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

[Ichneumonwasp]

If it's any consolation I spent eight months of last year reading the sources for the Fourth Crusade and Fall of Constantinople, and then trying to reconstruct from things like the Chronicle of Morea the subsequent political situation in the former Byzantine Empire 1204-1230 for something I was working on. I share your pain! I must say that the secondary literature on the details of the Byzantine successor states and this period is almost non-existent, at least among Western European historians - it makes British sources on the French section of the front in World War one look positively abundant and useful! - so it was an excruciating business. I'm currently writing on another topic just as difficult with regards to sources, but I had better not say what until it's published.

Oh yes, constraints. Very quickly, without references and warning this constitutes what Wikipedia might call "original research" as I'm not sure how far it reflects the current academic consensus - the oral stories preserved about Jesus are clearly NOT the totality of the pericope circulating at the time of the writing of the gospels. In fact, a couple of the gospel authors make this plain, and say so explicitly. The stories we have reflect the sitz in leben of the Early Church - they were preserved as useful to some problem or teaching the Church wished to express - that much is uncontroversial.

I'd go further, like a bus load of Merry Pranksters heading east to Millbrook. We can tell that in fact the authoes also shape their material in line with their own theological spin - no surprise there - and that they have there own literary conventions or way of writing - compare and contrast the depiction of Jesus in John with the "Messianic Secret" motif so obvious in Mark. Still, even beyond the selection of material by the authors for whatever reasons, it is highly likely that by the time the Gospels were written the early Christian communities (I don't think Early Church is really an appropriate term though I often use it through sheer laziness) have actually got a standard by which stories about Jesus are judged - the Apostolic Acid Test if you like.

The Apostles, the inner circle who were there from the beginning, seem to have held considerable authority - I can only think of non-apostolic three figures who may well have been as influential. One I only suspect - Mary the mother of Jesus. One we can clearly see - James, Jesus' Brother, Head of the Jerusalem Church.Both are clearly authorities in their knowledge of Jesus.

The third was Paul, or Saul if you prefer. And here we hot a massive problem - because Paul was a highly influential figure, a great theological figure, and clearly NOT an apostle. In fact the other apostles question his teachings and it would seem likely by various things he writes, his very write to teach. Because Paul was not there. He missed the ministry, he missed the Passion, and he missed the Resurrection appearances.

So from his writings, especially in Galatians, we can see the conflict which culminates in what is often called the "Council of Jerusalem" in 62 as i recall? Paul stands sort of half way between the Apostles and modern Christians - the Apostles believed what they had seen - but Paul had a spiritual experience of the Risen Christ,as you rightly mention (though it's far more complex than it first seems and will form part of the discussion in my next post, replying to your former points I still have not got round to!). So Paul makes himself a new type of apostle "as of one untimely born" as he says, and the Church accept him - a bit warily perhaps - but we notice something very interesting in his writings in the seven authentic Pauline Epistles.

Paul is very scanty on the Historical Jesus, in terms of biography. That si not to say he gives us no information ---as is often claimed -- about the Historical Jesus, for he does and I can summarize it here with quotes for anyone interested. However generally, even when his argument would be strengthened by reference to the biography of Jesus, he shys away. Why? Doherty and others who believe Jesus was fictional cite this as sinister - but I see it as perfectly understandable. Paul has been pulled up for teaching without Apostolic authority - he is talking about someone he never knew in the flesh. If he tries to draw upon the liefe of Jesus, he can easily make mistakes, or include claims that are falsifiable by the still living witnesses - the Apostles. So he avoid the subject, and works theologically, and through his own experience. He is not afraid to argue theology with the Apostles - but he has ot be careful to never overstep what he actually knows about Jesus - and we see this reflected in his writings.

