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

[Gandalfs Beard]

Give some posts where I allegedly disrespected my own intelligence and also gives some posts where I allegedly disrespected someone elses. Making a derogatory statement is one thing , backing it up with specific and well explained examples is another.




Give 2 examples in this 434 page thread where I made an error, and then didn't admit to that error when I was asked to acknowledge that an error had been made. Once again, making a derogatory statement is one thing , backing it up with specific and well explained examples is another.

Here's THREE DOC:

1):

Bringing up Josephus's references to Jesus is problematic on any number of fronts.

First, Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus, so his writings are based on "hearsay".

There is a question of authenticity of attributing the passages in question to Josephus.

Then there is the question of translation errors, and/or later textual additions by Christians, as surviving copies of Antiquities of the Jews date from the 11th century as copied by Medieval Christian Monks.

If one accepts those copies as valid, then there is the question of whether Josephus was truly "non-Christian".

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is a second reference by Josephus to Jesus as the brother of James. But given that it also occurs in Antiquities of the Jews it has the same problems as the first.

So, sorry DOC, but Josephus doesn't qualify as evidence for the veracity of the NT authors.

GB

2):

Again with the "Oral Tradition." Do you then accept the Hebrew Oral Tradition that Lilith was Adam's First Wife?

And regarding paper, perhaps you've heard about a little invention called PAPYRUS, invented by the Egyptians circa 3000 BC. And did you know that the Hebrews were so aware of Papyrus that they WROTE the TANAKH (OT to you) on PAPYRUS? GB

3):

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/9780195151428/toc.html

As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh

GB

GB

 

[Mojo]

Give some posts where I allegedly disrespected my own intelligence and also gives some posts where I allegedly disrespected someone elses.

You have 2,287 posts in this thread.

And also, you have 2,287 posts in this thread.

ETA: apologies. I had forgotten that you have also posted in other threads.

ETAA: you don't need the word "allegedly" there (or there).

 

[Aepervius]

I don't remember ever saying Christians were "told" to worship on Sunday, but the bible does mention Christians breaking bread (a specific act that Christ said to do in remembrance of him at the Last Supper) on the first day of the week. Don't you agree Sunday is the 1st day of the week.

http://charlesdailey.net/lord_sup.html

The first day of the week being sunday is an anglo saxon thingy, America included. At least here around I never heard of anything beyond monday being the first day of the week.

I stand corrected , what is above is wrong.

The names of the days of the week from the Roman period have been both named after the seven planets of classical astronomy and numbered, beginning with Sunday. In Slavic languages, a numbering system was adopted, but beginning with Monday. Either of these systems was adopted in many languages, with some exceptions due to a number of religious and secular reasons.

Still, the sunday is first day , is not universal, sometimes it is monday .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names

From ancient historical records, the explicit origin of the seven-day week is the religious significance that was placed on the seventh day by ancient cultures, including the Jewish and Babylonian cultures. The Jews celebrated every seventh day, within a continuous cycle of seven-day weeks, as a holy day of rest from their work. Similarly, the Babylonians also celebrated the seventh day of each seven-day week as a holy day, but adjusted the number of days of the final week in their month so that their monthly calendar would always commence on the new moon. Historically, a number of other major religio-cultural groups, such as Christians and Muslims, have continued to regularly hold religious events on a specific day within each seven-day week.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't remember ever saying Christians were "told" to worship on Sunday, but the bible does mention Christians breaking bread (a specific act that Christ said to do in remembrance of him at the Last Supper) on the first day of the week. Don't you agree Sunday is the 1st day of the week.

http://charlesdailey.net/lord_sup.html

Oh, I've just followed your link, DOC. Did you actually read it?

To remind you, your claim:

Well Hoku's post really didn't address the main point of Geisler's argument. The first and second point of Geisler's argument was that the NT writers abandoned their long held sacred beliefs and adopted new ones. Why would historical people like the Jewish Peter and Jewish Paul and all the other 11 Jewish apostles abandon a perfectly good religion that was part of their culture and sacred heritage for over 1000 years. In their Jewish Religion they were the chosen race, with a special calling from God. Why throw all that under the bus and basically say to hell with worshiping on Saturday and your 1000 year old sacred tradition that we followed all of our lives -- we're now worshipping on Sunday because of what the dead Jesus taught. To hell with your (and formerly ours) 1000 year old sacred tradition of worship, we're now having communion and breaking the bread and drinking the wine because of what our dead Jesus taught. We're accepting the Gentiles now and not even requiring them to have our 1000 year old sacred circumcision because of what our dead Jesus taught,

And from the web-site you produced, to supposedly back up your claim:

CONCLUSIONS

1. There is no specific command by Jesus or his apostles about the proper frequency of the Lord's supper observance.
2. Christians are obligated, however, to follow the examples of Christ's apostles: ". . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you . . ." (Matthew 28:20). "The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do . . ." (Philippians 4:9).

The teaching and examples of the apostles infer only a weekly observance. Where did monthly, quarterly, semi annual or annual observances of communion come from? We can only say, they are not found in the Bible.

3. The same verses that show Christians ought to meet on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20; 16:2) include remembering the Lord's death by the breaking of bread. If one is optional, so is the other. And, if they are optional then they are not necessary.

And that's concentrating just on Sunday worship; references have been produced showing that the apostles, and Paul, did not themselves give up their Jewish heritage and religious practices.

DOC, you're priceless. You make unsubstantiated assertions. When you're called on them, you weasel your way around what you said. You google and put up the first link you find, even if in fact it actually says the opposite of what your position is. You never* simply admit you might have made a mistake. We don't expect you to be infallible; it's a sign of humanity that we all make mistakes. Do you think that if you admit that you have made a mistake, that will somehow indicate that you admit there are mistakes in the bible?


* It's just possible you might have once or twice 'admitted' making a mistake, though I doubt even that was a straightforward admission without wriggling.

 

[Akhenaten]

Give some posts where I allegedly disrespected my own intelligence and also gives some posts where I allegedly disrespected someone elses. Making a derogatory statement is one thing , backing it up with specific and well explained examples is another.

Start Here:

#1

In the "Do Most Atheists know that Science..." thread I mentioned Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" a few times because of its clear explanations of scientific theories. But, yes, they did talk about more than science.

Read every post with "DOC" in the left hand margin.


Finish here:

#2280

Writing there was a angel at the tomb and someone writing there was 2 angels is a difficulty but it is not necessarily a mistake because both accounts can be true. Now if the gospel said there was "only" one angel at the tomb all day that would be a mistake, if another gospel said there was 2 angels that day.

2280 examples enough for you, DOC, or should I mention some other threads as well?

Give 2 examples in this 434 page thread where I made an error, and then didn't admit to that error when I was asked to acknowledge that an error had been made.

Who the hell do you think you are DOC, to be continually to making demands like this? The very making of this demand now indicates your past refusal to acknowledge any errors, and you've made hundreds, nay, thousands of them.

Claiming anything less is a bare-faced lie, DOC.

Once again, making a derogatory statement is one thing , backing it up with specific and well explained examples is another.

Indeed. You, and you alone, see the former in every post other than your own, while the latter are completely invisible to you. It's quite remarkable.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey DOC! Did you miss this?

One possible reason for the summarizing and some of the difficulty is that these chapters might have been written at different times on different pieces of parchment. It is unlikely the writer wrote all 60 pages of Genesis in one sitting or on one solid sheet of parchment or whatever he wrote on in that era of no paper.

I would have thought that something like this copy of the Book of the Dead (the Papyrus of Ani, in fact) written on non-existant paper during Dynasty 19 (the one after mine - about 1250 BCE) would have sufficed.

Non-existant paper seems to last quite well, doesn't it?​

I'm having a little bet with myself that your response will be along the lines of "Papyrus isn't the same thing as paper." Don't let me down.

After you've ignored/weaseled out of this question, you might like to address my other one about where Moses learned to write Hebrew.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well then, give some specific examples; making a derogatory statement is one thing, backing it up with specific examples is another.

. . . several specific examples are provided by a number of posters . . .

Well then, give some specific examples; making a derogatory statement is one thing, backing it up with specific examples is another.

. . . several specific examples are provided by a number of posters . . .

Well then, give some specific examples; making a derogatory statement is one thing, backing it up with specific examples is another.

. . . several specific examples are provided by a number of posters . . .

Well then, give some specific examples; making a derogatory statement is one thing, backing it up with specific examples is another.

. . . several specific examples are provided by a number of posters . . .


ad infinitum.

