The testimony of the NT writers

[leroy]

The topic being discussed is whether they are eyewitness accounts or not. There does not appear to be much in the way of confirming evidence that they are eyewitness accounts and there is enough evidence to the contrary to make the claims of "eyewitness accounts" so weak that most Bibles, and definitely the more serious Bibles note that the Gospels are all anonymous and the authors are unknown.

authors are unknown

Ok then the answer is “we don’t know” since we don’t know who the authors where, we don’t know if they were eyewitnesses.

The point of the OP is that we do not reject ancient documents, just because they were not written by eyewitnesses ……… so why making an exception with the gospels ?



We know that the authors where well informed individuals with access to good reliable sources ……. We know this because most of the testable events that they report are true ……………..so what else do you want? ……… this is enough to accept other ancient documents as reliable, if they were witnesses, this would only serve as a nice bonus, so if you accept other sources that where not written by witnesses, why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok then the answer is “we don’t know” since we don’t know who the authors where, we don’t know if they were eyewitnesses.

The point of the OP is that we do not reject ancient documents, just because they were not written by eyewitnesses ……… so why making an exception with the gospels ?



We know that the authors where well informed individuals with access to good reliable sources ……. We know this because most of the testable events that they report are true ……………..so what else do you want? ……… this is enough to accept other ancient documents as reliable, if they were witnesses, this would only serve as a nice bonus, so if you accept other sources that where not written by witnesses, why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?

To be more accurate it is "we don't know leaning towards definitely not". One cannot prove such claims going that far back. It is those on the Christian side (by the way not all Christians and probably not most well educated Christians would make this claim) are the the ones saying that they are definitely eyewitness accounts.

They simply probably are not eyewitness accounts. That actually contradicts the Bible.

 

[leroy]

To be more accurate it is "we don't know leaning towards definitely not". One cannot prove such claims going that far back. It is those on the Christian side (by the way not all Christians and probably not most well educated Christians would make this claim) are the the ones saying that they are definitely eyewitness accounts.

They simply probably are not eyewitness accounts. That actually contradicts the Bible.

Ok maybe they were not written by eyewitnesses………so what?...would you say that this is a good reason to reject them as reliable sources, ?


You forgot to answer my question

I said this a few minutes ago........
"We know that the authors where well informed individuals with access to good reliable sources ……. We know this because most of the testable events that they report are true ……………..so what else do you want? ……… this is enough to accept other ancient documents as reliable, if they were witnesses, this would only serve as a nice bonus, so if you accept other sources that where not written by witnesses, why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok maybe they were not written by eyewitnesses………so what?...would you say that this is a good reason to reject them as reliable sources, ?


You forgot to answer my question

I said this a few minutes ago........
"We know that the authors where well informed individuals with access to good reliable sources ……. We know this because most of the testable events that they report are true ……………..so what else do you want? ……… this is enough to accept other ancient documents as reliable, if they were witnesses, this would only serve as a nice bonus, so if you accept other sources that where not written by witnesses, why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?"

What makes you think that the NT authors were "well informed"? There are clear errors in the NT. Where are you getting your information from? Put it this way, if they do not mention that Luke's date of birth of Jesus was ten years after that of Matthew they probably are not too reliable.

 

[Kenny]

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. Twice. When you refer back to an old loss that you had that is all that you are doing.

I can still see that you do not know how to debate properly. When sources are demanded one has to know what a proper source for the topic is.

For a scientific argument your source has to ultimately rely on scientific concepts that have gone through peer review of some sort.

When one is using historical arguments one need to rely on claims that are supported by history that has also gone through that sort of process. You did not do that. Your sources were all faith based ones. Now they may be valid for a Christian argument, but we were not having one of those. We were discussing the history of the Bible. Not what it meant. None of your sources applied for the history of the Bible.

Your first source even required that authors agree with their statement of faith. That means that they are worthless for anything besides Christian arguments. It is a lot like the statement of faith of creationist sites where they state in so many words that they will ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts them. Such sources are so heavily biased that only the "faithful" believe them. Your second source was just a pastor from three hundred years ago. He was not a scholar. He did not enter into reasoned debate with those that disagreed with him. He was just preaching to you. Again, that is not evidence.

If you really want to be a good debater you should try to learn what evidence is valid for what situation. Here you only made yourself look foolish. You were guilty of what you accused me of.

