go along with His other miracles:

<snip>
18. healing the epileptic boy matt 17 14
<snip>

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080323192659AAYoPaH

So you're deflecting the issue by going from predictions to "miracles". We're discussing right now the prediction of the destruction of the temple. Do you have any evidence at all this was written down before the Fall of Jerusalem? - let's leave the non-specificity of the claim aside for the moment, we can come back to that later.

Oh, and "miracle" #18 is not impressive. You can grow out of epilepsy, especially when in childhood. I was diagnosed with epilepsy when I was 6, after I had fallen twice off my bike with a petit mal. I've been off my meds since I was 11 and never had a seizure again.

 

[Simon39759]

Why would they need Jesus' prophecy to precise something that any Jew of the time would know perfectly well?
I mean, if somebody mentions 9-11 today, he hardly has to precise what went on on this particular day.

In Matthew 24-1, the authors are just attributing a prediction to Jesus after the facts. Just like Sylvia Browne now pretends to have had visions warning her of 9-11...

 

[kmortis]

So you're deflecting the issue by going from predictions to "miracles". We're discussing right now the prediction of the destruction of the temple. Do you have any evidence at all this was written down before the Fall of Jerusalem? - let's leave the non-specificity of the claim aside for the moment, we can come back to that later.

Oh, and "miracle" #18 is not impressive. You can grow out of epilepsy, especially when in childhood. I was diagnosed with epilepsy when I was 6, after I had fallen twice off my bike with a petit mal. I've been off my meds since I was 11 and never had a seizure again.

Are you sure? I mean, couldn't there be a seizure disorder that causes you to post occasionally on an internet forum, discussing all manner of illogical things?

Let's face it, seizures are a way more comforting explaination as to how this thread has gotten this long than the alternative. We actually derive some sort of sick pleasure out of this.

 

[ddt]

Are you sure? I mean, couldn't there be a seizure disorder that causes you to post occasionally on an internet forum, discussing all manner of illogical things?

Let's face it, seizures are a way more comforting explaination as to how this thread has gotten this long than the alternative. We actually derive some sort of sick pleasure out of this.

So you had 629 seizures? And Pharaoh had 1,522 seizures? I think neurologists the world over would be happy with this explanation.

 

[kmortis]

So you had 629 seizures? And Pharaoh had 1,522 seizures? I think neurologists the world over would be happy with this explanation.

I think if you search my posting history you'll see that I've had over 16,000 seizures.

 

[joobz]

By these standards, I've had a 2+ year grand mal.

 

[DOC]

Page 236 lists the writers and the books they quoted. It does nothing in regard to establishing the claim that the quotations were sufficient to recreate the NT (minus a few verses). I take it you have abandoned this claim?

No, I haven't abandoned the claim of several authors and will bring in more information within a week.

Page 238 attempts to prove its case by using the analogy of histories written about the USS Arizona and about the Twin Towers. Geisler says that if those histories do not include the sinking of the Arizona or the attack on the towers then it is safe to conclude that the first was written before September 7, 1941 and the second before September 11, 2001.

He is correct in what he says about histories of the Arizona and the Twin Towers. He is incorrect in calling it an apt analogy. The New Testament is not a history of Jerusalem or the Temple. It is a story about a man called Jesus and the religion that sprang up around him. His argument falls down at the start.

On page 244 Geisler says this:


He uses two arguments to buttress his claim.

(1) The memory of things that made a strong emotional impact are strong, citing memories of where we were when the Challenger Shuttle exploded or when Kennedy was assassinated as proof. This is laughable for so many reasons. First, memory of a location is not equivalent to memory of details. Second, it has been reliably shown that memories, even memories of emotionally significant events, are quite unreliable.

With man this might be true but with God all things are possible:

Jesus talking to the apostles about what will happen after he is gone (from John 14:26).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Third, the writers are not using their own memories (unless you have separate proof that the NT authors are all eyewitnesses).

