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

[DOC]

What complete and utter nonsense. Are you pulling that "fact" out from your rear or did you read it in some poor apolegetics site?

Are you saying criminals never got together and correlated their stories? You must think all are criminals are honest and conscientious people.

 

[Mashuna]

Skeptics complain when gospel accounts are similar and then they complain the gospels accounts are different? They want it both ways -- which is it are the gospels too similar or are they too different. Skeptics should make up their minds once and for all.

Again with the false dichotomies Doc. If the whole logical fallacy thing is a bit much for you, try reading Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Once you understand how porridge can be too hot or too cold, you should be better equipped to come back to this issue.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Skeptics complain when gospel accounts are similar and then they complain the gospels accounts are different? They want it both ways -- which is it are the gospels too similar or are they too different. Skeptics should make up their minds once and for all.

I don't see anyone complaining. Hokulele mentioned that it is clear that Matthew made a mistake based on a misinterpretation of the Greek. The same mistake was not made by Luke, who realized it, probably. Matthew made a similar mistake by quoting Isaiah about birth through a virgin, when Isaiah says nothing about that in the Hebrew (it was a mistranslation in the Greek septuagint). She didn't complain about differences -- she used the differences to make a point.

I didn't complain about similarities. I pointed out that the similarities are far too great -- in fact many of them are concrete with the exact same words being used. Matthew copied Mark (making a few changes, of course) as did Luke.

If you don't want to discuss this I understand.

 

[six7s]

Skeptics should make up their minds once and for all.

Please note that, unlike the beliefs of believers who are happy to play mutual back-patting games whilst conveniently ignoring the blatant inconsistencies in order to better indulge their delusions, scepticism neither enforces collective mindset nor precludes revisions as and when more reality-consistent information comes to light

HTH




Apologies in advance for derailing this thread by dragging it back to the OP, but I can't help wondering...

Do you have any "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you have any "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

Maybe we should be a more precise in our wording. Technically, DOC has supplied evidence. The problem is with the proposition "why we know the New Testament writers told the truth".

The evidence he has provided is very poor and allows for numerous other interpretations, as we have repeatedly demonstrated. Evidence for "knowing that something is truth" must, by its very nature, be very strong. Weak evidence can never rise to that sort of demonstration.

With that said, DOC, you cannot weasel out of this by saying, "I have supplied evidence" and leaving a definition of evidence. You have not proposed supplying evidence just for the resurrection. You have supposed that you could supply evidence for why a particular proposition is true. Not that it might be true, but that it is true.

You can weasel out of it by saying -- but I meant just evidence for the resurrection -- and we can let you off the hook. You've supplied evidence. It is very weak evidence and should impress no one, but it is evidence.

 

[paximperium]

Are you saying criminals never got together and correlated their stories? You must think all are criminals are honest and conscientious people.

Done with your silly little strawman and red herring yet?

So, I'm still waiting for you produce any evidence about your claim that "...judges sometimes get suspicious when two stories (from witnesses) have the exact same minor details."
I somehow suspect that you made it up or read it uncritically from some apologists to magic away the inconsistencies in the Bible.

 

[Hokulele]

Other than your confusing donkey story below list all the stuff Matthew made up, and evidence for it.

Once again, I would recommend reading Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.

Yeah, yeah, I know you aren't really interested in learning anything or reading any of my recommendations, but maybe one of the other thread participants will find it illuminating.

And just because two eyewitnesses have two different accounts of an event that doesn't mean they made it up. It happens all the time. In fact judges sometimes get suspicious when two stories (from witnesses) have the exact same minor details.

So Matthew wasn't lying, but was just plain wrong?

Hmm, this sounds like you are actually agreeing with my contention all the way back in post #3. Funny, that.

 

[cj.23]

Just a quick technical aside on the whole virgins debate -- it's not clear it is a mistranslation by any means. The Septuagint has παρθένος, which is virgin - that is the Greek text cited by Matthew, who was writing in Greek. In the (Hebrew) Masoretic text the word is עלמה , that is almah. Problem is almah can mean virgin, or just young woman, but it's not that simple - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah for a good discussion.

