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

[paximperium]

Well here is some of the evidence that the eyewitness Matthew was not the likely author of the Gospel of Matthew....






The link providing the above should be familiar as you provided it.

Stop providing evidence and these thing called "facts" to DOC. You know he doesn't read anything that contradicts him, no matter the reality.

 

[joobz]

Anyone with a high school degree should be able to answer that question if they actually think about it? Sometimes I think you just say stuff because you can't bear to have a point I make go unanswered, and you'll say almost anything to counteract it.

If it is something a highschool major could answer, perhaps you should answer it then. If it doesn't matter who wrote it, why did you try to prove who wrote it?


Let me make my point crystal clear:
The fact is that if the gospels weren't written by the apostles, then they would only provide hearsay evidence. As such, there would be NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE for Jesus' divinity.

This is why you try hard to prove Mathew was a contemporary of Jesus. Without that fact, you have no reason to assume the bible provides an accurate account of Jesus' life.

Go one step further, if the gospel wasn't written as a personal account, then that directly conflicts with Reason Number 1 of Geisler's top ten reasons for the biblical proof.

The fact is your claim of authorship being unimportant is an obviously transparent admission that you likely doubt the authorship. You used the phrase, "And if the Gospel is true it really doesn't matter who wrote it." as a means of tourniqueting off the doubt of authorship so that it wouldn't invade other aspects of your argument.

 

[jeremyp]

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language,

<snip>

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language."

<snip>

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters”

<snip>

D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew's gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew's gospel would have been written in Aramaic.

<snip>

E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew

<snip>

F. In describing the Jewish Christian sect known as the Nazarenes, Epiphanius (315-403) writes, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew,

Surely, if reliable, all of those source demonstrate that the gospel we have today is not the one that Matthew wrote. These sources seem to demonstrate beyond doubt that Matthew's gospel was written in Aramaic (or perhaps Hebrew), but the gospel that appears in our Bible was originally written in Greek.

 

[Mark Alan Sauer]

I can't even read these posts "cover to cover".

 

[DOC]

A timely report given this thread's nominal premise: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

Timely, yes, but also misleading. For example it says this

"The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection."

To the first part of the passage -- so what, there were a lot of books that didn't make it to the Authorized Version - authorized (as being reliable) at the Council of Nicaea in 325 a.d.

And the part that says it did not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection is very misleading because this was only for one of the Gospels - Mark... The council of Nicaea, to which Roman Emperor Constantine invited 1800 bishops (and about 270 showed up), approved the Nicaean Creed which stated Christ was crucified, died, buried, and resurrected.

Obviously the 270 bishops in attendance at this first great meeting of the Christian Church had no problem finding verses that existed in the common literature of the day (325 a.d.) that described the resurrection.

 

[six7s]

A timely report given this thread's nominal premise: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm

Thanks for the link, Darat... a fascinating read!

Discrepancies
<snip/>
And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

Mr [Bart] Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

<snip/>

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

Coffin, nail, hammer

 

[six7s]

Timely, yes, but also misleading. For example it says this

"The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection."

Why use the (derogatory) term "misleading"?
Cos it might prompt some disciples (followers) to chart a course at variance with their unsupported woo beliefs?

Obviously the 270 bishops in attendance at this first great meeting of the Christian Church had no problem finding verses that existed in the common literature of the day (325 a.d.) that described the resurrection.

Finding? Or fabricating? How do you know?
I have a hunch you don't know, and you know that you don't know.
Yet you believe...
Why? <== serious question

 

[jeremyp]

To the first part of the passage -- so what, there were a lot of books that didn't make it to the Authorized Version - authorized (as being reliable) at the Council of Nicaea in 325 a.d.

Point of order: The "Authorized Version" in the story refers to the King James Authorized Version published in 1611, not the Canon as agreed by the Council of Nicea.

 

[Lothian]

Timely, yes, but also misleading. For example it says this

"The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection."

To the first part of the passage -- so what, there were a lot of books that didn't make it to the Authorized Version - authorized (as being reliable) at the Council of Nicaea in 325 a.d.

And the part that says it did not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection is very misleading because this was only for one of the Gospels - Mark... The council of Nicaea, to which Roman Emperor Constantine invited 1800 bishops (and about 270 showed up), approved the Nicaean Creed which stated Christ was crucified, died, buried, and resurrected.

Obviously the 270 bishops in attendance at this first great meeting of the Christian Church had no problem finding verses that existed in the common literature of the day (325 a.d.) that described the resurrection.

I remember the Creed of 325. That was before Mary became a virgin in the creed of 381. It is cute the way Christians vote for the facts they want.

 

[Nogbad]

I remember the Creed of 325. That was before Mary became a virgin in the creed of 381. It is cute the way Christians vote for the facts they want.

Very democratic

Bit harsh on the ones who vote for the minority position though.

 

[joobz]

Timely, yes, but also misleading. For example it says this

"The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection."

