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

[zooterkin]

One of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

How many times do you need to be told this is irrelevant? It's the truth of the supernatural events that is significant.

But when you have several independent stories/accounts saying basically the same thing regarding the major events, that is historical evidence. And the more independent stories/accounts you have basically saying the same thing the better when it comes to history especially when there are people dying and going to jail for those stories/accounts.

What about the current topic, where we have contradictory accounts of the same events?

I've said you need faith all along, just like atheists need faith to say God doesn't exist without proof.

How much faith do you need to not believe in Krishna, DOC?

But Christians don't have blind faith because there is a lot of historical evidence out there regarding Christianity as I've presented in this thread.

No-one here is doubting the existence of Christianity.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, I agree with you totally. The New Testament accounts consist of a number of stories.

One of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

• This nonsense about Luke being a great historian has been refuted so many times that your mindless repetition of it can reasonably be called a lie, DOC.
  
  
• Who the hell is Sir William M. Mitchell?

Whether any particular story in a gospel is true or false has no influence on the veracity of other stories.

You can say this about any stories/accounts on any subject, so what.

We aren't talking about ANY stories/accounts, DOC. We're talking about the New Testament, a story for which you claimed you would be producing evidence. When can we expect you to be making a start on that?

But when you have several independent stories/accounts saying basically the same thing regarding the major events, that is historical evidence. And the more independent stories/accounts you have basically saying the same thing the better when it comes to history especially when there are people dying and going to jail for those stories/accounts.

We have several independent stories/accounts saying basically the same thing regarding the major events in Egyptian, Norse, Chinese, Indian and Babylonian mythology, DOC, to name just a few.

Do all of these other mythologies count as historical evidence too?

People dying and or going to jail for telling stories is absolutely no kind of supporting evidence for those stories being true. As a matter of fact, people usually find themselves in trouble for telling stories that aren't at all true.

You are right, whether or not there are contradicting accounts of Jesus' last words it tells us nothing about whether he was resurrected.

Strawman,

Bollocks.

The New Testament Writers Including Embarrassing Details About Themselves tells us nothing about whether he was resurrected

The New Testament Writers Including Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus tells us nothing about whether he was resurrected.

The NT Writers Leaving in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus tells us nothing about whether he was resurrected.

The New Testament Writers Describing Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts tells us nothing about whether he was resurrected.

You have the right to your opinion.

The point is though, DOC, that you are supposed to be furnishing evidence which will change those opinions.

Are you able to show that you have been able to persuade even one person of the truth of your claims?

Each and every miracle needs supporting evidence outside the bible. Ramsay made clear that no such evidence exists and the only way it can be accepted is through faith. Thank Aten, you are starting to seeing the light.

I've said you need faith all along, just like atheists need faith to say God doesn't exist without proof. But Christians don't have blind faith because there is a lot of historical evidence out there regarding Christianity as I've presented in this thread.

This is simply a lie, DOC. You've demonstrably done no such thing.

 

[Akhenaten]

On a different note this wording tells us that Jesus' spirit never did die on the cross because he was giving it to God (the father), only his body died (which was then resurrected later).

I can't even stop laughing long enough to write a proper refutation. I hope Lothian manages better.

This comment means nothing without an explanation.

[Now that lashl has kindly sorted out the quote tags for you]

It means exactly what it says, DOC. I find the idea of an adult in a 21st century, first world country actually believing in zombies to be hilarious.*

As it turned out, Lothian did in fact manage to refute your nonsensical fantasy better than I might have.



* Unless one is a Voodooist, perhaps. Watch out for tsunamis, DOC.

 

[joobz]

Then why is one of the definitions to stop trying which is a deliberate action:

From: The Free Dictionary


give up the ghost
1. to die My great-grandfather gave up the ghost a week after moving into a nursing home.
2. to stop operating He had not been to town since spring because his car had given up the ghost.
3. to stop trying She'd been trying to break into acting for ten years without success and was just about to give up the ghost.