I have checked the Dead Sea Scrolls Great Isaiah Scroll, and yep it reads almah. However the notes for verse 14 make a very convincing argument that virgin in the modern sense was intended - http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/7-8.htm#alma - based on the fact that in 285 BCE the translators of the Septuagint chose to use parthenos, virgin, as the term as I note above... if they had believed it meant "young woman" they would have used a different term. SO at least some Jews were reading it this way almost 300 years before the alleged virgin birth.

Hope of interest...
cj x

 

[truethat]

Hey Doc you skipped right over my point about the Church granting authority to those who had witnessed the resurection.

 

[six7s]

Maybe we should be a more precise in our wording. Technically, DOC has supplied evidence. The problem is with the proposition "why we know the New Testament writers told the truth".

Thank you for prompting me to think and consider the topic from another perspective

maybe one of the other thread participants will find it illuminating.

At least one

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Just a quick technical aside on the whole virgins debate -- it's not clear it is a mistranslation by any means. The Septuagint has παρθένος, which is virgin - that is the Greek text cited by Matthew, who was writing in Greek. In the (Hebrew) Masoretic text the word is עלמה , that is almah. Problem is almah can mean virgin, or just young woman, but it's not that simple - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah for a good discussion.

I have checked the Dead Sea Scrolls Great Isaiah Scroll, and yep it reads almah. However the notes for verse 14 make a very convincing argument that virgin in the modern sense was intended - http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/7-8.htm#alma - based on the fact that in 285 BCE the translators of the Septuagint chose to use parthenos, virgin, as the term as I note above... if they had believed it meant "young woman" they would have used a different term. SO at least some Jews were reading it this way almost 300 years before the alleged virgin birth.

Hope of interest...
cj x

cj x

The closest meaning is unmarried girl of child rearing age, not specifically virgin. The actual passage says that the maiden is with child -- that one is already in the womb who will come. It was, in fact, not a prophecy even of a birth but a metaphor of a coming judgment against Ahaz. It is the second of two warnings to Ahaz.

It does not refer to a coming Messiah, though the reference uses clear imagery invoking a Nazirite -- feeds on curds and honey, shaved head, etc. none of which referred to Jesus obviously since he met none of the criteria for a Nazerite.

So, it was still a mistranslation, misapplication, however we want to cut it.

ETA:

I guess I should be a little more precise. This translation, as with all translations, takes a word with ambiguous meaning and fixes one particular meaning to it. That produces a problem potentially, as anyone who has worked with translation knows (my only exposure was in college since I don't do it professionally, but the point was very clear from the exercise I was forced to perform).

But the ultimate point that I don't want lost in semantic argumentation is that Matthew took this particular translation as justification for a story when the original intent of the passage had nothing to do with the way that it was used. It is entirely possible that the translation of this passage was used to model that part of the story to counter claims that Caesar Augustus was the son of God -- our God is better than your god.

ETA ETA:

Whoops, screwed that one up didn't I? Nazirites were supposed not to cut their hair, weren't they? I guess I'm going to have to look that up again; but the point of the passage is purity vs. Ahaz, who was most decidedly unpure.

 

[DOC]

So Matthew wasn't lying, but was just plain wrong?

Non-sequitur

 

[Hokulele]

Non-sequitur

Hardly. It directly follows from your OP as well as your inability to admit that there may very well errors in the gospels.

But hey, if you are uncomfortable directly answering that question, don't worry. I am sure no one reading this thread will take the wrong impression from your evasion.

 

[DOC]

Skeptics complain when gospel accounts are similar and then they complain the gospels accounts are different? They want it both ways -- which is it, are the gospels too similar or are they too different. Skeptics should make up their minds once and for all.

Again with the false dichotomies Doc. If the whole logical fallacy thing is a bit much for you, try reading Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Once you understand how porridge can be too hot or too cold, you should be better equipped to come back to this issue.

Forget Goldilocks, and talk the bible. There is no false dichotomy -- If you think there is, explain using the bible.