What does this tell us? That there was in fact a process of authentication of material going on - that there is an Apostolic tradition, that is used ot test the pericope. As the Apostles dies off there is a need for biographies which reflect the apostolic teaching - but now that teaching is disseminated in various communities around the diaspora and the Eastern Mediterranean, so the gospels are composed, and probably read by those taught by the apostles - a process we can see continuously as primitive Christianity begins to definie itself as distinct from Judaism and from the various gnostic versions of Jesus. This claim to apostolic authority remains central to the early Christian communities - and so it forms a constraint in that one can to teach contrary to the apostolic "memory". In areas not covered by the Apostles - and i strongly suspect the birth as one - stories could be accepted, and contrary versions accepted - but the core events have to refer back to stories told by those who were there. A theological system of checks and balances are in place.

Yet even in the Resurrection accounts, different Apostles had given different accounts one assumes, and we see a complex patter n emerging, where seemingly contradictory accounts - who was first at the tomb? - emerge in different communities. I find this quite understandable - the writers were drawing in each case on what they felt was the most reliable source - hence the disagreement between them. If the transmission was as simple as say Mark wrote, then Matthew copied him then Luke copied Matthew, then we would expect a broad agreement. If the whole thing was a fiction, we would expect agreement, because the story would develop, and change, but you would be careful to get your key details accurate in your spin on it. Here however i suspect we actually see the problem of the apostolic authority - the apostles kerygama, message, was very much focused on what to do and how to receive the faith, and the historical part of their accounts while treasured reflect a number of revered witnesses quibbling over what really happened twenty years before. So high was the regard hel for them, the inconsistencies had to be accepted - because they were depsite the problems better than the competing teachings in circulation which while "smoother" disagreed with the Apostolic accounts?

Dunno. I'll reply to your other bit later if i can. Hope not too way out

cj x

OK, but there are certainly other just as viable possibilities about apostolic tradition. One of the key reasons why the apostles were deferred to in the early church (at a time when we can refer to it as the church), as we can see from Irenaeus (never can spell his name), was because he felt that a specific type of creed needed to be adhered to to prevent just any old thing (read gnosticism) from being believed.

Paul could very well not have referred to Jesus' life very much -- and, yes, he mentioned three or four things, like he was born of woman, that he thought no one should divorce, and that you should pay your taxes and pay your preachers -- because he simply didn't know. He may not have felt the need to refer to Jesus' life since his concern was not the teachings but the resurrected Christ as the first fruits of the general resurrection soon to follow. He may also have made it clear that he didn't know Jesus in the flesh in his earlier teachings to the various communities, and he clearly did not want to give any more authority to the surviving disciples/apostles who did know Jesus directly (since in Galatians he seems to have lost the fight with Peter).

I'm not so sure that we can take Paul's reticence about referring to Jesus as evidence that a strong apostolic tradition was in play so early. None of them would have been able to read his letters after all, though, of course, others could certainly have read them out loud and transmitted the info. And I think it unlikely that anyone who knew Jesus directly was likely to traipse through the same communities that concerned Paul and to whom he wrote the letters.

I guess yours is one possible explanation, but I don't think I quite buy it yet.

 

[cj.23]

OK, but there are certainly other just as viable possibilities about apostolic tradition. One of the key reasons why the apostles were deferred to in the early church (at a time when we can refer to it as the church), as we can see from Irenaeus (never can spell his name), was because he felt that a specific type of creed needed to be adhered to to prevent just any old thing (read gnosticism) from being believed.

Yes that is later, when doceticism is a live issue. However at this stage we don't need to have much creedal conformity - see Dunn's Unity & Diversity in the New Testament for the best overall discussion of these issues I know of - because the issue s more of a community finding its feet and working out its theology. Irenaeus is the second half of the second century - but in the latter half of the first both Polycarp and then Clement of Rome discuss apostolic authority, showing this was the primitive form of authority in the communities. It is slowly replaced by episcopacy - but there can be little doubt from Acts as well, whenever you choose to date it, that apostolic authority was normative. There is little evidence of gnosticism being a live issue for the chuirch at this time, but it IS the period in which the NT texts were written, hence my hypothesis.