To the first part of the passage -- so what, there were a lot of books that didn't make it to the Authorized Version - authorized (as being reliable) at the Council of Nicaea in 325 a.d.

So, truth is decided by committee.
That's about as good an argument as your
"It doesn't matter who wrote the bible"

To summarize the evidence/arguments presented in defence of christianity and the bible.

1.) The bible contained standard elements of fiction.
2.) It doesn't matter who wrote the bible.
3.) The bible's truth was decided by committee.

 

[DOC]

And if you agree the writers didn't make up the words of Jesus than it would be reasonable to conclude that the writers (2 of which, Matthew and John, were eyewitnesses) didn't make up their account of the resurrection.

Evidence for the bolded bit?

Well, in post #331 I gave some of the evidence that Matthew wrote his Gospel. Here is evidence that John wrote his Gospel:

Form the site "The Gospel of John"

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm

 

[Hokulele]

Well, in post #331 I gave some of the evidence that Matthew wrote his Gospel. Here is evidence that John wrote his Gospel:

Form the site "The Gospel of John"

Actually, a number of the quotes from the page you linked here is good evidence that John did not write the gospel attributed to him. The way the narrative switches to the third person ("the disciple beloved by Jesus") would be very troubling if this were an eyewitness account, rather than simple hearsay.

Piggy has a good take on this in the "Scriptural Literacy" thread. I may dig it out and link it here, as it is relevant to what DOC is claiming.

ETA: Ack! It is Greediguts and Ichneumonwasp who are discussing John (with a few references to Pagels). The John stuff sort of starts here, but there are a ton of derails so the conversation may be a bit hard to follow.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4072180#post4072180

 

[DOC]

So, truth is decided by committee.

You must not like jury trials... But instead of 12 people deciding, the Council of Nicaea had 270 bishops deciding what scripture would be accepted by Church as authentic. This made sense to do because of the many written works about Jesus around at the time.

_____


joobz: That's about as good an argument as your "It doesn't matter who wrote the bible"

DOC: That's not my assertion that's yours. You left out the first half of mine.

joobz: To summarize the evidence/arguments presented in defence of christianity and the bible. 1.) The bible contained standard elements of fiction.

DOC: that is your assertion, not mine.

joobz: 2.) It doesn't matter who wrote the bible.

DOC: that is your assertion, not mine. You need to add 4 more words for it to be mine.

joobz 3.) The bible's truth was decided by committee.

DOC: Actually the approx. 270 bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided on what the Catholic Church recognized as authentic scripture. If you didn't want to be a member of the Catholic Church at the time you could believe the other Gospels as true if you wanted.
Same holds true for today.

 

[six7s]

Actually the approx. 270 bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided on what the Catholic Church recognized as authentic scripture. This made sense to do because of all the written works about Jesus around at the time. If you didn't want to be a member of the Catholic Church at the time you could believe the other Gospels as true if you wanted.
Same holds true for today.

Yeah... so? This ain't an assembly for politicians in frocks to prattle on about woo

This is a critical thinking forum

Try thinking rather than just believing... you might get an idea of how futile it is to tell more lies for jesus by posting your so-called evidence

 

[paximperium]

You must not like jury trials... But instead of 12 people deciding, the Council of Nicaea had 270 bishops deciding what scripture would be accepted by Church as authentic. This made sense to do because of the many written works about Jesus around at the time.
<snip>
DOC: Actually the approx. 270 bishops at the Council of Nicaea decided on what the Catholic Church recognized as authentic scripture. If you didn't want to be a member of the Catholic Church at the time you could believe the other Gospels as true if you wanted.
Same holds true for today.

So? A bunch of bronze age people with no understanding of science, evidence or things called evidence; who already believe in your myth and are the most significant of the true believers are gathered together to figure out which of their pet books should be considered "true"?

You don't have a jury, you have a kangaroo court.

 

[joobz]

You must not like jury trials...

I like the jury system just fine. They are our best defense against abuse of law and ensure individual rights are fairly weighed.


But, the problem here is that the council of Nicaea is not a jury but a committee. If it was a jury, all of the books of the bible would have been inadmissible as evidence. Afterall, they are only hearsay and do not meet the standard of evidence required in courts.

 

[Lothian]

I like the jury system just fine. They are our best defense against abuse of law and ensure individual rights are fairly weighed.


But, the problem here is that the council of Nicaea is not a jury but a committee. If it was a jury, all of the books of the bible would have been inadmissible as evidence. Afterall, they are only hearsay and do not meet the standard of evidence required in courts.

Juries are fine but their decision merely gives their opinion of the truth not evidence of it.

 

[Scazon]

There we are then. I always thought the Council of Nicaea was the ceremony whereby the dominant faction of the Christian religion was adopted as the orthodox State religion of the Roman empire. They were far less interested in fact than in faction.

 

[joobz]

Juries are fine but their decision merely gives their opinion of the truth not evidence of it.

exactly.