And if you don't like my explanation I gave a link to another explanation regarding the issue.

DOC, once again, you seem to believe you are free to use what ever definition you want and ignore context of the phrase. You did this with Doulos and now you do this with "Give Up the Ghost".

Words have multiple meanings, and we must always use context to understand what is meant.

the word "DIE" has the exact same set of definitions:
If the phrase in the bible was:
"And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and Died."
Would you use the claim that the phrase meant:
"and Jesus cried with a loud voice and became indifferent."
After all, that's the 5th definition of the word according to Mirriam Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die


the sad thing here DOC is that "To give up the ghost" was clearly a phrase meaning "To Die". This was it's original meaning.
the metaphorical use of it's term is a result of this original use. This site puts the first use of "to give up the ghost" to be metaphorical in the 19th century.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/155500.html


Finally, and most amusingly, this site shows the various definitions of the phrase and gives examples of it's use for the varied meanings.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/give_up_the_ghost
Of course, the example used for die is none other than Mark 15:37.

 

[joobz]

And one of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

Why do you keep omitting the fact that it is known that Luke lied about events in the bible?

 

[Mojo]

On a different note this wording tells us that Jesus' spirit never did die on the cross because he was giving it to God (the father), only his body died (which was then resurrected later).

I can't even stop laughing long enough to write a proper refutation. I hope Lothian manages better.

This comment means nothing without an explanation.

DOC, the post that quote tag leads to reads:

He seems to be having some difficulty with "and" as well.

A little over a week ago you made an entirely spurious compaint that a post reading:

Also according to answers.com:

Is there a God?

* I don't know. We'll all find out one day! Maybe, maybe not.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_God

..."could make it seem to some people" that you had posted the quoted words. Here's your post:

Also according to answers.com:




http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_God

Your post could make it seem to some people that I said this:

Is there a God?

* I don't know. We'll all find out one day! Maybe, maybe not.

Which would be false -- looks like another let's get DOC ad hom campaign is heating up.

The post you complained about could only be read as suggesting that you had posted those words by a complete idiot. Nevertheless you complained that it did, you made an implied accusation of dishonesty, and even suggested that it was evidence of some sort of conspiracy against you. You also used the same formatting to which you objected (an attribution of a quotation followed by a colon and then the quotation itself) in your reply to AdMan, indicating either that you were well aware that this formatting clearly attributes the quotation that follows it or that you were attempting to give the impression that the quotation following the colon was actually from AdMan.

Now we see you very clearly misattributing one members comment to another member. If you are not to appear like a total hypocrite, you need to admit your mistake and apologise not only to Lucian and Akhenaten but also to all other readers of this thread.

ETA: I see that LashL has now edited the post. Are you going to admit your error and apologise?

 

[joobz]

I would like to submit the following bit of information:

If infants and children are going to grow up in a Voodoo environment it would seem to be more compassionate for God to take them now. You seem to feel a perfect and just God as the bible says He is can't figure out a just penalty for people or children after death.

This is the morality being presented by the OP and the OP author. this must be one of those "hard sayings" DOC was referring to.
As this view is in such direct opposition to modern notions of secular morality, we are left to wonder other "hard sayings" exist that would further make one question the usefulness of the bible.

 

[Akhenaten]

Finally, and most amusingly, this cite shows the various definitions of the phrase and gives examples of it's use for the varied meanings.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/give_up_the_ghost
Of course, the example used for die is none other than Mark 15:37.

 

[Akhenaten]

And one of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

Why do you keep omitting the fact that it is known that Luke lied about events in the bible?

If it's good enough for the mysterious Sir William M. Mitchell to leave out these embarrassing details, it's good enough for DOC.

 

[Lothian]

And one of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

DOC, Sir Ramsay Mitchell said the locations can be trusted but not the story. As he pointed out there is no evidence for Mary existing never mind her being a virgin.

You can say this about any stories/accounts on any subject, so what.

Strawman,

You have the right to your opinion.