Paul could very well not have referred to Jesus' life very much -- and, yes, he mentioned three or four things, like he was born of woman, that he thought no one should divorce, and that you should pay your taxes and pay your preachers -- because he simply didn't know. He may not have felt the need to refer to Jesus' life since his concern was not the teachings but the resurrected Christ as the first fruits of the general resurrection soon to follow. He may also have made it clear that he didn't know Jesus in the flesh in his earlier teachings to the various communities, and he clearly did not want to give any more authority to the surviving disciples/apostles who did know Jesus directly (since in Galatians he seems to have lost the fight with Peter).

Not much disgreement here - yet note that Paul "and I say these things not because i was taught by man but because they were revealed to me" of Tarsus (to paraphrase) suddenly starts whittering on about witnesses and so forth when he is dealing with the biographical aspects. Now he did not know much about Jesus' life I agree - because he was not a witness to it - and that is what prevents him being an apostle in the true sense ("those who were with us from the beginning and witnesses ot the Resurrected Jesus" again to paraphrase.) Have a look at Galatians and Corinthians and you will see just how important this whole apostolic thing was to Paul - because his authority was in doubt - something he was not good at handling, as the Barbabas dispute and the various other rows over church discipline show us, even without the heated debates with Peter. Paul felt chosen by God, and yet he lacked the "proper" credentials - and this context explaisn a great deal of what he writes and does - especially the onflict in Galatians 2, reported less dramatically in Acts.

I'm not so sure that we can take Paul's reticence about referring to Jesus as evidence that a strong apostolic tradition was in play so early.

Even without that inference we have the Patristic writings i mentioned above to support the contention.

None of them would have been able to read his letters after all, though, of course, others could certainly have read them out loud and transmitted the info.

I'm lost here? There is no reason to assume th apostles were NOT literate - I'd be very surprised if say Peter, a fisherman, was not. In the socioeconomic situation of 1st century Galillee the fishermen were solidly middle class and almost certainly able in Koine and Aramaic, plus would have known Hebrew for religious purposes, even if there accent was rough by Judean standards. Letters would of course have been writtn normally by scribes - Paul himself refers to his dreadful handwriting - but those who are involvd in industries like fishing would have probably used koine (essentially a trade tongue) a great deal what with Sephoris and Tiberias as new flourishing cities near by. The economically dispossed tenenat farmers and the casaul vineyard labourers would probably have not been literate i guess, though evidence throughout the Hellenistic world like the Oxyrynchus papyri and graffiti demosntrate a far higher degree of literacy than formerly suspected by scholars? I have some articles on this from recent research, I'll dig them out. Of course Paul's letters are not compiled and "published" till much later - some suggest as late as Marcion - but given that Paul repeatedly refers to his disputes with the Jerusalem Church and James' mediation is needed ot settle the disputes between him and Peter, I think they were well aware of the content of his preaching.

And I think it unlikely that anyone who knew Jesus directly was likely to traipse through the same communities that concerned Paul and to whom he wrote the letters.

Yet we know EXACTLY that happened. Round about 37-40 Paul travels to Jerusalem, where he talks with James as I recall, but doe snot meet the other apostles. His mentioning this fact is rather odd unless as I suggest he is kicking against the apostolic authority which denies him his status. Round about 46 Barnabas goes to TArsus to find Paul according to Acts 11:25

Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

So Paul and the Jerusalem Church are working together - but Paul is subject to Barnabas, who holds the authority. They send money to Jerusalem, then return there, and leave with John Mark

When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.

Eventually things go wrong - Barnabas and John Mark go one way, Paul sets off with Silas. He has already argued with Jerusalem as seen in Galatians 2. And the root of this is exactly what you say was unlikely - Galatians 2 11-13 - Peter meeting with Paul in Antioch, and conflict arising

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Paul has now clearly set himself apart from the other apostles - and the reconciliation according to Acts follows Peter's vision. He returns to Jerusalem about 57, and then eventually thorugh his imprisonment ends up in Rome, where tradition places Peter meeting his end.

I could go on. The important point is that the Apostles were not the leaders of the early christians communities - elders, prophets, teachers, and later bishops all exist - but the Apostles do not from what I can make out hold this status. That was not the Apostolic calling, and nor was it Pauls - the APostles were wandering witmesses to the truth, but appointed not one of their number but James to be head of the Jersualem church. In short they appear to have continued the kind of ministry they had followed when Jesus was alive - there importance was as witnesses, NOT as church authorities. Apostolic authority should not be mistaken for episcopal authority - I for one see no evidence Peter was ever "bishop" of Rome - I think he wa sprobably subject to Linus and the other Christian leaders there - but the thing the apostles did do was to set what constituted right teaching - and that is what in this era is meant by apostolic authority. Maybe that clarifies a little?

I'll write more tomorrow explaining my position more clearly and referencing the appropriate parts of the epistles, but hopefully this has at least clarified the main thrust of my argument.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

I mentioned Clement writing in 98 as demonstrating an early understanding of apostolic authority. Here is the quote I was thinking of

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."

 

[cj.23]

Also in Ignatius, Bishops subject to Apostles?

[/I]
"For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, ye may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle, of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall be found.

 

[DOC]

As a long-time lurker, I would like to express that I have read the entire thread and found that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever.

Other than Christ appearing to you in person what evidence in here would convince you that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

Other than Christ appearing to you in person what evidence in here would convince you that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

If "in here" refers to this thread then the answer is "none". This thread, so far, remains evidence-free in terms of your original assertion.

Further, if someone claiming to be your biblical christ thing turned up to say hello, the only thing I'd be convinced of is that one of us has a serious mental problem.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

cj,

Not much disagreement, but Clement and Polycarp were writing near the end of the first century, when many believe that gnosticism was already rearing it's ugly head.

The earliest writings we have are from Paul, as you know, and the image we have of the communities that he was involved with was that they were charismatic and did not follow any apostolic "master". He even refers to to the folks in Corinth splitting in groups and following different individuals, some of whom were clearly not apostles. We simply haven't any evidence that the earliest communities considered apostolic authority all that important. Following the destruction of the Temple we know there were significant changes in the Jerusalem communities and the diaspora Jews began the rabbinic tradition soon after. The need for structure in the Christian communities was probably also felt, and apostolic authority (or claims to it) were a natural fallback.

As to the literacy issue, I did not claim that none of the apostles would know Greek, but that they were likely unable to read. Acts specifically identifies Peter and John as uneducated, which I would assume means illiterate in a society in which literacy was around 20% at best and more likely 10% in many communities.

I would also caution against using terms like "middle class" for that time period -- anachronistic at best -- but I understand you what you meant by it.

 

[joobz]

Other than Christ appearing to you in person what evidence in here would convince you that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

This question has been answered multiple times and you've failed to provide any of the real evidence required.

Besides, why do you exclude the possibility of god making himself known to everyone in person? Wouldn't that solve the whole issue? Yet, you exclude it as a seemingly rediculous request. Why would you place limits on what your god can do?

 

[cj.23]

cj,

Not much disagreement, but Clement and Polycarp were writing near the end of the first century, when many believe that gnosticism was already rearing it's ugly head.

Cerinthus? He certainly appeared to be docetic, and think we can assume docetic readings exist earlier than him. I'm guessing that a lot of John may be a reaction to his teachings - after all that seems to be a major driving force in what inspired the nT writings, the need to define what was right theology. Paul often seems positively laid back in comparison - so I'm guessing those forty years are crucial.

The earliest writings we have are from Paul, as you know, and the image we have of the communities that he was involved with was that they were charismatic and did not follow any apostolic "master". He even refers to to the folks in Corinth splitting in groups and following different individuals, some of whom were clearly not apostles. We simply haven't any evidence that the earliest communities considered apostolic authority all that important. Following the destruction of the Temple we know there were significant changes in the Jerusalem communities and the diaspora Jews began the rabbinic tradition soon after. The need for structure in the Christian communities was probably also felt, and apostolic authority (or claims to it) were a natural fallback.

