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

[X]

Thank you for your opinion. And my opinion is they haven't been debunked so I guess people are going to have to read the posts themselves and make up their own minds. Maybe one day people will let the posts stand for themselves without interjecting their opinions every few pages, but I doubt that will ever happen.

(note: I have replaced the annoying large font with hiliting. It's a personal preference about maintaining consistent font sizes within paragraphs and sentences, and it not meant to reflect any opinions on DOCs post)


Is it just me, or has DOC just told us to stop replying to his posts¹ because it might influence people away from his point of view?

1 - read: demolishing his arguments



--- --- --- --- ---


DOC, I've noticed that you only seem to read posts you can twist to be attacks on you. Some sort of persecution complex, perhaps? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

But I do urge you to
a) take an introductory course in logic
b) step back, and think objectively about your arguments in this thread
c) read the replies (counterarguments) made to your points
d) think objectively about the counterarguments

Once you've done that, consider what I wrote here.
I've quoted it below for your convenience.

If we know he got all of these highly detailed facts right it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing he got the 35 miracles [...] right.

Emphasis mine

The emphasized bit here is perhaps a slip on your part, but is nonetheless highly important.

You are correct. It is indeed a bias against the supernatural that prevents us from accepting supernatural claims.

The reason for this bias is simple: To date, no supernatural claim has ever been shown to have any substance beyond ignorance of the underlying causes.
Not one.

Why, then, should we accept claims of things that have never been demonstrated, never been shown as realistic?

You do, because you have FAITH.

You have FAITH that these things are real. Your so-called "evidence" makes sense to you because you have faith in these supernatural events being true.

Underlying all your claims has been this faith.

And you know what?

I have no problem with you having faith.

If you wish to claim that you have faith in Jesus' resurrection, in Jesus being the son of God, in the New Testament gospels being authored by eyewitnesses who later martyred themselves, that's fine.

You are free to have faith. I can't touch it. And I won't try to stop you from having it.

But if you are going to claim to have evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth, it had better be able to stand up to critical scrutiny.

So far, not a single piece of "evidence" you have trotted out has even fit the proper definition of evidence, let alone pass a rudimentary application of rational thought.

If you want to claim that you take the New Testament as truth based on faith, do it. No one will attack you for it. They might call into question your reasons for your faith (to which you really don't need to respond, if you don't want), but they will not attack you for admitting that your belief is faith-based.

But this thread promised "evidence".

Either bring it up, or admit you have no evidence that does not relay on a pre-existing faith in the supernatural.

And if you insist on continuing to use the stuff brought up so far in this thread, you will receive only continued disrespect, mockery, and belittlement.
Why?
Because all the primary and supporting evidence you have brought forward to date has not stood up to critical scrutiny.
The reasons why the arguments have failed has been explained to you in patient detail.

DOC, it's time to stop pretending that American Presidents, supposed (and unproven) martyrs, opinions about what is embarrassing, and landmarks constitute evidence that Jesus' resurrection and miracles really happened as documented in the New Testament.


Because other works can also make these claims, as has been pointed out, forcing you into desperate "special pleading" mode where you bring out more irrelevant, illogical nonsense that gets torn apart and spit back at you. And then you get all huffy and "persecuted".

I repeat:
Either bring forward some real evidence (or sound arguments for why the stuff you've brought forward so far should be considered as such), or admit it is a matter of faith to you and that you have no solid evidence.

 

[Lucian]

Let's me grab the last post you posted:




Considering that the Jews had many, many, many actual kings, that many got murdered, the term 'King of Jews' is hardly significant.
Considering he wrote in 73AD, where few people were familiar with Jesus, and that the vast majority that were view Christians as nutcases, there is little reason to believe ben Serapion would qualify Jesus as a wise king or use him as an example (as the odds of his reader being familiar with him would also be low).
Considering that both the named example he gives are from the 5 or 6th century BC, it would make sense for the third example to also be. And hence, the loss of kingdom would be a reference to the Babylonian exile.