I do and my opinion is right. It is a fact that proving one part of the bible/koran/Torah/Veda/Bhagavad Gita/Five Confucian Classics is true tells you nothing about the other parts. Mitchell Sir William said to believe in the Jesus story you need faith, there is no historical evidence for the essential elements of the NT.

It follows that the reasons in the OP are useless as evidence that the NT is true. As you demonstrated previously when applying Geislers 'reasons' to a different faith you saw that they were not evidence for the truth of that religion. Unless you want to apply the fallacy of special pleading you have to accept Geisler's reasons are not evidence. So what is it to be. Do you want to apply the fallacious reasoning or do you accept his arguments are illogical.

But when you have several independent stories/accounts saying basically the same thing regarding the major events, that is historical evidence. And the more independent stories/accounts you have basically saying the same thing the better when it comes to history especially when there are people dying and going to jail for those stories/accounts.

Indeed but you don't have any independent stories/accounts saying the same thing as you find in the New Testament.

There is no independent account of his last words for example. We only have multiple different versions in the bible. I note you are still to decide which one is right and to tell us what his last words were.

I've said you need faith all along, just like atheists need faith to say God doesn't exist without proof. But Christians don't have blind faith because there is a lot of historical evidence out there regarding Christianity as I've presented in this thread.

You regularly confuse the fact you have said something with the thing you have said having any merit whatsoever.

 

[Helen]

Then why is one of the definitions to stop trying which is a deliberate action:

From: The Free Dictionary


give up the ghost
1. to die My great-grandfather gave up the ghost a week after moving into a nursing home.
2. to stop operating He had not been to town since spring because his car had given up the ghost.
3. to stop trying She'd been trying to break into acting for ten years without success and was just about to give up the ghost.

And if you don't like my explanation I gave a link to another explanation regarding the issue.

And the Bible was, as we all know, written in English.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Then why is one of the definitions to stop trying which is a deliberate action:

From: The Free Dictionary


give up the ghost
1. to die My great-grandfather gave up the ghost a week after moving into a nursing home.
2. to stop operating He had not been to town since spring because his car had given up the ghost.
3. to stop trying She'd been trying to break into acting for ten years without success and was just about to give up the ghost.

And if you don't like my explanation I gave a link to another explanation regarding the issue.

First, explain how a car could engage in any sort of volitional activity at all.

Second, what do you not understand about "to give up the ghost" being an idiom meaning "to die," with the other meanings coming along as metaphors later?

Third, since you are apparently arguing for the third meaning ("to stop trying"), are you now telling us that Jesus was trying to stay alive, thus attempting to thwart the will of his father/himself?

ETA: thanks, doc - I knew, just knew, that you were going to run off and find some third, fourth or fifth meaning for the phrase "to give up the ghost" and then attempt to argue that that meaning is how the phrase was used in the Bible.

You offer hours of innocent amusement, I'll give you that.

he doesn't even seem to know that "last" means "nothing else afterward."

Why do you say this, explain?

"Last" means "final, "being, coming, or placed after all others," "after all others in chronology or sequence," "the end," "the final mention or appearance."

Even if you're right and at the end of his life Jesus said all the things attributed to him in the Bible, one of them had to be "being, coming, or placed after all others," "after all others in chronology or sequence," "the end," "the final mention or appearance." That's what "last words" means. So which of the several phrases were Jesus' last words?

And one of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

If it's good enough for the mysterious Sir William M. Mitchell to leave out these embarrassing details, it's good enough for DOC.

I wonder if William M. Mitchell (as the Great Pharaoh himself has said, "Who the hell?") is any relation to Sir Ramsey?

 

[Christian Klippel]

You offer hours of innocent amusement, I'll give you that.

Hmm, not sure about that. While the amusement itself might be innocent, the cause for it certainly isn't. It is people with such a mindset, who say that people and/or children are better of dead just because they happen to not believe the same thing, who led to the biggest atrocities we know of.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Elizabeth I]

Hmm, not sure about that. While the amusement itself might be innocent, the cause for it certainly isn't. It is people with such a mindset, who say that people and/or children are better of dead just because they happen to not believe the same thing, who led to the biggest atrocities we know of.