Right, but we mean different things here by apostolic authority. By the 90's the Patristic writings show us that the Episcopacy is developing claims to derive authority from the Apostolic teachings and to in fact be appointed by the apostles. It seems safe to therefore, based on the textual evidence in Paul of the importance of apostolic status at least to him - and i really should delineate the key texts which my argument is formed from - to assume that the apostles held some distinct authority. Yet it is NOT what apostolic authority later comes to imply - that is actual leadership from what I can see. As you rightly say, Prophets, Elders and Teachers lead the churches, with sharp divisions at time as reflected in Pauls discussion of the controversies. James, not an apostle, is head of the Jerusalem Chuirch - wher the family of Jesus hold authority. Stephen is appointed to head the Hellenist section of the Jerusalem church - again NOT an apostle. If Peter made it to Rome, and tradition appears strong on this point, he was not the first Bishop (anachronistic I know) of Rome from what I can make out.

So the apostles did not lead, not even the Apostle upon whom the Church was founded if one reads the "upon this rock" thing that way. To use a later concept, they were not responsible for discipline, or even perhaps doctrine - they were responsible for the truth of what happened, as witnesses. Now we can clearly this process later - the episcopacy that forms and eventually replaces the charismtaic leadership of the early period, most notably after the Montanus affair, make their claim to derive their authrity from the apostles. Furthermore the test that is applied to the "canonicity" of the writings is their association with an apostle - or Paul, that later apostle by default. Hence the ink spent on trying to ascribe the gospels etc to known apostles or associates of the apostles even as far back as the Patristic era. The apostles authority was never temporal, administrative, ecclesiastical - that is pretty much part of my argument - rather it was in terms of the authenticity of the tradition. So while i agree that later interpretations of apostolic authority as endowing certain factions with "political" power are misleading, indeed i suspect erroneous, what we can see is that Apostolic authority was always seen as the test of the pericope - and in the arguments with the docetics etc, the fact the "apostles did not teach this" were vital.

As to the literacy issue, I did not claim that none of the apostles would know Greek, but that they were likely unable to read. Acts specifically identifies Peter and John as uneducated, which I would assume means illiterate in a society in which literacy was around 20% at best and more likely 10% in many communities.

Questions of 1st century literacy are such a minefield I will lleave it for now. The work on the Oxyrynchus papyri from Egypt continues, but down there at least literacy may have been much higher than we always assumed from the written evidence. However doubtle s professional scribes were employed by almost everyone, even those (like Paul) who could write!

I would also caution against using terms like "middle class" for that time period -- anachronistic at best -- but I understand you what you meant by it.

Yes, meant to be an analogy, like my frequent use of "early Church" as a shorthand for "early Christian communities", which is meant to include both Jewish Christianities and Hellenistic ones.

Always a pleasure to siscuss these things
cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, always a pleasure to discuss things with you -- these and others.

Let me explain further what I meant by the reference to 1st Conrinthians and following different leaders................

I didn't mean that there were no leaders in the charismatic communities, though that is also true, but that different groups of people seem to be following different theological ideas. This was expressed by "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, etc.", but it seems to refer to burgeoning theological conceptions that have led to problems in this community (with the same process probably happening elsewhere as well).

The danger of charismatic communities is that anyone can feel that they have received the message from the Holy Spirit, and these messages may diverge quite radically from one to another. Paul seems to have preached the idea of the Spirit providing different gifts for different people, but what happens when one of those "gifts" leads a group into thinking that Jesus was not flesh and blood but wholly Spirit (hey, Paul never really saw him did he?)? Or that we are all already experiencing the full fruits of the resurrection here and now? Or that the body doesn't matter, only that we accept Jesus' sacrifice? Or that there really are not one but two gods and Jesus was a manifestation of the good god?

Those are the earliest communities that we seem to see, and they seem to cause Paul no end of trouble.