Whatever it is due to, one consequence of it is that it appears to remove all self respect from the person who has this mindset: and all sense of shame

Yep.

 

[Mojo]

You google and put up the first link you find, even if in fact it actually says the opposite of what your position is.

Otherwise known as Kumaring a link.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well then, give some specific examples; making a derogatory statement is one thing, backing it up with specific examples is another.

The arrogance of this new mantra is breathtaking, DOC. Just when I was thinking it would be hard for you to alienate your readership any further you've managed it in spades.

It's just like having a rare talent, only the opposite.

 

[nvidiot]

I wonder if somehow it would be possible to do a statistical analysis (analyzation? ) of DOC's posts to see how many are logical fallacies. I have a strong feeling that we would find doc waaaaaaay off the standard deviation.

 

[Rincewind]

What kind of moroni would believe that story?






I would have thought that something like this copy of the Book of the Dead (the Papyrus of Ani, in fact) written on non-existant paper during Dynasty 19 (the one after mine - about 1250 BCE) would have sufficed.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/PapyrusOfAni.jpg[/qimg]
Non-existant paper seems to last quite well, doesn't it?​

Actually, this is fascinating evidence that Ancient Egypt had public transport...

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, this is fascinating evidence that Ancient Egypt had public transport...

It might explain why Anubis was known as the conductor of souls...

 

[Lothian]

The most important people at the time were the ticket collectors. They used to walk up and down the carriages calling out 'fare-o'... the rest is history.

 

[Lothian]

Actually, this is fascinating evidence that Ancient Egypt had public transport...

I wonder if the wheels were built in Tyre.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No, they were made of seperate bits


(not sure if that works...)

 

[joobz]

I think this point is important and I would like to summarize it so that it does not get further missed.
DOC, please read this whole post, and do not simply look for key words to respond to and make a pithy reply. Consider the entirety of the idea being presented and at least accept it for what it is.

DOC you had asked:

Yea, but there must be some main reasons. I just asking what are the 2 or 3 main reasons why supposedly what I said made someone deconvert. If they can't answer that question it makes the claim suspect.

Hokulele responded:

Here is carlitos' post where he talks about this:

No, it's OK. I'm trying to figure it out as we speak. My wife and I are not Catholic, but we help with a local Catholic food pantry, and we laugh when they say "oh, you are Lutheran - that's like Catholic light." Ha ha. This place does great work, and the nun who runs it should be a saint. But I don't feel super Lutheran-y lately. Let alone Catholic, which they would love us to convert to.

I have started a dialogue with my wife about this lack of faith thing, but it hasn't resolved itself yet. We both are a little lapsed in our churchgoing, but we used to be faithful.

The "E" in JREF for me is having watched 9/11 conspiracists, UFO proponents, bigfoot fans and Christians all using the same flawed thought processes to defend their claims. I am about to read a Christopher Hitchens book, for God's sake.

My bolding.

If I am reading it correctly, it isn't so much your specific posts or claims, but the (lack of) reasoning behind them.

To which, you said:

Well then, give some specific examples; making a derogatory statement is one thing, backing it up with specific examples is another.

Now, I can only assume you are now asking for specific example of where you make claims using poor reasoning to justify your faith. This is a bit of a dishonest request, as it starts to take the form of the over specification fallacy. But I will be happy to provide it. The best example of this poor reasoning is your OP in this very thread, and all of your other posts that have related to it.

I am certain you will not accept this answer, because it is clear that you believe you have been logical. But unfortunately, as you are the one making the bad arguments, it only stands to reason that you will not recognize them as such. I will not go through the poor logic of them again, becuase the arguments have been made countless times. You have failed to refute those counterarguments and that is why your position is so tenuous. That is what Carlitos has witnessed and likely why he cites you as a reason for his loss in faith.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, this is fascinating evidence that Ancient Egypt had public transport...

It might explain why Anubis was known as the conductor of souls...

The most important people at the time were the ticket collectors. They used to walk up and down the carriages calling out 'fare-o'... the rest is history.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, they were made of seperate bits


(not sure if that works...)

I totally got it.

 

[Garrette]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Anubus.jpg[/qimg]​

Nommed.

I rarely laugh out loud at posts.

 

[Elizabeth I]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Anubus.jpg[/qimg]​

You are a sick, sick, sick person with not enough to do.

I like that in a person.