So, there is few reasons to believe that to be a good source (but, at least, it's not as bad as your posts on the Talmud where it is obvious that it is not about Jesus Christ -I just thought more illustrative to use your most recent post).

This is one more example of you scourging apologetic websites to some references that seem to make your point and dumping a copy/paste or a link here like a dog bringing an half-rotten carcases and waging his tail with pride.

Another example of you not actually reading the reference they mention then being too stubborn to admit that you were wrong and that the apologetics were transparently misguided to begin with.


Let me restate the question, why do you hate faith so much that you'd lie about not having it so consistently?

I notice that DOC also left out a few sentences from Wikipedia's entry, such as this one:

Skeptics of Christianity, particularly to the historicity of Jesus, argue that Bar-Serapion does not explicitly mention him by name like Socrates and Pythagoras.

And this one:

It could though have been written as late as in the third century.

The latter has a footnote that leads to this site:

Mara Bar-Serapion wrote anytime between 73 CE and the third century CE.

In a passage in which Mara may be dependent upon Christian informants, Mara Bar-Serapion makes these casual remarks:

So, again, we have a "non-Christian" source that may have been written long after the events that apologists claim it describes, and it may have come from Christian sources.

 

[Lucian]

I wonder when the next thread flooder and spammer will post another "Still no evidence, huh Doc?" post. Maybe it might of made sense to ask such a question on page 5 or 6, but to ask it on page 199 of this thread is laughable to any unbiased person who has read all 1300 of my posts.

Hey, y'all remember back in the old days when we were young and carefree and DOC only had 1200 posts out there for everyone to see?

Ah, good times, good times.

Oh, and by the way, DOC--"of," as in "might of" is not a verb. I believe the word you're looking for is "have."

 

[six7s]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "historical evidence". It's that thing that Professor Thomas Arnold of Oxford (author of the 3 volume "History of Rome") said there was more of for the life and resurrection of Jesus than any fact in history up to the point he made the statement.

Fascinating!

However... please do not confuse quantity with quality

And your statement that talking of the texts is a derail is absurd. That is what this whole thread is about- the texts of the NT.

Indeed

Does this imply that sometime in the next 200 pages, you just might present some 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'?

 

[John Jones]

Hurrah! You're making PROGRESS with that thinking thing

Now... join the dots and see if you can get your head around the subtle implications of what you have already acknowledged...

Just because a certain rendition of a history does mention something, doesn't mean it did happen.
​

Doc may finally be on the verge of a breakthrough.

 

[paximperium]

Which post shows I've have not read all of the 10 sources mentioned.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

Argue the point, and do not attack other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Damnit. I missed DOC's personal attack before the edit. I feel much sadness.

 

[six7s]

Damnit. I missed DOC's personal attack before the edit.

Well... I did see it, and thanks to the automagical email notification thingy, I have a copy for posteriority

I feel much sadness.

How apt; it was (is) sad...

 

[joobz]

I am willing to accept the talmud story as being jesus.
With this account of jesus as pervert and the bible showing jesus as pro slave beater, I wonder why doc believes jesus is divine.

 

[six7s]

I am willing to accept the talmud story as being jesus.
With this account of jesus as pervert and the bible showing jesus as pro slave beater, I wonder why doc believes jesus is divine.

Probably because, being a pervert in favour of slave beating is in keeping with being (allegedly) the son of the God of the Old Testament, who Richard Dawkins accurately described as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

 

[pakeha]

I notice that DOC also left out a few sentences from Wikipedia's entry, such as this one:


And this one:


The latter has a footnote that leads to this site:



So, again, we have a "non-Christian" source that may have been written long after the events that apologists claim it describes, and it may have come from Christian sources.