I think the original issue of apostolic authority concerned the fight between Paul and the other disciples/apostles who seemed to have an entirely different view of Jesus and his message (as well as the belief that everyone needed to be Jewish for this type of salvation). When examined critically, do we actually know what they thought about the resurrection, or even if they did originally? We certainly have later stories (the gospels) that match with their belief that Jesus had resurrected and we have Paul's word for it that Peter and James accept his gospel message, though the tension in Galatians makes me a little uncertain about that. Can we really extend Paul's concerns about his relationship to these other people to the growing Christian communities?

I'm not sure that early on apostolic authority was considered important at all to anyone but Paul. I'm also not sure that there were any real breaks on the development of new ideas. We certainly see a wealth of different Christianities fairly early. I think it is at least possible that these new conceptions grew out of some of the Pauline communities and their emphasis on the Spirit and direct revelation.

 

[DOC]

This question has been answered multiple times and you've failed to provide any of the real evidence required.

You're right, I have failed to visually present God in the flesh in this thread and I have failed to visually show a person who died and came back to life in this thread as you required as conditions for your belief in the Resurrection. And as I've already stated that means there is no evidence I can present that will satisfy you and many others so it's kind of phony to keep complaining about evidence when your conditions are impossible to satisfy in this thread.

Besides, why do you exclude the possibility of god making himself known to everyone in person?

I don't -- it is just not necessary for Him to do it physically as you require. In fact it is much more important that He do it spiritually than physically. Christ said God (the Father) will send you the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things. (John 14:26) He didn't say God will send you the Holy Body who will teach you all things. You require the "Holy Body" to believe but it likely won't happen if we are to believe Christ.

 

[Lothian]

I don't -- it is just not necessary for Him to do it physically as you require. In fact it is much more important that He do it spiritually than physically.

Why is is more important?

 

[joobz]

You're right, I have failed to visually present God in the flesh in this thread and I have failed to visually show a person who died and came back to life in this thread as you required as conditions for your belief in the Resurrection.

This is false. It is only one kind of evidence I would accept. I gave a full list of evidence that would support your argument, none of which has been provided.
You ignoring my actual argument/request is called a strawman.
You mentioned in another thread about people needing a Logic101 class. I suggest you take one as well. YOu would be less likely to violate the strawman argument fallacy.

I have no problem believing:
1.) Jesus was real.
2.) He had some pretty good ideas regarding how we should live.
3.) That he had a demonstrable and major impact on our world/civilization.

What I have a hard time believing is that he "rose from the dead."

What I know from science and medicine is that to be fully dead for 3 days (e.g., no brain activity, a stopped heart, necrotic tissue...) does not come back to life.

I do know of circumstances where a slowed heart rate, undetectablly slow breathing, comatose patient can appear to be dead. And I also know that people in this state may actually regain consciousness.


What I do not know is what evidence would exist that would suggest Jesus was in the "true dead" category vs. the "comatose" version. It is unlikely that such evidence could exist. Even if you had accounts of this comeback, I could not trust thier veracity. It is an extrodinary claim, and one that would require more concrete evidence. Written testimony wouldn't cut it. Would you trust a group of people who said elvis is still alive because they saw him?

So, evidence that would support the resurrection for me would be as follows:

1.) Jesus returning saying that it happened.
2.) A body of Jesus that is 2000 years old and still in viable tact. (Although this would contradict the corporeal assention of Jesus into heaven, it would at least support the unusual circumstances of a resurrection. E.g., it would prove that his body was immune to decay as a result of death)
3.) A demonstration of modern human being dead for three days (in the "dead/dead" way) and returning to life. It would help to also document that this person could ascend corporeally into heaven. Also explain where/what heaven is. It doesn't prove that Jesus resurrected, but it at least proves that it is possible and I would no longer deny it as a possibility.
4.)Or to tackle the problem in another way: Demonstrate that it is impossible for the stone blocking the tomb to have been moved by people other than Jesus.
5.) Or demonstrate that it is impossible for a tomb to be empty for any other reason than a ressurection. (E.g., demosntrate that body thefts/grave robbing never happen)


These are merely examples. But I think that they reflect the kind of evidence that is warrented to support the ressurection story.

I don't -- it is just not necessary for Him to do it physically as you require.

