Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[dropzone]

Please try to pay more attention.

Shut up, you worshiper of a false god. And take back your damned Psalm 104. I get in too much trouble at church explaining, "This isn't REALLY about 'God,' as you understand Him...." Lutherans aren't all that open to your heresies. Or non-heresies. Or something Egyptian they don't really get, but which could be an excuse for a pot luck dinner.

Okay, the latter provides common ground. Did ancient Egyptians eat deviled eggs? Cuz that's what my wife usually makes, because most people assume they are hard to make. And I sometimes make them instead of her because they are stupid-easy, but I'm not putting in any crocodile poo just to satisfy your followers. Though they are welcome to play the broom toss or funny hat contest. I'd just prefer they wash their hands before lunch.

 

[Akhenaten]

You raise an intersting point there, phelix.
The fact is much of the Nt deals with the early church.
But only through Paul's letters.
The fact is this thread has centred on the NT in relation to the life and acts of Jesus, as a quick overview of it would show you.
I think if you want to discuss Paul's letters in terms of church history you'd do well to start a thread on the subject.

The problem with focusing on the life and acts of Jesus is that we cannot establish very much at all.

To the extent that his very existence is open to dispute.

Thanks a bunch, Brigadier General Obvious.

The thread will have lingered on this point because apologists will defend it, and atheists will have fun swiping at the low-hanging fruit.

Perhaps you should try to climb a bit higher.

The thread though is about whether the New Testament writers told the truth. Sometimes they did, and the letters of Paul play a big part of that.

You'll be telling us about these times when they were telling the truth any day now, will you?

But, ultimately, it's just speculation.
This thread is about evidence.

Do you think the references provided to support the claim that Paul had a disciple called Timothy do not constitute evidence? It's speculation because the conclusion is not definite, but we still have two pieces of evidence that lead to the conclusion that Paul probably had a disciple called Timothy.

We aren't really claiming that every word in the NT is a lie.

Trivial stuff like this and Sir Luke's famed geographical references aren't really important enough to even consider, unless the thread is having a slow day.

We want to see some evidence for all the god-man stuff.

In relation to this particular thread, yes, they are useless.
But mind, I say this particular thread.

Howso useless? It is from the NT writers alone that we know John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. The NT writers were probably telling the truth here.

My use of the plural in this thing finally makes sense.

 

[Akhenaten]

Shut up, you worshiper of a false god. And take back your damned Psalm 104. I get in too much trouble at church explaining, "This isn't REALLY about 'God,' as you understand Him...." Lutherans aren't all that open to your heresies. Or non-heresies. Or something Egyptian they don't really get, but which could be an excuse for a pot luck dinner.

Okay, the latter provides common ground. Did ancient Egyptians eat deviled eggs? Cuz that's what my wife usually makes, because most people assume they are hard to make. And I sometimes make them instead of her because they are stupid-easy, but I'm not putting in any crocodile poo just to satisfy your followers. Though they are welcome to play the broom toss or funny hat contest. I'd just prefer they wash their hands before lunch.

Your ideas are relevant to my interests and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[dropzone]

Fancy that I was considering starting one. Except I have dealt with both mimeographs and hectographs in my younger days and a blog just seems less messy.

 

[SezMe]

Except I have dealt with both mimeographs and hectographs in my younger days and a blog just seems less messy.

Oh, I love the smell of a mimeograph in the morning.

We're still on-topic, right?

 

[dropzone]

I think we dropped off-topic 20,000 posts ago. Or stopped being repetitious. But that happened 20,300 posts ago.

 

[pakeha]

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages. But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

Welcome back, DOC!
Here are two alleged inconsistencies I'd be glad if you could rationally explain:
The differences between Matthew's and Luke's geneologies for Jesus.
Mt 1:16, Lk 3 and I Chronicles 3:10-12
The differences between Matthew and Luke's accounts of Judas' death.
Mt 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18-19

Giving an answer to ddt's comments on Luke 2:2 would be good, too.

 

[Larechar]

I think we dropped off-topic 20,000 posts ago. Or stopped being repetitious. But that happened 20,300 posts ago.

Wooo boy. Hey everybody! Check out post #3.

Especially you, phelix!

 

[SezMe]

Wooo boy. Hey everybody! Check out post #3.

Sorry, we're to the point where we only traffic in logarithms of post numbers. This mythical "#3" has the same status as DOC's "evidence"

 

[Larechar]

Sorry, we're to the point where we only traffic in logarithms of post numbers. This mythical "#3" has the same status as DOC's "evidence"

Aww! I new I missed something.

 

[phelix]

So the cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should convince you that Gandolf is real. Great. Super logic there. You don't seem to get the Gone with the Wind or other examples. I wonder why? Again, how did you determine that these books were non-fiction so that you could apply (your interpretation of) the historical method?

For Lord of the Rings, there is not cross-source agreement or a presentation of history. On the cross-source agreement bit, the counterargument has been that there are multiple LOTR fanfictions, and if the original was lost what we would be left with is something resembling the new testament. There is no real need to make this leap, and it does seem to require that the only remaining fanfictions are ones written pretending to be historical, or ones written by people who believed the original LOTR was correct.
Additionally, the composition of the different gospels suggests a number of sources (see the synoptic problem) with John and Paul completely separate. This would require quite a bit of intellectual gymnastics to fit the one source model being proposed.

