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

[zooterkin]

Justin Martyr and Tertullian

Justin Martyr, born 100AD, and Tertullian, born around 160AD.

How did they know what the Jewish authorities believed a hundred years before, when the Romans had sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the temple and killed many of the Jews in 70AD?

 

[zooterkin]

Well for one, what is your proof that no Gospels were written before 70 AD.

Do you have any evidence that they were?

Doesn't it seem odd that the Gospels don't mention such a huge event as the destruction of the temple by the Romans. Isn't that kind of like writing a book about the modern history of New York City in 2005 and not mentioning 911.

Well, it didn't occur during Jesus's apparent lifetime, so why would it be mentioned? Why would you mention 11/9 in a story of the life of Quentin Crisp? He lived in New York, but died in 1999.

 

[joobz]

So you respond to a quote with a different subject matter. And what is the exact quote from the book you're talking about. Or at least give the post you're referring to.

Nope. It's on topic. It goes towards the reliability of using Geisler as a source.

You can find it in HOkulele's post. Follow the link.

Right. Since I now have a bit of time on my hands, let's take a look at one example of Geisler's oh-so-stellar reasoning. From DOC's OP:




Ladies and gentlemen, here is Geisler's reasoning to support why this is true and all of the Muslim/Heaven's Gate/kamikaze martyrs do not count.




Let's see. What was that definition of circular reasoning again?

 

[joobz]

Let's say the story of Jesus' burial were true (stop laughing joobz and six7s!). It is still not evidence of his resurrection, it is only evidence of his death.

Once again for the hard of reading...

It. Is. Not. Evidence. Of. The. Resurrection.

ACtually, I have no probleme believing that Jesus was real and that he was crucified.


But like you said, his death is not proof of his ressurection.

 

[joobz]

What is your source that Christians were making up stories or is that an opinion.

ETA: I believe joobz even stated in this thread that he believed the NT writers believed they we're telling the truth.

Making up a story out of whole cloth and believing the story to be true are not mutually exclusive. Have you ever told scary stories around a camp fire when people started to hear noises and movements that aren't there?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As Geisler's book points out, if Joseph of Arimathea (a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy) didn't really bury Jesus the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. The Jews never denied the story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found.


bold added

Um, what? You don't know that Jews never denied the story of Jesus being buried by Joseph. No one knows that for sure. The absence of a written source now does not mean that the charge was not made, or even written down in the past.

Issue 1 -- How would this information survive to this time? Keep in mind that scribes had to continue to copy any ancient material for it to make it to the modern world. Why would a Christian scribe copy Jewish info calling into question stories about Jesus? Jewish scribes might, but that would be a dangerous thing for them to do during the Middle Ages.

Issue 2 -- Do you really think that the Jewish enemies of Christianity would really care that much? I mean, from their perspective we're talking about a crucified criminal here. Why would anyone go to the trouble of countering a story that they thought inconsequential? Does anyone really care what the followers of David Koresh say about him?

Issue 3 -- How would these Jewish enemies of Christianity find out? Christianity was a splinter Jewish sect. They already thought the early Jesus movement was crazy, so it isn't as though they hung out together in coffee shops discussing theology and Jesus stories. The evidence we have of the early movement is that the gospels were written in specific communities and were not widely shared until sometime in the middle of the second century. Justin never quotes anything from the gospel of John and never mentions Paul's letters, suggesting that he didn't know them (and this was about 150). I don't see how they would know what the early authors were even up to in order to counter it.

Issue 4 -- Did it ever dawn on anyone that most people wouldn't have the slightest idea what happened to Jesus' body? They may not feel comfortable denying a burial because they simply did not know for sure. Keep in mind, after the destruction of the Temple, Jews were a little preoccupied to concern themselves with the details of that splinter group of wackos, as they would have seen the early Christians.

You seem to look at this from the perspective of someone in the 21st century who sees Jesus as the Ruler of the Universe. That is not how 1st century Jews would have seen the situation.


ETA:

Actually there is a Jewish tradition of Jesus being re-buried in the sand in a garden (so that his followers could not steal the body) and not in a tomb by anyone named Joseph. The only mention of his burial place (by his followers) was that he was buried outside of the city.

ETAETA:

I've been looking through the gospel accounts, and perhaps you can square away problems I see with Joseph of Arimathea? Who was this guy exactly? I see that he was a member of the council and the council without exception condemned Jesus in Mark. Yet, in Matthew he is a disciple of Jesus. In John he is a secret disciple of Jesus and in Luke he specifically does not agree with the council in their condemnation of Jesus. Which was it?

And where is this Arimathea?

 

[Greediguts]

Was it fictional that early Jewish authorities believed the body of Christ was stolen by the disciples or do you believe that was made up also?

And what is your source for this?

The only source I can think of is the Bible itself:

"While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, "You must say, "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day." (Matthew 28:11-15)

So it must be true....unless we doubt the accuracy of the Bible....

* I also wanted to point out that Ichneumonwasp had the 666th post in this thread! Coincidence? I think not!

 

[DOC]

Justin Martyr, born 100AD, and Tertullian, born around 160AD.

How did they know what the Jewish authorities believed a hundred years before, when the Romans had sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the temple and killed many of the Jews in 70AD?

According to the book cited in post #1 on page 283:

"Justin Martyr and Tertullian, writing in AD 150 and 200 claim that the Jewish authorities continued to offer this theft {of Christ's body story} story throughout the second century"

So if this is true then the second century Jewish authorities believed Christ existed, died, was placed in a tomb, and was found missing from the tomb.

On page 306 and 307 Geisler points out several problems with the the disciples stole the body theory.

 

[DOC]

Nope. It's on topic. It goes towards the reliability of using Geisler as a source.

ad hominem argument to the point I made.

 

[joobz]

ad hominem argument.

NO NO NO!
It is not an ad hom.

Ad hom would be:

1.) The Bible is false.
Premise 1.) geisler says the Bible is true.
Premise 2.) Gesiler is an idiot.
Since Geisler isi an idiot and he says the bible it true, then the bible must be false:


That's an ad hom.


Me saying

1.) Geisler's book is unreliable as a source of logic.
Premise: Geslier's book is loaded with logical errors
evidence of this:
1.) University is not a compound word of unity and diversity.
2.) The 10 reasons listed are non-sequitors
3.) The argument for christian martyrs is circular logic.


FOr these reasons, I state that Geisler is a poor source.

 

[DOC]

NO NO NO!
It is not an ad hom.

Ad hom would be:

1.) The Bible is false.
Premise 1.) geisler says the Bible is true.
Premise 2.) Gesiler is an idiot.
Since Geisler isi an idiot and he says the bible it true, then the bible must be false:


That's an ad hom.


Me saying

1.) Geisler's book is unreliable as a source of logic.
Premise: Geslier's book is loaded with logical errors
evidence of this:
1.) University is not a compound word of unity and diversity.
2.) The 10 reasons listed are non-sequitors
3.) The argument for christian martyrs is circular logic.


FOr these reasons, I state that Geisler is a poor source.

It doesn't matter if Geisler made a 1000 errors in the past, your post #648 was an obvious ad hom because it didn't deal with the point I was making about Joseph of Arimathia.

And your writing off the 10 reasons Geisler gives as non-sequitors says a lot.

 

[zooterkin]

According to the book cited in post #1 on page 283:

"Justin Martyr and Tertullian, writing in AD 150 and 200 claim that the Jewish authorities continued to offer this theft {of Christ's body story} story throughout the second century"

So if this is true then the second century Jewish authorities believed Christ existed, died, was placed in a tomb, and was found missing from the tomb.

Stick to the topic of thread, please. What the Jewish authorities in the second century apparently believed is not evidence for whether the New Testament is true, unless you can give some reason for their holding that belief. As it is, you've only got hearsay evidence that that's what they believed, and no evidence that the belief, if such it was, itself was well founded.

 

[joobz]

It doesn't matter if Geisler made a 1000 errors in the past, your post #648 was an obvious ad hom because it didn't deal with the point I was making about Joseph of Arimathia.

Didn't need to. Other posters have already addressed the argument. My post was simply highlighting the truth. YOu shouldn't place so much trust in a source that contains such blatant errors.

And your writing off the 10 reasons Geisler gives as non-sequitors says a lot.

But a good number of them are.

 

[articulett]

Does DOC stand for Disciple of Christ? I've seen someone posting at other skeptic forums that sound a lot like DOC that goes by the name Disciple of Christ and is a Jehovah's Witness...

Do you entertain other skeptics at other skeptic sites doc?

 

[six7s]

Does DOC stand for Disciple of Christ?

If not... maybe:
Disagrees Of Course
Discusses Obtuse Claims
Draws Out Correlations
Discerns Odd Causations
Designs Obfuscating Cronyisms
Devil's Own Champion
Destroys Own Credibility

 

[Fitter]

<snip>
Destroys Own Credibility

I like this one.

 

[articulett]

Yes... that acronym is perhaps the most apropos.

 

[DOC]

Didn't need to. Other posters have already addressed the argument. My post was simply highlighting the truth. YOu shouldn't place so much trust in a source that contains such blatant errors.

Using that logic, we shouldn't really place much weight on anything you say because you have made at least 3 errors talking about me or information in my threads.

 

[DOC]

But a good number of them are.

Then you should say a good number {in your opinion} and not 10.

 

[zooterkin]

Using that logic, we shouldn't really place much weight on anything you say because you have made at least 3 errors talking about me or information in my threads.

And if we apply it to you, what shreds of credibility do you suppose remain?