I could have used Richard Carrier, though he is still a historian. I could have tried to drag up some hack atheist that hates Christianity. That would be pretty much what you did. I did not do that. I quoted from a source that favors Christianity a bit since he used a rather young date for Luke's error. The Gospel of Luke was written about twenty years later than the author of the article that I linked thought

Oh well, this will probably go in one ear and out the other since you did not learn the last time we had this debate and I did your homework for you. I will not do that again. That is why I only rejected your bogus sources or inf other cases I pointed out that you were not providing any.

Hmmmmm....
#360

You lost on the basis of faulty and bad reasoning.

 

[Eli G]

I'll be back on this, guys, cause you repeat yourselves again and again and again ... to the point that you think that what you repeat is true, when it's not.

That is exactly the point that I brought on this topic: it is discrimination.

The NT is a collection of documents of diferent inspired men, all of them Jews ... Even the leaders of the Christian-Roman religion that arose in the third century could not add any additional writings to those already accepted in the first century to this already virtually existing and complete collection. What they did was gather those that were already circulating as inspired and put together the book. But they were documents that had been created independently.

Although modern Bible critics now want to discredit those well-known writers as well (they never stop their attacks), they are:

a) two apostles: John and Peter
b) two half-brothers of Jesus: Jude and James
c) two disciples: Luke and Mark
d) Paul

... 7 men, all by their own side ... no matter if these modern critics want to say they were kind of connected on the source of their information just to disqualify the personal testimony and made it a collective illusion. ... And of course they were connected: they knew each other; they heard about the other's writings, and they may have read them. BUT each of them wrote their own inspired book/s independently. Only Paul didn't meet the human Jesus in person, but the rest did or were close to someone who did.

To try to disqualify the NT as a book is to try to disqualify as reliable 7 independent contemporary writers, not one. They were medic, fishermen, tax collectors, etc ... diferent backgrounds. Is it realistic to try to disqualify 7 people just because they were part of the same community?

Again: the inspired writers of the NT were 7 persons only, and all of them contemporaries with the events they tell about, so, what is your story?

Nobody doubted of the authorship of the books because the new generations knew where they came from, who wrote them ... not because they didn't know.

Only recently some enemies of the Bible arised and started doubting and questioning everything that it's been established for milenials and out of nowhere, suddenly, they think they got all the answers and the history we all know is different of what we were told, and they want to make the world believe that the history is how they say.

The truth is: you won't change the history, not matter how unhappy it makes you feel. What you read in the NT, really happened, and we got the documents, more of them, biblical manuscripts, than any document you got from those times and where you get some others historic details. The Bible is a document with real history.

You don't like the miracles ... Ok; you don't have to, but they are recounted by eyeswitnesses. You don't believe in them ... Ok. You don't have to, but they are telling what they lived. Nobody else tells the same ... Ok, it doesn't mind, not everyone has to know everything that occurs in his times. It is dificult to believe in Jesus walking over water, Ok, it is, but it doesn't mean he didn't, because some people were eyeswitnesses of the event and they wrote about it ...

Have you never come to verify that something you were told and did not want to believe, was actually true? It has happened to me many times, like the fact that the force of gravity acts capriciously in some places on earth, so it causes local effects that are hard to believe... Those things happen.

 

[Kenny]

Do you find that meaningful? Do you think that supports his belief in the Christian deity (or yours)?

Why did you take it out of context? It is meaningful but has nothing to do with the subject at hand or even the context it was given on.

Academia has standards for scholarship. It is limited to the output of critical thinking. That means achieving expertise in a field and adding to its fund of knowledge.

I agree but I don't.

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence.Wikipedia

Where did "achieving expertise in a field" enter into the definition? If that were the case, then more often than not, there are very few critical thinkers and even less at RF

Why is debate so frequently framed in the language of violence and fighting by the faithful? Saying that somebody isn't a critical thinker is a judgment, and in this case, an accurate one.

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy.

I don't know... why did they frame it in the language of violence?

 

[Kenny]

.

I'll be back on this, guys, cause you repeat yourselves again and again and again ... to the point that you think that what you repeat is true, when it's not.

I'm not sure whether they repeat it so that they think that makes it true or whether if they say it long enough they can actually convince themselves what is false is true. I think it is the latter.