And HOW did you rule those things out please? How? My question was how, in case you missed it. How?
You do not understand the fallacy of special pleading, I'm afraid. Here's a good summary. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

I've said. I do not "rule them out". They are possible. It's just that they create unnecessary strains on reasonableness.
I consider it special pleading because the possibility of every source being faked (or based on fakes) is not one that would be given so much mental airtime in other cases.

 

[phelix]

That's evidence for probability of truth in some points, not evidence for truth. This is pointless. You keep saying the SAME THING over and over and over and over and over, and we keep telling you that isn't proof based on your system over and over and over and over and over. I'm out 'til DOC comes back with some more assertions.

"evidence for probability of truth" and "evidence for truth" are the same thing. Evidence necessitates probability. If probability were not involved, then it would be "proof of truth", which is impossible.

 

[Larechar]

"evidence for probability of truth" and "evidence for truth" are the same thing. Evidence necessitates probability. If probability were not involved, then it would be "proof of truth", which is impossible.

Unwittingly promoting Solipsism, are we?

 

[phelix]

Come, come, phelix.
Read the thread.
See what it's about.
None of what you've written has anything to do with it.
Be honest.

I addressed this in the first paragraph. The thread is concerning whether or not the NT writers told the truth. My posts cover this issue. Many people would prefer to steer the conversation onto matters like Jesus' purported miracles, because it is a case where they obviously were not "telling the truth", even though apologists would be willing to defend it as such.
Nevertheless, it is clear that there are some times when the gospel writers were telling the truth. I've mentioned a few of these and provided the arguments commonly given for them. I consider the critical historical approach to be much more interesting than the one you have suggested the thread went down. I mean, why would you want to spend hundreds of pages on the actions of Jesus? Of course the vast majority of the story is wrong. He goes about contradicting science every 5 minutes. If every author was sincere, it's still wrong. If every author was an eye-witness, it's still wrong. If every source was contemporary, it's still wrong. If every source were in its original format, it's still wrong.

 

[Aepervius]

I am sorry, but what cross source are we speaking ehre ? Josephus ?

 

[Larechar]

I addressed this in the first paragraph. The thread is concerning whether or not the NT writers told the truth. My posts cover this issue. Many people would prefer to steer the conversation onto matters like Jesus' purported miracles, because it is a case where they obviously were not "telling the truth", even though apologists would be willing to defend it as such.
Nevertheless, it is clear that there are some times when the gospel writers were telling the truth. I've mentioned a few of these and provided the arguments commonly given for them. I consider the critical historical approach to be much more interesting than the one you have suggested the thread went down. I mean, why would you want to spend hundreds of pages on the actions of Jesus? Of course the vast majority of the story is wrong. He goes about contradicting science every 5 minutes. If every author was sincere, it's still wrong. If every author was an eye-witness, it's still wrong. If every source was contemporary, it's still wrong. If every source were in its original format, it's still wrong.

I must have missed the part where clarity came into effect.

 

[Larechar]

I am sorry, but what cross source are we speaking ehre ? Josephus ?

Probably the same ones you didn't cover here:

Heck, let us assume I do this :
* I take some the bookn "the call of cthulhu". I call that the "book of lovecraft"
* I take a few other "the book of Blake" "the book of Derleth".

All the writing they have done on the great Cthulhu.

That is my "good book" in 3 part.

And Bam ! Now we have 3 book speaking of the same stuff, and with some criterion of embarassement probably appliable.

Therefore : Cthulhu exists even if he does not have all the power described in the book.

We could due that fun thing with all the subject where more than 1 author worked on, and used a few historical fact.

Fact is : if you use a criteria, then you have to demonstrate that that criteria is able to distinguish real fact from fiction. The criteria of embarassement ,as well as a few others are certainly NOT able to do that, which is why people keep hinting to use them on Harry Potter. Do you understand now Phelix ?

 

[phelix]

Unwittingly promoting Solipsism, are we?

Not at all. I just emphasise the difference between mathematical proof, logical proof, even scientific evidence, and historical evidence.
With the first two, only 100% certainty (or near as damnit) is good enough.
With scientific evidence, you can be pretty sure of something with less than that. 99% certainty is good enough. It has the advantage of being able to repeat the test.
With history, you cannot do this. You have to work with what you're given, and all you can ever conclude is probability. The Spanish civil war probably happened. It's not as certain as much in science which can be tested and so on, but it's extremely unlikely that it didn't happen. If you go back in time further, you have to rely on less and less evidence, so we become less certain in our probabilities. Did Jesus exist? Probably, but it's not the same level as the Spanish civil war by any shot. Did Pythagoras exist? Probably, but it's not the same level as Jesus. Did Homer exist? Maybe. We don't really know.

 

[phelix]

Wooo boy. Hey everybody! Check out post #3.

Especially you, phelix!

Yup. My first post in this thread was in agreement with that one

 

[phelix]

I am sorry, but what cross source are we speaking ehre ? Josephus ?

No. Well, yes for some parts. I used Josephus in my analysis of John the Baptist, for instance. Mostly though, I mean Mark, Q, L, M, John and Paul.