Greetings,

Chris

You are right. I was thinking mostly of the silliness in this thread and not of that horrible statement from the OP in the R&P subforum. That does kind of take the funniness out of all this stuff.

 

[Lucian]

Misquoting people yet again, DOC? Those are not Lucian's words.

This happens far too often, DOC. Whether it's mendacity or incompetence, it raises a whole sea of red flags.

Who me? Clearly I missed something. I suppose I should feel complimented that someone confused me with the pharaoh, but really the mistake isn't hard to understand. After all, our names are so similar. No, wait. Well, our avatars are almost identical. No, that's not it. Hmmm, we do live on the same planet, and we both know how the quote feature works. That must be it.

 

[blobru]

Who me? Clearly I missed something. I suppose I should feel complimented that someone confused me with the pharaoh, but really the mistake isn't hard to understand. After all, our names are so similar. No, wait. Well, our avatars are almost identical. No, that's not it. Hmmm, we do live on the same planet, and we both know how the quote feature works. That must be it.

Couldn't agree more, zooterkin.

 

[DOC]

Why do you keep omitting the fact that it is known that Luke lied about events in the bible?

So one Catholic academic voices the "opinion" that Luke "guessed" on a fact -- by the way this opinion that Luke guessed was based on a writing of Josephus whom many in here don't believe was right about Moses living in Egypt -- and thus you are certain that Luke (who has been called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events) lied about more than one event???

And by the way that same academic believes Jesus' tomb is most probably directly under the church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. But I would assume you don't believe the academic was right about that -- just right about Luke.

 

[DOC]

"Last" means "final, "being, coming, or placed after all others," "after all others in chronology or sequence," "the end," "the final mention or appearance."

Even if you're right and at the end of his life Jesus said all the things attributed to him in the Bible, one of them had to be "being, coming, or placed after all others," "after all others in chronology or sequence," "the end," "the final mention or appearance." That's what "last words" means. So which of the several phrases were Jesus' last words?

But you didn't answer my question, why did you say this?

"he doesn't even seem to know that "last" means "nothing else afterward.""

believe it or not I know what last means. You might not like my answer but it doesn't make sense to say he doesn't seem to know what last means.

 

[Akhenaten]

So one academic voices the "opinion" that Luke "guessed" on a fact -- by the way this opinion that Luke guessed was based on a writing of Josephus whom many in here don't believe was right about Moses living in Egypt -- and thus you are certain Luke lied about more than one event???

And by the way that same academic believes Jesus' tomb is most probably directly under the church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. But I would assume you don't believe the academic was right about that -- just right about Luke.

Are you going to bother giving any cites for whatever it is that your trying to say here, or should we just take your word for it?

Sure, that's gonna happen.

 

[Akhenaten]

"Last" means "final, "being, coming, or placed after all others," "after all others in chronology or sequence," "the end," "the final mention or appearance."

Even if you're right and at the end of his life Jesus said all the things attributed to him in the Bible, one of them had to be "being, coming, or placed after all others," "after all others in chronology or sequence," "the end," "the final mention or appearance." That's what "last words" means. So which of the several phrases were Jesus' last words?

But you didn't answer my question, why did you say this?

"he doesn't even seem to know that "last" means "nothing else afterward.""

believe it or not I know what last means. You might not like my answer but it doesn't make sense to say he doesn't seem to know what last means.

I assume your purpose in snipping a bit out of the middle of Elizabeth's post was to avoid having to actually answer it.

I'll leave it to the Lady herself to address that, but for my own part I'd be interested to know what you were thinking about when you snipped this part:

And one of those stories/accounts was written by a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)

If it's good enough for the mysterious Sir William M. Mitchell to leave out these embarrassing details, it's good enough for DOC.

I wonder if William M. Mitchell (as the Great Pharaoh himself has said, "Who the hell?") is any relation to Sir Ramsey?