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

[Robrob]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all of the books of the New Testament were written decades and generations after the events described, right? Obviously there's room for error in transcription here. Anyone who claims otherwise is operating in a "non-factual" realm of predestination and divine guidance.

A good example might be the Book of Revelations. No matter how bizarre and indecipherable the description, if the Biblical apologist can't manufacture some explanation he simply says "prophecy" and moves on.

 

[DOC]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all of the books of the New Testament were written decades and generations after the events described, right? Obviously there's room for error in transcription here...

Actually Galatians by Paul the apostle was written about around 15 years after the crucifixion. Do you think you would be able to write anything (from your memory) about the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, or the OJ Simpson trial which happened about 15 years ago.

This link has other dates for other books

http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/

As mentioned earlier almost all of what we know about Alexander the Great (who conquered much of the known world and was listed as the 2nd greatest general of all time in a book that lists the 100 greatest generals) comes from historians who wrote over 300 years after his death.

And just because there is no contemporary books in our possession about Christ doesn't mean none were written. Just because we have no signature for Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in world during his time, doesn't mean he never signed anything. Some scholars believe there is an earlier book about the life of Christ-- they call it "Q".

And there is a saying that "actions speak louder than words". The continuous "actions" of Christ's followers after his brutal death (and the claimed resurrection) are the reason we are now taking about him 2000 years later.

Also, the gospels report that Christ told his apostles (after the resurrection) to go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He said nothing that we know of about writing anything down.

 

[joobz]

Actually Galatians by Paul the apostle was written about around 15 years after the crucifixion. Do you think you would be able to write anything (from your memory) about the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, or the OJ Simpson trial which happened about 15 years ago.

Certainly. But, what I would write wouldn't be very reliable.
Which is the main conclusion about the bible.

 

[amb]

For the love of Zeus DOC. The Q document, if it existed, is a collection of sayings that were attributed to a Jesus. In reality, they were a collection of sayings that possibly go back many centuries. For example, the "Golden Rule"attributed to Jesus is no such thing. It was someone called Hilel who is the real author according to most historians.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually Galatians by Paul the apostle was written about around 15 years after the crucifixion. Do you think you would be able to write anything (from your memory) about the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, or the OJ Simpson trial which happened about 15 years ago.

Who?

This link has other dates for other books

http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/

So does this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books​

How do we tell who won?

As mentioned earlier almost all of what we know about Alexander the Great (who conquered much of the known world and was listed as the 2nd greatest general of all time in a book that lists the 100 greatest generals) comes from historians who wrote over 300 years after his death.

Does the highlighted bit hint at anything for you, DOC?

And just because there is no contemporary books in our possession about Christ doesn't mean none were written.

Are you claiming that these books that may or may not exist, but which in any case we don't have, are some kind of evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

Please explain how this works.

Just because we have no signature for Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in world during his time, doesn't mean he never signed anything.

Actually, yes it does. Repeating this drivel after having been corrected on it so many times is pretty much lying, DOC. Even if it wasn't, it's completely irrelevant.

Some scholars believe there is an earlier book about the life of Christ-- they call it "Q".

Until you can post some excerpts or a link to it, you don't get to use it as evidence of anything.

And there is a saying that "actions speak louder than words". The continuous "actions" of Christ's followers after his brutal death (and the claimed resurrection) are the reason we are now taking about him 2000 years later.

Utter nonsense. These "actions" that you're talking about cover the entire gamut of human behaviour, including some of the most vile acts ever perpetrated. I have no doubt that you only want to claim the good stuff, but that's not your call. Fact is it's mainly because of the more-or-less insane stuff that we're still talking about your alleged hero.

In any case, the idea that the actions of the adherents to a religion render it's historical origins as facts either works for all religions or for none. Pick one, DOC.

Also, the gospels report that Christ told his apostles (after the resurrection) to go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He said nothing that we know of about writing anything down.

 

[zooterkin]

Also, the gospels report that Christ told his apostles (after the resurrection) to go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He said nothing that we know of about writing anything down.

So of course they wouldn't have written any of it down, but you're claiming they did?

 

[amb]

90% of the population in those days were illiterate, if not more. Everything is from hearsay, nothing more.