I've already given evidence that the apostles John and the tax collector Matthew wrote the gospels attributed to them for 2000 years. Regarding Mark and Luke, Mark was a companion of the main apostle Peter and could have easily written down Peter's preaching and remembrances. And Luke, was called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events by a respected archaeologist.

Fourth, even if my other points are incorrect, the memories of the most emotionally significant events differ tremendously. Who was first at the tomb? Was there an angel there? Where did the women go next? Geisler's disproves himself by claiming the reliability of memory...

We've already discussed this. I have never seen an alleged discrepancy in the Gospels that can't logically be explained.

 

[Hokulele]

And Luke, was called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events by a respected archaeologist.

Translation: No, the author of Luke was not an eyewitness.

 

[Lothian]

With man this might be true but with God all things are possible:

Jesus talking to the apostles about what will happen after he is gone (from John 14:26).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

So the bible tales are reliable because the bible says they are reliable.
Doc, can you remember from your logic course what this type of argument is called? Perhaps Aberhaten could jog your memory with a graphic.

 

[John Jones]

No, I haven't abandoned the claim of several authors and will bring in more information within a week.



With man this might be true but with God all things are possible:

Jesus talking to the apostles about what will happen after he is gone (from John 14:26).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.


I've already given evidence that the apostles John and the tax collector Matthew wrote the gospels attributed to them for 2000 years. Regarding Mark and Luke, Mark was a companion of the main apostle Peter and could have easily written down Peter's preaching and remembrances. And Luke, was called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events by a respected archaeologist.

We've already discussed this. I have never seen an alleged discrepancy in the Gospels that can't logically be explained.

Whatever you do, don't use the NT itself as evidence that the NT authors told the truth!

I don't think we could stand seeing that failed argument yet again.

 

[Garrette]

No, I haven't abandoned the claim of several authors and will bring in more information within a week.

Great. Look forward to it. I hope your information includes what Geisler said in the second book you cited concerning this claim; you know, the one by himself that he cited as a claim he made.

With man this might be true but with God all things are possible:

Jesus talking to the apostles about what will happen after he is gone (from John 14:26).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

"I'm telling the truth because I say I am."

That's your evidence?

I've already given evidence that the apostles John and the tax collector Matthew wrote the gospels attributed to them for 2000 years.

You have given what you believe to be evidence. Others have pointed out your errors more pointedly than I can recap here. I acknowledge, however, that it is less certain that the Apostle John did not wrote the Gospel of John then it is that the Apostle Matthew did not write Matthew, but "less certain" does not remotely equate to "likely the Apostle John actually wrote it." And if you're going to try to use the length of time of a belief as evidence then at least be accurate about it. 1800 years is more accurate than 2000 years.

Regarding Mark and Luke, Mark was a companion of the main apostle Peter and could have easily written down Peter's preaching and remembrances.

More "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." Come now, DOC.

And Luke, was called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events by a respected archaeologist.

DOC, you have a habit on your threads of dissecting what your opponents in argument say. Further, you expect them to question their sources. This is good. It's the right way to approach things. Yet you absolutely refuse to demand the same of yourself or your sources. To you, if Geisler says it, it is true. Likewise with your "respected archaeologist." You stay with that position even when the vast errors are shown in their work and their credibility is shattered.

On the other hand, several in this thread have repeatedly questioned their own sources even without your prodding. How often has Ehrman been mentioned and his mistakes mentioned, too?

You demand of others that which you refuse to demand of yourself. More than that, you refuse to acknowledge that others have already met that demand while you pretend that you have met it yourself. I grow tired of it.

We've already discussed this. I have never seen an alleged discrepancy in the Gospels that can't logically be explained.

Yes, you have. You've seen several. You simply pretend that they can be explained away.

But that gets back to the imperfection of the Bible. If something must be explained away then the communication is not only imperfect, it is inadequate. It is double inadequate if, even after the explaining away, it needs explaining.

