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

[Mojo]

We are talking about evidence for the historical event of the resurrection. The writings by New Testament authors certainly can be considered historical evidence if we are to believe this scholar's quote given in the above link.

This thread is about "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth". The writings by New Testament authors cannot be considered evidence that they told the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

How many times do you need to be told that the Bible can't be used as evidence for itself?

We are talking about evidence for the historical event of the resurrection.

Rebranding your fairytale as an "historical event" doesn't turn it into fact, DOC.

The whole point of this thread was supposedly to provide you with an opportunity to present evidence that the stuff written in the bible was true.

YOU CANNOT USE WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE TO DO THIS!​

It beggars belief that you are unable to understand such a simple concept.

The writings by New Testament authors certainly can be considered historical evidence if we are to believe this scholar's quote given in the above link.

It's the rubbish in that link that I was talking about when I asked the bloody question that you quoted, DOC. The rubbish that goes on and on about the stuff in the Bible being evidence of itself.

For goodness' sake DOC, not only are you arguing in circles, but they appear to have become ever-decreasing ones. Fundamental orifice, here we come.

From the article "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell

" I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University"

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

He can claim to be the Man in the Moon, for all I care. He's lying through his teeth in claiming all this drivel about the resurrection as historical fact, and your quoting him as an authority is nothing more or less than perpetuating those lies.

Let's just have a little look at some of this balderdash. These are the "facts" that this lying bastige claims authenticate the resurrection story:

FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL

FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB

FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED

FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL

FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE

FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED​

Where do all these "facts" come from, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

How about these scholars also mentioned in the McDowell link above, are they liars too.

Yes, as you've been told umpty-twelveteen times. It's never going to sink in though, is it?

 

[ddt]

How about these scholars also mentioned in the McDowell link above, are they liars too.

"Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

Yes, they're lying for Jesus. How can Thomas Arnold seriously say the alleged resurrection is better proven than, say, the beheading of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution, or the Battle of Waterloo, to name just a few landmarks of (British) modern history - his specialty - which were witnessed by thousands?

Here's the clues the people you mention were professional liars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Musgrave_Blaiklock:

Edward Musgrave Blaiklock (1903–1983) was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature in New Zealand from the 1950s until his death in 1983.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Arnold:

Dr. Thomas Arnold (13 June 1795 – 12 June 1842) was a British educator and historian. Arnold was an early supporter of the Broad Church Anglican movement.
[...]
His chief literary works are his unfinished History of Rome (three volumes 1838-42), and his Lectures on Modern History. Far more widely read were his five books of sermons,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Foss_Westcott:

Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was an English churchman and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death.

They all had a significant stake in the story being true, being ardently religious.

ETA: DOC, don't forget Luke 2:2!

 

[ddt]

Here's another gem from DOC's link:

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

WTF? By the time the gospels were written, most if not all witnesses to the time of the NT stories were dead. Moreover, focusing on the resurrection: how could there be hostile witnesses? The resurrection certainly did not occur, ergo there couldn't be any witnesses to the event. And even if Jesus existed and was crucified, who would camp out at his tomb to see if he would resurrect or not? Anyway they would be too late, as the prophecy said "three days and three nights", but according to the story he rose up after one day and two nights.

ETA: and DOC, how is it with Luke 2:2?

 

[Lothian]

As DOC appears to be a fan of the bishops of Durham I look forward to him embracing the beliefs of Right Rev David Jenkins 84-94 who denied the virgin birth and claimed there was no physical resurrection merely a spiritual one. He considered the bible to be of little use today as can be seen form his BBC Breakfast with Frost interview.

And I think the homosexual business is perhaps almost the most pathetic, you know, because it seems so neurotic about sex and it shows, you see, the difference between saying a text of the Bible proves something when it's only relevant in its time

Or his successor Bishop Turnbull (94-03) who said 'We don't know, really, whether the Wise Men were a historical event. But the New Testament would be poorer without these stories. “

 

[amb]

We are talking about evidence for the historical event of the resurrection. The writings by New Testament authors certainly can be considered historical evidence if we are to believe this scholar's quote given in the above link.

From the article "Evidence for the Resurrection" by Josh McDowell

" I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University"

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

And this guy is a neutral source? He is not a christian?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Seriously!?? Thomas Arnold??? Again...