 

[Lothian]

Also, the gospels report that Christ told his apostles (after the resurrection) to go into all the world and "preach" the gospel.

The gospels claim that on Jesus's death the world turned dark and zombies arose. They are fictional accounts designed to impress the ignorant.

 

[amb]

If such B/S really happened, we would find more info. outside the gospels as inside them.

 

[Resume]

And there is a saying that "actions speak louder than words". The continuous "actions" of Christ's followers after his brutal death (and the claimed resurrection) are the reason we are now taking about him 2000 years later.

No, the reason we're talking about him is because Constantine found the myth surrounding the hippie a useful tool to control the rowdy rabble.

 

[Lothian]

The continuous "actions" of Christ's followers after his brutal death (and the claimed resurrection) are the reason we are now taking about him 2000 years later.

Like Simon the Zealot continuously killing himself? Remind me. In how many places did he die and resurect himself? He made Jesus look like an amateur.

 

[carlitos]

No, the reason we're talking about him is because Constantine found the myth surrounding the hippie a useful tool to control the rowdy rabble.

Actually, I think the specific reason that we are talking about him now is that DOC monitors "his" threads and posts in them to keep them from falling off the first page of a sub-forum. Successful troll is successful.

 

[X]

Resurrecting an old sub-plot...

Hey DOC, what do you think of this?

Slavery isn't bad, after all...

 

[joobz]

Resurrecting an old sub-plot...

Hey DOC, what do you think of this?

Slavery isn't bad, after all...

The bible promotes it, and Jesus Condones it. You can't make a biblical argument against without first assuming that chunks of the bible are simply wrong.

 

[DOC]

For the love of Zeus DOC. The Q document, if it existed, is a collection of sayings that were attributed to a Jesus. In reality, they were a collection of sayings that possibly go back many centuries. For example, the "Golden Rule"attributed to Jesus is no such thing. It was someone called Hilel who is the real author according to most historians.

Actually Hilel said this:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"

And he would be wrong to say it was the whole Torah as Exodus 21: 24 says this:

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,"

Jesus' teaching had greater revelatiion Matthew 5:38 - 44

From Gateway website:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually Hilel said this:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"

And he would be wrong to say that is the whole Torah as Exodus 21: 24 says this:

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,"

Jesus' teaching had greater revelatiion Matthew 5:38 - 44

Garbage.

The bloke that was pretending to be Matty was rationalising the requirement of the reedcutters to obey the laws of Rome will still affecting obeisance to the old laws of teh Torah.

'Greater revelation' my eye, so to speak.

 

[DOC]

90% of the population in those days were illiterate, if not more. Everything is from hearsay, nothing more.

You might call it hearsay but the people of that time (with no newspapers and little literacy) took Oral tradition very serious. This rabbi even says oral tradition was more important than the written written word.

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

 

[Akhenaten]

You might call it hearsay but the people of that time (with no newspapers and little literacy) took Oral tradition very serious. This rabbi even says oral tradition was more important than the written written word.

DOC, for the 27,582,817th time, this thread is about evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Ring any bells at all?

 

[joobz]

You might call it hearsay but the people of that time (with no newspapers and little literacy) took Oral tradition very serious.

"Taking it seriously" doesn't make it any more reliable.
It only takes 1 dishonest person in the chain of whispers to have bad information. Since we do not know how many people were in the chain, nor how many were fully honest, we must take the info with a grain of salt..
Hearsay is Hearsay.

What hurts your case even more is we know that scribes too transcriptions VERY SERIOUSLY as well. however, becuase we have documented evidence of mistakes, changes and willful forgeries, we know that even transcription isn't fully reliable.


Let's remember that:
1.) the gospels contradict each other on simple facts
2.) Gospels contain known forgeries and clearly made up facts.
3.) the bible was written decades after the events.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You might call it hearsay but the people of that time (with no newspapers and little literacy) took Oral tradition very serious. This rabbi even says oral tradition was more important than the written written word.

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

Yes, and besides that, let's not forget there was NO PAPER back then so how could you expect anybody to write anything down? NO PAPER to write on and a world full of illiterates who couldn't have read anything anyway...it's a hard life...