 

[joobz]

We've already discussed this. I have never seen an alleged discrepancy in the Gospels that can't logically be explained.

Yes, we have discussed this and the objective conclusion is you do not know what is or isn't a logical argument.

To avoid your typical gambit of "unevidenced", I'll reference your most recent post.
you've attempted to avoid the logical critique of Garrette's by using a logical fallacy, special pleading.
"with god all things are possible." isn't an argument. It's an excuse. It's admission that you have no solid reasoning.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, I haven't abandoned the claim of several authors and will bring in more information within a week.

While you're waiting to hear back from your Sunday School teacher, maybe you could have a crack at answering this post:

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).

With man this might be true but with God all things are possible:

After all this time, after all of your promises about having evidence to present to support your claims and after all of your protestations that you're presenting logical arguments rather than blind faith, the best you can come up with is "goddidit"?

Jesus talking to the apostles about what will happen after he is gone (from John 14:26).

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Have we been time warped back to the middle of the thread or something?

I've already given evidence that the apostles John and the tax collector Matthew wrote the gospels attributed to them for 2000 years.

No, you've given your faith-based reasons for believing these things. If you'd provided actual evidence then maybe you'd be able to quote someone who agrees with you.

Can you do this, DOC?

Regarding Mark and Luke, Mark was a companion of the main apostle Peter and could have easily written down Peter's preaching and remembrances.

And seeing that this is all just part of a farytale, Voldemort and Sauron could be second cousins and could have ghost-written The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. So bloody what?

And Luke, was called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events by a respected archaeologist.

Twaddle.

We've already discussed this. I have never seen an alleged discrepancy in the Gospels that can't logically be explained.

Since it seems to be Recycling Old Arguments Week:

And as I've said, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

You simply refuse point-blank to acknowledge the very real contradictions that are pointed out to you or offer weasel words and other non-sequitur guff and call it an explanation. That you're even fooling yourself with it is extraordinary, so don't believe for a second that anyone else is taken in by your shenanigans.

Your entire history of posting in this thread is one huge argument from incredulity and ignorance, made hugely comical by the fact that you feel compelled to skite about it.

My argument about the "analyzation of those facts" in this post --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6299132#post6299132


-- is new and has not even been responded to (except for one of the points by Elizabeth). Just more attack DOC posts.

Wanna bet?

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

- Benjamin Franklin​

None so blind, DOC, none so blind.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.​

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here?
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
" 'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"



​

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long.​

Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!​

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen.

- John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)​

​

 

[joobz]

With man this might be true but with God all things are possible:

If this is true, why did Jesus condone beating slaves?

 

[Akhenaten]

So you had 629 seizures? And Pharaoh had 1,522 seizures? I think neurologists the world over would be happy with this explanation.

I think if you search my posting history you'll see that I've had over 16,000 seizures.

By these standards, I've had a 2+ year grand mal.

If I quit now, what are my chances of making a full recovery?

 

[TSR]

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

.
Deceptive like trying to pretend Luke (greatest historian that he is) in chapter 12, verse 47, does not say this? That the crime was knowing his master's will and not doing it?

Deceptive like that?

Lie for Jeebus much?
.

 

[TSR]

If I quit now, what are my chances of making a full recovery?

.
Depends -- are your palms getting hairy yet?
.

 

[Akhenaten]

.
Depends -- are your palms getting hairy yet?
.

Ohnoes!!!​

 

[Aepervius]

Why would they need Jesus' prophecy to precise something that any Jew of the time would know perfectly well?
I mean, if somebody mentions 9-11 today, he hardly has to precise what went on on this particular day.

In Matthew 24-1, the authors are just attributing a prediction to Jesus after the facts. Just like Sylvia Browne now pretends to have had visions warning her of 9-11...

That is because believer have understood the prefix pre- and post- backward. "Jesus's prediction of the temple fall were true" make sense once you understand that tidbit.