 

[joobz]

You can weasel out of it by saying -- but I meant just evidence for the resurrection -- and we can let you off the hook. You've supplied evidence. It is very weak evidence and should impress no one, but it is evidence.

Well, DOC has been given multiple examples of the types of evidence required to believe the resurrection. He felt that these requests were unreasonable and asking too much. As you said, though, if you wish something to be prove true, it requires strong evidence.

This issue has also been demonstrated in another way. It was asked of DOC, what evidence would he need to be proven that christianity was false or that another religion is true. For instance, what evidence would DOC need to be proven that Islam is true.

Not unexpectedly, he has avoided answering this question.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

cj,

If it was clear that virgin was meant, why not use the word specifically for virgin in Hebrew?

I think young girl was meant, but I defnitely understand why the translator chose the Greek word for virgin, since that carries the idea of purity with it, and that is the point of that particular passage.

 

[tyr_13]

Forget Goldilocks, and talk the bible. There is no false dichotomy -- If you think there is, explain using the bible.

Why on earth would one need to use only the bible to explain what it means to be wrong in different ways at different times?

Remember when God killed all the first born children of Egypt? That was wrong by doing too much. When God let the Jews wander for forty years in the desert? That was wrong for doing too little.

Is that better than too hot and too cold?

 

[Mashuna]

Forget Goldilocks, and talk the bible. There is no false dichotomy -- If you think there is, explain using the bible.

You always seem to struggle with biblical examples, I thought you might fare better if we started simpler.

 

[Hokulele]

It looks like DOC has abandoned this thread, but I have just one more question regarding the historical accuracy of the gospels (particularly Matthew).

DOC, did Herod order all male babies aged 2 and younger in Bethlehem and the surrounding area slaughtered?

If so, please provide evidence outside of Matthew and explain why none of the other gospels mention this. In other words, Matthew wasn't making <stuff> up to match older legends again, was he?

 

[DOC]

It was asked of DOC, what evidence would he need to be proven that christianity was false or that another religion is true. For instance, what evidence would DOC need to be proven that Islam is true.

Not unexpectedly, he has avoided answering this question.

(boldness added)

What post was I asked what evidence would I need to proven that another religion is true? As you can see I gave a highly detailed and lengthy response to the question what evidence would I need to be proven Christianity is false.

Well, Darat asked me a few days ago what is the least amount of evidence that would make me believe Jesus did not rise from the dead?

Well in order to properly answer that question I had to ask myself why I believe in Christianity and its claim that Christ rose from the dead. Here are some of the reasons I thought of:

1) the amazing and original words of Christ himself -- words that motivated T. Jefferson (a prolific reader in multiple languages) to cut those words out of the bible and make a book with them.

2) the life changing power of the Gospel that gets people off drugs, turns peoples marriages around, and gives many people a reason to live and hope. I've seen countless testimonies on TV about this "real" life changing power.

3) the absurdity of the current unproven life from non-life scientific theory.

4) the absurdity of the current mainline scientific theory that all the 100 billion galaxies in the known universe (including all of its matter and space) came from something smaller than an atom and this happened by unintelligent random forces.

5) the fact that the cowardly apostles who wouldn't even attend Christ's crucifixion, or stay awake with him for one hour when he needed them, or who (like Peter) did things like denying Christ to a lone woman 3 times, suddenly became bold evangelists willing to lay down their lives (11 or 12 actually did) and travel all over the known world with great hardships to themself for their belief.

6)the unexplained empty tomb

7) the numerous fulfilled prophesies of the Old Testament.

8) the unparalleled growth by peaceful means in the brutal Roman empire with no modern transportation or communications.

9)my own personal peace, joy, and hope, obtained from Christianity.

So in answer to the question you would have to make Christ's words mundane with no life changing power, then you would have to take away Christianity's peaceful growth (with no modern transportation or communications) during the brutal Roman empire regime and its replacing the entrenched Roman and Greek gods. Then you would have to have no more than two of the apostles being martyred instead of 11. Then you would have to give a very good explanation for the empty tomb with evidence to support it. That would probably be the least evidence I would need not to believe Christ rose from the dead.