Why do I feel like this thread is DOC's version of Groundhog Day???

This is one of my favourite bits from Josh McDowell's tract:

A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

I'm going with "one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings."

(I didn't need 30 days to work that out either)


GB

PS: Oddly enough Sir William Ramsay and the "historian of the first rank" Luke were referenced in the tract too. I'm feeling one of those head exploding Time Loops coming on.

 

[Lothian]

Seriously!?? Thomas Arnold??? Again...

Why do I feel like this thread is DOC's version of Groundhog Day???

This is one of my favourite bits from Josh McDowell's tract:




I'm going with "one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings."

(I didn't need 30 days to work that out either)


GB

PS: Oddly enough Sir William Ramsay and the "historian of the first rank" Luke were referenced in the tract too. I'm feeling one of those head exploding Time Loops coming on.


[qimg]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif[/qimg]

GB. That is sick and repulsive.






One smilie is Ok but seeing two in a post is quite stomach churning.

 

[TSR]

Seriously!?? Thomas Arnold??? Again...

.
Tom Arnold? He converted to Judaism when he married Roseanne.


And he never offered any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth, either.
.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Crikey - only five more pages to go until we hit the 500 mark! Is the pizza party still on? Are Nimrod and Wilbur on the invitation list? And how do we intend to celebrate the glorious day when, after another elebenty gazillion posts, this gargantuan thread expands to 1000 pages?

There were moments - back in the mid-Jurassic era - when I was almost convinced that DOC was either a very persistent troll or a performance artist. However, his total failure to come up with a shred of evidence for why we know the New Testament authors told the truth has convinced me that he is in fact the world's most inept Christian apologist. I've also come to believe that his posts are proof of a link between blind faith and a chronic inability to use question marks.

 

[kmortis]

Crikey - only five more pages to go until we hit the 500 mark! Is the pizza party still on? Are Nimrod and Wilbur on the invitation list? And how do we intend to celebrate the glorious day when, after another elebenty gazillion posts, this gargantuan thread expands to 1000 pages?

There were moments - back in the mid-Jurassic era - when I was almost convinced that DOC was either a very persistent troll or a performance artist. However, his total failure to come up with a shred of evidence for why we know the New Testament authors told the truth has convinced me that he is in fact the world's most inept Christian apologist. I've also come to believe that his posts are proof of a link between blind faith and a chronic inability to use question marks.

Do yourself a favor and set your posts/page to 50. 500 pages of this is too depressing a thought to consider.

 

[carlitos]

I actually set my post pages back from 50 to 40 so I could follow the banter here. A sad commentary on my life.

 

[kmortis]

You're just a sad little man, aren't you?


So. Anyone heard any good jokes seen any evidence lately?

 

[Lothian]

I actually set my post pages back from 50 to 40 so I could follow the banter here. A sad commentary on my life.

Same here. Only 3 to go before we hit the 400 mark!

 

[joobz]

If we hit 400 pages before evidence is presented, does the internet catch fire?

 

[kmortis]

I hope not. That'll be one hell of a burn.

 

[pakeha]

:

This is one of my favourite bits from Josh McDowell's tract:

A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

I'm going with "one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings."

(I didn't need 30 days to work that out either)


GB

PS: Oddly enough Sir William Ramsay and the "historian of the first rank" Luke were referenced in the tract too.

Ah, Sir William Ramsey.
Anyway, my own favourite bit from Josh's tract is:

Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.'

Who knew the University of Miama had a branch in Oxford, Ohio?
Not a thousand kilometers from my home is the headquarters of a group of people who claim to have seen the sun dance in honour of the Blessed Virgin.
They number over 500 IIRC, so what they give witness to must be true?

 

[John Jones]

Well since "you" brought up, here is the thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94086

[snip] .

I brought it up. It was in reply to your claim that the empty "tomb of Jesus" is evidence the NT authors told the truth.

Elvis' tomb is still empty too. It's evidence that his remains are not there. Nothing more.

Ditto for Jesus and his tomb.

You can buy Elvis' tomb -- with authenticated, extra-biblical accounts that he was actually buried there in Elmwood Cemetery, Memphis, Tennessee, USA in August 1977.

Not so much for Jesus.

 

[John Jones]

Everytime.

Perfect.