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

[Gandalfs Beard]

Of your list, there is only one biblical scholar (Robert Price) and he is unable to get a teaching position at an accredited university.
I will not find an objection if you suggest anyone who falls within the clear scope of the original challenge, but you cannot.

Edit: Also I like your use of Acharya S. I never thought I would see someone on a skeptic forum posting a conspiracy theorist who claims the freemasons covered up ancient history as an expert supporter of their position.

See Akhenaten!!???

I knew you would pull this crap Phelix, which is why I chose a list with a lot of Christian Seminary Biblical Scholars turned Atheist. Which, I think, tends to add to their credibility.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I have done so. See my breakdown above of the main points and counterarguments.
Edit: You quoted the post in which I gave this breakdown so you will have read it. Which counterargument would you say is valid?

Well, none of your arguments count as valid EVIDENCE.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

If you are uninterested in finding what is likely to be true through discussion, or contributing material that you are confident of the veracity, then why participate?

We're interested in evidence. Do you have any?

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Welshdean, They do not count because they didn't meet the very clear standards I gave.

The problem is, you don't have any actual standards. You just like Trick Questions because you're pretending to be an Atheist. Still waiting for the Comprehensive list of ALL Biblical Scholars from "Accredited" Universities to prove your assertions.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

OK then. If you accept that the dichotomy of "sincere history" or "fake" is a genuine one, then I would propose it is a natural step from fake to conspiracy theory. We need multiple authors all faking their stories, they need to agree on minor points one second but disagree the next. How can this be achieved without conspiracy?

Then every Religion, Denomination, Sect, or Cult, is a Conspiracy by your definition.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

This is quite ridiculous. Scrap needing qualified experts. I doubt you will find anyone who has even published a book saying that John the Baptist didn't exist.

Has anyone published a book with evidence (not exegesis) for John the Baptist's existence?

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

This is a bit of a silly game, but ok.
Luke 22:7 he says the day of unleavened bread was when the passover must be killed. This is historically accurate.

Look everyone! He's quoting Luke the Historian (I wonder where DOC is?).


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think you've used the term "right mind" dishonestly here in order to imply that my choice to only permit qualified critical history is akin to pandering to a religion. It is not.

You have yet to demonstrate that your (alleged) "qualified critical historians" actually have any evidence (not exegesis).


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I missed a big chunk of this thread, due to being away for work, so in case this has any relevance to anything, John the Baptist is discussed in Jewish Antiquities by Josephus. Of course, there is the possibility that this is simply another Christian interpolation, but it seems to have more legitimacy than the Jesus passages. Many biblical scholars do consider the passage to be genuine to Josephus.

Of course! The only problem is that the oldest copies we have are tattered remnants from the 11th century. Which makes relying on them as evidence of anything 1000 years previous somewhat problematic.

GB

 

[SezMe]

Historical facts about Caesar and Pilate are generally far better than historical facts about unimportant Jewish cult figures. Compared to other unimportant figures though, our sources for Jesus are brilliant. Keep in mind that "the only evidence is the new testament" doesn't accurately reflect the sources. It would be more accurate to say "the only evidence is the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul?" A lot of the time, yes. And it's good enough evidence to warrant belief, just as you would believe in Apollonius of Tyana even though the only evidence is from Philostratus and Damis.

Wait a minute. Are you asserting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are the actual authors of the gospels?

 

[Larechar]

Wait a minute. Are you asserting that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are the actual authors of the gospels?

Earlier he conceded that they were not, so I assume he's now just referring to the titles of the books.

 

[dropzone]

Earlier he conceded that they were not, so I assume he's now just referring to the titles of the books.

And, after 503 pages, you remember that? There may be a God after all.

 

[Larechar]

And, after 503 pages, you remember that? There may be a God after all.

Haha I've only been here for about 15 pages, and phelix for about 12. So far we've gone around in circles 4 times, at least, with him.

 

[SezMe]

Earlier he conceded that they were not, so I assume he's now just referring to the titles of the books.

Thanks, Larechar.

 

[Larechar]

Thanks, Larechar.

Hai! No problem. I'd say I'm curious to know your thoughts about the comment you quoted of him with what I told you in mind, but it would be moot, anyway, because he'd just dismiss your point anyway.

 

[pakeha]

OK then. If you accept that the dichotomy of "sincere history" or "fake" is a genuine one, then I would propose it is a natural step from fake to conspiracy theory. We need multiple authors all faking their stories, they need to agree on minor points one second but disagree the next. How can this be achieved without conspiracy?

RL called me away and I come back to find phelix still waffling on about applying the historic method to the collection of set propaganda pieces we know as the NT.
And now asking us to accept

the dichotomy of "sincere history" or "fake" is a genuine one, then I would propose it is a natural step from fake to conspiracy theory.

While all this is amusing, it's simply going over the material of this thread.
On the one hand phelix claims the historic method can be applied to the propaganda of the NT and on the other claims it can't be applied to fiction.
I find the historic method used to proclaim Jesus knew John the Baptist to be an inadequate reason to think the NT authors were telling the truth.
And again, the existence or not of Jesus as an historical isn't the subject of this thread.
There are threads dedicated to that, phelix.
Here, the subject is whether the NT authors were telling the truth.

 

[Hokulele]

D. M. Murdock, better known by her pen name Acharya S, is an author and proponent of the Christ myth theory. She has authored six books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths. Acharya received a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed her postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece.

I am picking my way through the train wreck of the last few pages, and just had to comment.

Egads, don't use Murdock as a reputable source. A few of her die hard fans have tried to promote her nonsense here, and people using acutal source documents showed that her claims are almost 100% nutjobbery based on a single poor translation from decades ago. Her level of scholarship is almost DOCian in that she doesn't use modern sources/translations. One of the videos linked by one of her fans about Mythical Jesus made the claim that Jesus is based on an Egyptian sun god (no, not Aten ) because "Son" sounds like "Sun". Whackiness.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm repeating this because this is the actual crucial point that you are missing and will continue on running in circles if not resovled.

If your "historical method" does not work on fiction, when does it work?
When the book in question is something you already accept as true?
When the book in question is something you are not sure of and therefore can't actually verify if it's true or not?

Do you seriously not see a problem here?

Apparently not. I think that Phelix took the same Logic 101 course that DOC did (I seriously considered the possibility that Phelix was DOC until DOC showed up).


GB

 

[zooterkin]

The accounts of John the Baptist are not all clearly factual. For instance, the synoptics state that at John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus, a dove came from the sky and the voice of God boomed out. This is not factual.

So, which references to John the Baptist do you regard as factual? Is it simply the ones which have no supernatural element?

 

[Hokulele]

Of course! The only problem is that the oldest copies we have are tattered remnants from the 11th century. Which makes relying on them as evidence of anything 1000 years previous somewhat problematic.

GB

Which, of course, isn't the issue I was addressing.

Egads! Were you arguing that Murdock is a reputable biblical scholar too just a ways up this page?

Seriously, it would be best if people just skip the lists of who believes what and worry about what sources we have (few as they are) and how reliable they may be. It is possible that both of the claims that regarding Jesus and historicity/mythology can be correct. It is my opinion that while clearly the Jesus of the NT is mythology, it is possible it is based on one or more real people. I tend to compare Jesus to King Arthur, in terms of a possible historical figure completely lost in the subsequent mythology.