Evidence suggests otherwise. The fact that there are 1.2 billion Muslims, there are ~ 1 billion hindus and 1 billion Bhuddists suggests that the "christian message" has not been getting arround. If god really was interested in us worshiping his true self, you'd think he'd set us straight.

In fact it is much more important that He do it spiritually than physically. Christ said God (the Father) will send you the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things. (John 14:26) He didn't say God will send you the Holy Body who will teach you all things. You require the "Holy Body" to believe but it likely won't happen if we are to believe Christ.

this is nonsense. It the kind of excuse that a deadbeat dad would make. "I had to leave you and send you letters instead of being with you. How else will I know that you love me?"

 

[TraneWreck]

This thread seems to be cooking along, so I doubt my addition will offer much, but I'm bored and need a reason to avoid my family for a little while.

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

This is a common heuristic technique. Think about the way Plato used Socrates (when debating with Parmenides) or countless other people, including his own children, as foils in his dialogs. For a more contemporary example take Carlos Castenada who seems like a complete fool in all of his own writings.

The idea is that any given reader will likely find themselves in the same position as those characters, struggling to learn at the feet of a master. They ask similar questions, allowing the author to explain the philosophy.

If that technique proves truth, then the drug-addled ramblings of Castenada are indistinguishable in terms of veracity from the new testament (which, of course, it is--both nonsense).

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

But the Bible makes clear Jesus was not a drunkard. These smears come from people who are clearly represented as fools, idiots, or liars. It's hardly embarassing. Those passages are meant to be embarassing for the crictics of the messiah, not the messiah himself. That point doesn't even make sense.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

This is what religious fanatics do. They create impossible rules so they can condemn, condescend, and ostracize. If this means the new testament is true, then the Qu'ran, Jim Jones, and Tom Cruise are all telling the truth.

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

They weren't very good writers.

Another possiblity is that they weren't very creative. They needed to see an event happen in order to give it detail. No ressurection or other miracle actually happened, so they spat it out blandly. Any good liar knows that detail can only get you into trouble.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

Yes, this is also something religious fanatics do. Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, Mormons, Muslims...etc. Members of all of these groups are willing to die for their fantasies. They also all view themselves as radical revolutionaries, casting aside the wrong-minded practices of the past and ushering in the "one truth." And they all die for their goofy beliefs.

I don't really understand what those points were meant to show.

 

[joobz]

This thread seems to be cooking along, so I doubt my addition will offer much, but I'm bored and need a reason to avoid my family for a little while.




This is a common heuristic technique. Think about the way Plato used Socrates (when debating with Parmenides) or countless other people, including his own children, as foils in his dialogs. For a more contemporary example take Carlos Castenada who seems like a complete fool in all of his own writings.

The idea is that any given reader will likely find themselves in the same position as those characters, struggling to learn at the feet of a master. They ask similar questions, allowing the author to explain the philosophy.

If that technique proves truth, then the drug-addled ramblings of Castenada are indistinguishable in terms of veracity from the new testament (which, of course, it is--both nonsense).



But the Bible makes clear Jesus was not a drunkard. These smears come from people who are clearly represented as fools, idiots, or liars. It's hardly embarassing. Those passages are meant to be embarassing for the crictics of the messiah, not the messiah himself. That point doesn't even make sense.



This is what religious fanatics do. They create impossible rules so they can condemn, condescend, and ostracize. If this means the new testament is true, then the Qu'ran, Jim Jones, and Tom Cruise are all telling the truth.



They weren't very good writers.

Another possiblity is that they weren't very creative. They needed to see an event happen in order to give it detail. No ressurection or other miracle actually happened, so they spat it out blandly. Any good liar knows that detail can only get you into trouble.



Yes, this is also something religious fanatics do. Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, Mormons, Muslims...etc. Members of all of these groups are willing to die for their fantasies. They also all view themselves as radical revolutionaries, casting aside the wrong-minded practices of the past and ushering in the "one truth." And they all die for their goofy beliefs.

I don't really understand what those points were meant to show.

