• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
So, according to you, MAtthew was afraid of persecution and punishment, so hid his authorship.

Does this mean you disagree with Geisler's reason #10?
Click to expand...

You're not denying your testimony if you don't sign something. You're just not signing something. Is a Jew who puts up unsigned flyers in 1944 Berlin warning about the Holocaust denying his testimony.

On the other hand Peter did deny his testimony to the lone woman at the campfire, but that was "before" he witnessed the resurrected Christ. There was no denying after that. If fact he ended up preaching right in the heart of the Roman empire (Rome).
 
DOC said:
Is a Jew who puts up unsigned flyers in 1944 Berlin warning about the Holocaust denying his testimony.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Godwin

DOC said:
On the other hand Peter did deny his testimony to the lone woman at the campfire, but that was "before" he witnessed the resurrected Christ. There was no denying after that. If fact he ended up preaching right in the heart of the Roman empire (Rome).
Click to expand...
:confused:
Huh? If Peter was safe in "the heart of the Roman empire", what was stopping Matthew putting his name to the book of Matthew...
Unless...
Unless he didn't write it....
O
M
G
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Huh? If Peter was safe in "the heart of the Roman empire", what was stopping Matthew putting his name to the book of Matthew...
Unless...
Unless he didn't write it....
Click to expand...

Peter was not safe in the heart of the Roman Empire:

From Catholic Online:

"It is certain that Peter died in Rome and that his martyrdom came during the reign of Emperor Nero, probably in 64. Testimony of his martyrdom is extensive, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus. According to rich tradition, Peter was crucified on the Vatican Hill upside down because he declared himself unworthy to die in the same manner as the Lord."

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5358
 
Hey, DOC... I know this might seem a tad rude... but what the hell... How about, instead of waffling on about the fools that martyred themselves for woo, you provide - as per the OP - some " Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."? Think you've got any?
 
DOC said:
You're not denying your testimony if you don't sign something. You're just not signing something.
Click to expand...
But neither are you showing the courage that was used as "evidence" of the truth of the bible.


DOC said:
On the other hand Peter did deny his testimony to the lone woman at the campfire, but that was "before" he witnessed the resurrected Christ. There was no denying after that. If fact he ended up preaching right in the heart of the Roman empire (Rome).
Click to expand...
So he was against Jesus before he was for Jesus?
 
arthwollipot said:
No, I think DOC actually believes that people will only put themselves in danger to defend something that is actually true.

Of course, his argument completely falls over when you consider suicide bombers.
Click to expand...

Or Kamikaze pilots.
 
I don't want to get into this (yet) in a whole lot of detail, but you guys (specifically Radrook and DOC) have me interested in this issue now. Previously I didn't give much thought to John being or not being the author of his gospel until Radrook pushed the point. I didn't want to pursue it at first because I don't have much interest in challenging someone's faith directly, and he intimated that the discussion was intended to sow the seeds of doubt (which to me means that he was beginning to doubt). But, since he appears to have me on ignore.........

So, I have a specific question, now that I am actually starting to read the Church fathers -- previously I had only read about them.

Why did Irenaeus, who went out of his way to provide a line of apostolic tradition, not mention the fact that John taught Polycarp or that John gave this gospel that he supposedly wrote directly to Polycarp? Why do we get this primarily from Eusebius writing another 160 years later?

The issue of John's authorship really bothers me; it has always been presented as the best potential line of tradition (with only Polycarp interceding between John and Irenaeus), but it seems to me very weak. I think the others are unquestionably not written by their supposed authors. Our first attestation is with Irenaeus who, admittedly, was interested in promoting the proto-orthodox tradition and fighting against the growing gnostic tradition. There is a long argument underneath that statement, so it depends on how far anyone might want to take this.

I was also unaware that Irenaeus claimed that Jesus was nearly fifty when he died. The explanations regarding this fact are quite interesting. It's a shame that they fatally contradict the position of the apologists, but arguments are what they are.


From Book 3, chapter 3, paragraph 4 (On the Heresies)

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
Click to expand...

He previously (in another chapter) railed against Marcion and Valentinus about how they are new on the scene and in paragraph 3 of the same chapter and same book went into detail about the tradition from Peter and Paul to Linus to the then current episcopal leader Eleutherius. Should I mention here that, according to later traditions, there is a line from John to Polycarp to Irenaeus, who wrote around the year 180 CE? Yet, during the same time period, there were twelve succesors to the episcopate? So, we are expected to believe that, at a time when the average life expectancy was somewhere around 35 years and when Irenaeus himself specifically says that old age is approached beyond the age of 40, that John lived past age 90 and Polycarp did as well?

I actually believe that Polycarp did and that Irenaeus probably saw him when he was young. I doubt the line directly from John to Polycarp, however. I think Irenaeus would have made a big point about this if it were the case.
 
Last edited:
DOC, how is that a strawman?

1. You affirm that "people will only put themselves in danger to defend something that is actually true."

2. Someone brings up an example of people giving up their lives for a belief.

Doesn't that, by your logic, prove that what they died for is true?

If you see this "strawman" as misrepresenting your belief, then please clarify.
 
DOC said:
It's hard to have confidence in something you haven't read yet -- but that is changing. The Church is growing in China which is why PBS recently did a documentary on the growth of Christianity in China.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1132243,00.html
Click to expand...
So? Have you or most Americans read the Koran? "It's hard to have confidence in something you haven't read yet."

Would you like me to link to how fast Islam is growing in the good old US of A?
 
paximperium said:
So? Have you or most Americans read the Koran? "It's hard to have confidence in something you haven't read yet."

Would you like me to link to how fast Islam is growing in the good old US of A?
Click to expand...
win!



but I predict that DOC will either ignore this post or perform some type of special pleading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom