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

[DOC]

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?

How many times do I have to say my threads are not about me -- anymore than your phone bill is about the mailman.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

If Joseph of Arimathea is a disciple (as he is described in John 19:38), then your whole point of his presence in the story as being so incredible it must be true is false.

So no, the fact that the tomb was donated is really unremarkable, uninteresting, and not evidence for the truth of the resurrection.

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

And your reliance on such a poor source of information and argumentation says a lot as well.

 

[articulett]

How many times do I have to say my threads are not about me -- anymore than your phone bill is about the mailman.

Well, I know you think that... just as I'm sure all true believers do-- the Scientologists, the Muslims, the Moonies, the truthers, the homeopaths--

But to us, that's just another "belief" being proffered as "truth" or "wisdom".

--To me, it IS about YOU trying to convince yourself that your "belief system" is the singular truth that is the same for every body no matter what they believe. But as far as I can tell, only science has come up with those kinds of truths-- no holy books or gurus or "disciples" of any sort.

I do think it's telling how you answered my question, however. I presume you are spreading your "good news" far and wide, eh, Disciple?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Um, no. This is certainly not the case with Tertullian's reference -- since he only mentions that Jews argued that the disciples stole the body. That would mean that they thought Jesus really lived and that he died and that he was buried somewhere. Nothing about a tomb.

We also have no way of knowing if Jews really thought this or if this was a rhetorical flourish for both Tertullian and Justin. Where, by the way did Justin write this? Was it in the Dialogue with Trypho? I don't know that anyone is certain that dialogue ever took place. If it did, Justin wrote about it 20 years or so later, so who can be certain what was said exactly?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I do not have evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth.

I do have evidence that JK Rowling was telling the truth when she wrote about Harry Potter.

But the evidence is in my mind.
But the mind is real.
Therefore, the evidence is real.



Whoo hoo, I won. Yeah, I won. I totally won.

 

[marksman]

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

Since every Christian I know believes that some of the Apocrypha written about Jesus are not canonical and are in fact false, I thought that would be considered an unremarkable statement. Do you believe that everything written about Jesus is true? If not, then you must agree that some Christians were making up stories about Jesus. (I did not state that all Christians did such a thing.)

And wouldn't you agree that there were already Christians being persecuted in Rome in the early 60s AD well before 70 AD.

I would, but what does that have to do with your assertion that the lack of Jewish criticism of the account of Joseph of Aramithea means that the story of Joseph of Aramithea is credible?

You argued that the lack of such Jewish criticism is evidence that the story is true.
I explained that at the time that the account first surfaced (sometime after 60 AD), the Sanhedrin had been expelled from Jerusalem and the Temple destroyed, and Romans were actively persecuting Jews (and Christians, since they were then perceived by the Romans as a sect of Judaism). For support I would reference you to Constantine's Sword, which collects much of scholarly research about Judaism in the first century AD.

Since the Sanhedrin (and Jews in general) were not in Jerusalem when people started telling the story of Joseph of Aramithea, there was nobody around who could verify or discredit its accuracy. So the lack of Jewish criticism of the story is not evidence of its accuracy.

 

[DOC]

If Joseph of Arimathea is a disciple (as he is described in John 19:38), then your whole point of his presence in the story as being so incredible it must be true is false.

So no, the fact that the tomb was donated is really unremarkable, uninteresting, and not evidence for the truth of the resurrection.

Strawman, please reread the first posts about him.

 

[Hokulele]

You missed the point of bringing in Joseph of Arimathea, reread the first posts about him.

*Sigh*

Here is your first post regarding Joseph of Arimathea.

You might not have read the 10 reasons Norman Geisler gave. 5 of them were in post #1. Of course I didn't go into the detail he did for each reason. His chapter on the 10 reasons was 21 pages long.

Here is one of several explanations he gives for reason #5. Why would the NT writer's say Christ was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (one of the members of the Sanhedrin). The Sanhedrin was the group that called for Jesus' death. Why portray a member of the Sanhedrin (an enemy of Christianity) in good light. This doesn't make sense especially if the story was made up. It would be easy to verify if it was true or not.

(Bolding mine.)

If he is a disciple (John 19:38), he is either not a member of the Sanhedrin, or is at the very least, highly sympathetic to christianity, and therefor there is no conflict. Hence, the story makes perfect sense as a fiction, and is not evidence of the resurrection.

 

[DOC]

Um, no. This is certainly not the case with Tertullian's reference -- since he only mentions that Jews argued that the disciples stole the body. That would mean that they thought Jesus really lived and that he died and that he was buried somewhere. Nothing about a tomb.

So are you saying the 2nd century Jewish authorities only believed that Christ died and had his body stolen and that they were totally unaware of the story in all 4 Gospels (written in the previous century) that Jesus was buried in the Sanhedrin member's tomb?

 

[DOC]

If he is a disciple (John 19:38), he is either not a member of the Sanhedrin, or is at the very least, highly sympathetic to christianity, and therefor there is no conflict. Hence, the story makes perfect sense as a fiction, and is not evidence of the resurrection.

The whole point is that it would have been easy for the Jewish authorities to verify if the Joseph of A. (a Sanhedrin member) tomb story was true or not.

And I never said it was evidence of the resurrection so that is a strawman. But it does give support to an empty tomb.

 

[paximperium]

All right DOC. Let's assume you are right.
Jesus was missing from his tomb as you've claimed.
He was buried in a Samhedrin member's tomb.

So?
How does that make Geisler's argument any less stupid?

 

[Hokulele]

The whole point is that it would have been easy for the Jewish authorities to verify if the Joseph of A. (a Sanhedrin member) tomb story was true or not.

Not if the story were written decades after the events.

And I never said it was evidence of the resurrection so that is a strawman. But it does give support to an empty tomb.

Then why bring it up in this thread? Isn't the whole point of the New Testament the idea of the resurrection as proof of Jesus' messiahhood?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So are you saying the 2nd century Jewish authorities only believed that Christ died and had his body stolen and that they were totally unaware of the story in all 4 Gospels (written in the previous century) that Jesus was buried in the Sanhedrin member's tomb?

I am saying that the only evidence you have for your view that some Jews believed Jesus was buried in a tomb is two proto-orthodox/centrist authors who do not mention that these Jews believed that Jesus was placed in a tomb. They might well have believed that Jesus lived and died and was buried. But there is no evidence -- none -- that he was placed in a tomb and no mention of Joseph of Arimathea in Jewish writings from the time. There is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth from Jewish writings of the first century either (with the one exception of Josephus and both mentions are disputed, though I think that there is a kernel of truth in both references).

And, yes, I seriously doubt that most Jews were aware of the four gospels. What evidence do you have that they would have taken any notice of them? You have to look at this from their perspective. Why would they bother to know about a crucified criminal and a wacky group of blaspheming followers? Do you bother to know exactly what David Koresh said and did? These books -- the gospels -- were written in small communities of believers and transmitted within those small communities. They were not available for general consumption. Do you think there were Barnes and Nobles on every street corner in ancient Judea?

And what Jewish authorities are you discussing in the 2nd century? The emerging rabbinic tradition? You do realize that the Temple was destroyed in 70 and that a second uprising occurred in 135 or thereabouts? The Temple structure (pun intended) was gone.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The whole point is that it would have been easy for the Jewish authorities to verify if the Joseph of A. (a Sanhedrin member) tomb story was true or not.

And I never said it was evidence of the resurrection so that is a strawman. But it does give support to an empty tomb.

How? What Jewish authorities, again? And how are they going to investigate this claim sixty years after the fact? How were they supposed even to know about it? Do you have any idea where the gospels were written and how they were transmitted? Christian myths aside, have you actually thought about what you are saying? On the one hand you argue that is was highly dangerous for the author of any of the gospels to identify himself, but on the other hand you seem to assume that these books were widely available for consumption by the general public. You can't have it both ways. This was either a secret community (actually a large group of different secret communities) or it was all out in the open. Which do you want to support?

The whole line of argument that no one could possibly have made up stories about Jesus is simply bunk. Do you actually want to argue that no Christian community made up stories about Jesus?


ETA:

Oops, sorry, marksman already said most of that above.

 

[joobz]

And I never said it was evidence of the resurrection so that is a strawman. But it does give support to an empty tomb.

And what does an empty tomb prove?

 

[tyr_13]

And what does an empty tomb prove?

The simple answer would be that the bodies were removed or the tomb never had bodies in it. Another simple answer is that it was the wrong tomb.

The Christian answer is that the bodies rose from the dead and walked around. That also happens to be the voodoo answer, and the Romero answer.

'The Romero Answer' sounds like a good name for a movie.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

'The Romero Answer' sounds like a good name for a movie.

Or a rock band.

 

[DOC]

Another simple answer is that it was the wrong tomb.

Well as Norman Geisler points in the book cited in post #1

1. If they went to the wrong tomb, then the Roman and Jewish authorities would simply go to the right tomb when the apostles started proclaiming a resurrected Saviour and paraded Jesus' body around the city. Remember the Romans placed guards there at the request of the religious authorities. So they both knew exactly where his body was.

2. Even if they went to the wrong tomb, that would not explain the 12 different appearances Jesus made according to the 4 Gospels. He lists these on page 303.

As Geisler points out on page 304 it wasn't the empty tomb that convinced most of the apostles it was the "appearances" that turned them from scared, scattered, skeptical cowards, into the greatest peaceful missionary force in history.

 

[DOC]

And what does an empty tomb prove?

Well, I guess an empty tomb, might not motivate you to martyred, but having Jesus appear to you after he was wrapped up with cloth and spices might.

 

[zooterkin]

Well as Norman Geisler points in the book cited in post #1

Ah, yes, the highly respected Mr Geisler.

Remember the Romans placed guards there at the request of the religious authorities. So they both knew exactly where his body was.

Remember we only have the story in the bible, no independent reports to back it up.

2. Even if they went to the wrong tomb, that would not explain the 12 different appearances Jesus made according to the 4 Gospels. He lists these on page 303.

So, the reason the new testament is true is because other bits of the new testament agree with it?

As Geisler points out on page 304 it wasn't the empty tomb that convinced most of the apostles it was the "appearances" that turned them from scared, scattered, skeptical cowards, into the greatest peaceful missionary force in history.

So why did you bring up the tomb if it's the appearances that are convincing?