Lucian's post underlines a feature of DOC's arguments we've come to know and loathe- misquoting a source to fit his agenda.
That is, "Lying for the Messiah".
I'm surprised he tries it on here, knowing every quotation or source will be looked over by us. Why bother to misrepresent wiki? It makes no sense unless DOC does it as a joke to see if we're alert.
Surely DOC sees those prepackaged lists of "compelling" apologetic arguments just don't cut it outside of the pulpit. Neither the Mara ben Serapion letter not the 'Jewish' Talmud nor Phlegon nor Thallus have been shown to have any substance in supporting DOC's OP. In fact, they are embarrassingly forced and twisted to serve the purpose of "Lying for the Messiah".
It makes me wonder about the cynicism of the people who made this list.
Anyway.
Back to the OP.
When are we going to receive evidence the NT writers told the truth?

 

[Akhenaten]

Everything in the link you posted is either opinion, or taken from the New Testament. There simply isn't any evidence, historical or otherwise, that supports the veracity of the gospel accounts.

Again, the entire article is a classic example of circular reasoning.

*Cues Akhenaten's animated GIF*

*insert imaginary .gif here*


I've decided to be good for a minute so I'll just ask for evidence this time.

 

[pakeha]

Perhaps Pharaoh would like to signal the arrival of this thread's200th page with a commemorative animated gif?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, alright then . . .


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

 

[pakeha]

Nice one, o Pharaoh.

 

[Lothian]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "historical evidence". It's that thing that Professor Thomas Arnold of Oxford (author of the 3 volume "History of Rome") said there was more of for the life and resurrection of Jesus than any fact in history up to the point he made the statement.

Other than the fact that the famous Jesus' body has not been found in 2000 years your right there is no "physical evidence" (but when you think of it how can you have evidence of a body that is not there), but there is plenty of "historical evidence" of the Resurrection.

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

Where is the historical evidence for the resurrection outside the bible?

And your statement that talking of the texts is a derail is absurd. That is what this whole thread is about- the texts of the NT.

No, the thread is about whether there is evidence to support the NT. It is not about speculation on whether it could be true. You have provided no evidence outside the NT that support its supernatural claims. The texts you mention are a derail, they do not support the supernatural claims in the NT.

 

[amb]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "historical evidence". It's that thing that Professor Thomas Arnold of Oxford (author of the 3 volume "History of Rome") said there was more of for the life and resurrection of Jesus than any fact in history up to the point he made the statement.

Other than the fact that the famous Jesus' body has not been found in 2000 years your right there is no "physical evidence" (but when you think of it how can you have evidence of a body that is not there), but there is plenty of "historical evidence" of the Resurrection.

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

And your statement that talking of the texts is a derail is absurd. That is what this whole thread is about- the texts of the NT.

I'm very curious. DOC, if tomorrow extraterrestial life is found, what will it do for your faith. Then, supposing this ET is like nothing we have ever seen, what will it do to ''created in god's image'' p/manure?
It's a dilemma you may have to face one day. Then supposing again that ET knows nothing of your god and furthermore finds christianity and all other religions primitive and in their case millions of years in their history of fables and myths.

 

[six7s]

I'm very curious. DOC, if tomorrow extraterrestial life is found, what will it do for your faith.

This is a question currently being pondered in Rome:

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/13/2742484.htm
Alien life is possible: Vatican

By Barney Porter for The World Today

Posted 3 hours 35 minutes ago

The Pope's chief astronomer has conceded other intelligent beings could exist in outer space.

The conclusion has been drawn by scientific experts called in by the Vatican to study the possibility of extraterrestrial life and its implications for the Church.

It has been four centuries since the Catholic Church locked up Galileo for challenging the belief that the Earth was at the centre of the universe.

The Vatican's five-day conference attracted 30 astronomers, physicists and biologists, including non-Catholics.

It was led by Jesuit priest Father Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Father Funes says the possibility of alien life raises "many philosophical and theological implications" but that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective.

One of the organisers was Chris Impey, a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona.

He says the aim was to assess the most recent research in the burgeoning field of astrobiology - the study of life in the universe.

<snip/>

Holy extra-galactic pond scum, Batman!!11!!

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[pakeha]

Yes.

 

[six7s]

I, for one, welcome our new pond scum overlords on the auspicious occasion of this, the 8,000th evidence-free post