 

[Firenze]

Talking about the apostles someone said:
... and I answered:


If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

The NT isn't taken seriously because of its obvious interpolations, redactions, and out right frauds that contradict the OT. The OT authors told us what the attributes of the Messiah would be. Jesus utterly failed to possess them. The NT authors knew it - but decided to lie about it and pretend that the OT verses they quote mined - decades after the fact - were suddenly Messianic. This is highlighted by the embarrassing debacle of Isaiah 7:14 - which is not Messianic, not talking about a virgin - and as prophesy for King Ahaz.... it failed. It's sad the Christians have been such dupes for the biggest money grabbing fraud in history.

 

[Eli G]

The NT isn't taken seriously because of its obvious interpolations, redactions, and out right frauds that contradict the OT. The OT authors told us what the attributes of the Messiah would be. Jesus utterly failed to possess them. The NT authors knew it - but decided to lie about it and pretend that the OT verses they quote mined - decades after the fact - were suddenly Messianic. This is highlighted by the embarrassing debacle of Isaiah 7:14 - which is not Messianic, not talking about a virgin - and as prophesy for King Ahaz.... it failed. It's sad the Christians have been such dupes for the biggest money grabbing fraud in history.

According to whom? To its haters?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmmmm....
#360

You lost on the basis of faulty and bad reasoning.

Nope, that was you. I can identify your bad reasoning. What bad reasoning do you think that I used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to whom? To its haters?

Just because someone can show that your book is largely mythical does not make them "haters".

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

I'm not sure whether they repeat it so that they think that makes it true or whether if they say it long enough they can actually convince themselves what is false is true. I think it is the latter.

Oh my, wrong again. It is because people with irrational beliefs also tend to suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Let's take your recent failures here as an example. You probably still do not understand what you did wrong and why I was justified for laughing at your sources.

 

[Kenny]

Oh my, wrong again. It is because people with irrational beliefs also tend to suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Let's take your recent failures here as an example. You probably still do not understand what you did wrong and why I was justified for laughing at your sources.

Your bias is showing
#360

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your bias is showing
#360

No. Your bias is showing. Why your sources were bogus was explained to you. You could never address that explanation. I wonder why

Also in a debate one is supposed to be an honest interlocutor. Your supposed attempt to demonstrate a "farce" (which was actually your inability to understand what sources one uses for different types of arguments) showed that your motive was not to debate and learn. It was to push a false agenda.

 

[Kenny]

No. Your bias is showing. Why your sources were bogus was explained to you. You could never address that explanation. I wonder why

Also in a debate one is supposed to be an honest interlocutor. Your supposed attempt to demonstrate a "farce" (which was actually your inability to understand what sources one uses for different types of arguments) showed that your motive was not to debate and learn. It was to push a false agenda.

Proven.. thus:
#360

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proven.. thus:
#360

No. that post was a falsehood of yours. When you repeatedly link to a falsehood you are only telling everyone that you failed.

I am confused. Aren't Christians supposed to avoid telling falsehoods?

 

[Firenze]

According to whom? To its haters?

According to the undisputed experts on the attributes of the Messiah - the OT Jews that literally wrote the book on the subject. No virgin birth, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no Bethlehem birth, no Nazareth, no divine qualities. It's precisely why the OT experts rejected Jesus - as they did so many others. That Christians are ignorant of this most critical subject is why you constantly are desperate for apologetics to save your lost position. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[Kenny]

No. that post was a falsehood of yours. When you repeatedly link to a falsehood you are only telling everyone that you failed.

I am confused. Aren't Christians supposed to avoid telling falsehoods?

You're too late to start another farce.
#360

Regardless.. in our book, maybe not in other religions, God still loves you and still believes in you.

But strictly within our book taking into consideration my signature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're too late to start another farce.
#360

Regardless.. in our book, maybe not in other religions, God still loves you and still believes in you.

But strictly within our book taking into consideration my signature.

Oh my, the only "farce" has been your own. I did support my claims. You were unable to support yours.

Once again, in a discussion about science one uses science based sources In a discussion about history, and this was about the history of the Bible, not its interpretation, one uses history based sources.

Don't you claim that history supports the Bible? You cannot make that claim if you reject the history that you do not like. In this debate by only using biased sources you demonstrated that history does not support the Bible. Congratulations!