Great post. While all of the points have been refuted on similar grounds, I particularly liked your clear reasoning. Also, I do not believe anyone had as clearly destroyed Reason 2 as you did.

Good job!

 

[Elizabeth I]

You're right, I have failed to visually present God in the flesh in this thread and I have failed to visually show a person who died and came back to life in this thread as you required as conditions for your belief in the Resurrection. And as I've already stated that means there is no evidence I can present that will satisfy you and many others so it's kind of phony to keep complaining about evidence when your conditions are impossible to satisfy in this thread.

I've already answered your sad little whiny complaint:

What you conveniently keep forgetting is that YOU titled this thread "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth." YOU are the one who said YOU had evidence. None of people who have responded to you started a thread entitled "What is the evidence the New Testament writers told the truth?" and demanded that you provide said evidence. All they have done is asked that YOU live up to the claim YOU made and provide the evidence YOU said YOU had.

Instead you have quoted special pleading by authors who admittedly have a pre-existing bias in favor of their hypothesis. You have presented invalid logic, half-truths, and evasions. Especially evasions. You are big on evasions.

When none of that worked, you have started false hares and dragged red herrings across the trail. You have tried to redirect and misdirect the discussion, all in an attempt to avoid the fact that YOU said you had evidence and YOU have failed to provide it.

So don't come back now whining, "It doesn't matter what I say, you won't believe me. <<sniff>> You're so UNFAIR! <<snuffle>> You said you wanted evidence, but now you won't believe anything I say. <<choke back a sob>> What do you want from me?"

YOU said YOU had evidence. So cough it up or admit you don't have it.

 

[articulett]

Why can't you just present the sort of evidence that would convince you the Quoran writers told the truth if that was the case?

 

[Mister Agenda]

DOC, I've been lurking through this whole thread, read your posts, and I'm not seeing the problem here. You make a decent case that the NT writers believed what they wrote. That's as close as you're going to be able to come to 'they wrote the truth': that they wrote the truth as they understood it. And that IS evidence for the resurrection. However, it is only hearsay evidence, which is notoriously unreliable. There's no way we can ever really know what happened, and there are plausible alternative explanations to resurrection. A good rule of thumb for a skeptical thinker is to never accept hearsay evidence for an extraordinary event. This applies even to eyewitness testimony: if you tell me you stubbed your toe this morning, I will find that believable because people stub their toes all the time and I know of no reason to think you would lie about it. If you tell me that you spent the morning levitating three feet above the floor with no means of support but your psychic/spiritual power, I won't beleive you even if I think you believe you're telling the truth.

I don't think many of us have a problem with the idea the writers believed what they were writing. We have a problem with the idea that the writer's sincerity lets us know that the miracle they wrote about actually happened as described.

It's not very good evidence for the extraordinary--if it were, we'd have to believe in a lot more than a resurrection, there are lots of supernatural tales recorded by people who apparently believed in them. You've set yourself an impossible task: convince skeptical people that second-hand accounts in millenia-old manuscripts are good enough reasons to believe a person came back from death (and with superpowers to boot).

There's no shame (and on a Skeptic forum, maybe a little honor) in acknowledging a post to have been overambitious. It's a moderate change from 'why we know' to 'why I think'.

 

[TraneWreck]

Great post. While all of the points have been refuted on similar grounds, I particularly liked your clear reasoning. Also, I do not believe anyone had as clearly destroyed Reason 2 as you did.

Good job!

That's the risk one takes when jumping into a debate on page 40.

 

[DOC]

But the Bible makes clear Jesus was not a drunkard. These smears come from people who are clearly represented as fools, idiots, or liars. It's hardly embarassing. Those passages are meant to be embarassing for the crictics of the messiah, not the messiah himself. That point doesn't even make sense.

Regarding Reason #2 in Post #1. How about when Jesus was seen cursing the fig tree for not having figs (when it wasn't even the season for figs). Is that something someone would make up about their Messiah. Would you say that is embarrassing for the messiah himself.

I wonder if joobz now thinks reason #2 has been destroyed.