• 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.
Simon39759 said:
There is a interview of Bart Ehrman about his book titled 'The Gospel Truth: Sometimes A Little Hazy' on NPR.

It is a 38 minutes interview about the contradictions in the gospels, as well as touching on the true identity of the gospels' authors.


I still can't post links yet but if you go to NPR.com and use the search options with the title of the interview, you should find it without problems...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I really like Terry Gross' interviews.
 
Simon39759 said:
It is a 38 minutes interview about the contradictions in the gospels, as well as touching on the true identity of the gospels' authors.
Click to expand...

Actually similar testimonies about the major points and divergent testimonies about the relatively minor points are normal for eyewitness accounts. Geisler goes into detail about this in the book mentioned in post #1. The fact that there is divergent details on some minor points in the Gospels is actually one of the reasons why Geisler states we know the New Testament writers wrote told the truth and also wrote independently. Geisler's explanation of this can be read on this website -- click to pages 284 to 286.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...Geisler+10+reasons&client=firefox-a#PPA284,M1
 
DOC said:
Actually similar testimonies about the major points and divergent testimonies about the relatively minor points are normal for eyewitness accounts.
Click to expand...
But the gospels aren't eye witness accounts.

Unlike, the 8 and 3 witnesses of the mormons.
 
joobz said:
But the gospels aren't eye witness accounts.
Click to expand...

Matthew and John were gospel writers, apostles, and eyewitnesses. There is ample evidence that they wrote the gospels that have been attributed to them for 2000 years. I've already posted websites that attest to that evidence. And the gospel writer Mark was an associate of Peter who was certainly an eyewitness. And I've already pointed out that the gospel writer Luke was described as a world class historian by a famous secular archaeologist and he subsequently came to Christianity largely because of his studies of Luke.
 
Hokulele said:
So, you didn't listen to the interview, did you?
Click to expand...

Nobody is stopping the author from coming in here and expressing his views. And nobody is stopping you from posting a sample of his writings like I posted of Geisler.
 
DOC said:
Nobody is stopping the author from coming in here and expressing his views. And nobody is stopping you from posting a sample of his writings like I posted of Geisler.
Click to expand...
I've read large parts of the geisler book and found him laughably juvinile. (Shall I rehash the "university" etymological disaster?).
I think it's only fair for you to spend 38 minutes and listen to an author speak.


BTW, I can't help but notice that Geisler hasn't stopped by here defending his foolish ideas.
 
DOC said:
So how do the Mormons know God lives on planet Kolob in human form.
Click to expand...
I assume it was written on the golden tablets that 8 witnesses signed statements attesting to having seen and held them.


A bit more substantial than 4 books, which only 2 possibly date back early enough to possibly have been written by possible eye witnesses. And even these were written 60-80 years after the fact.
 
DOC: Do you understand that the "facts" Geisler and Turek trot out and their supposed support of the Bible all rest on opinion?


Reason #1: The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.
It is the authors opinion that the details are embarrassing. And that's if we're lenient and assume the details are accurate. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​


Reason #2: The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.
It is the authors opinion that the details are embarrassing. And that's if we're lenient and assume the details are accurate. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​


Reason #3: The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.
It is the authors opinion that the sayings are difficult. And that's if we're lenient and assume the sayings are accurate records of what Jesus said. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​


Reason #4: The NT Writers Carefully Distinguished Jesus' Words From Their Own.
It is the authors opinion that the sayings are distinguished. And that's if we're lenient and assume the sayings are accurate records of what Jesus said. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​

---

Reason #7: The NT Writers Include Divergent Details.
It is the authors opinion that the divergent details are the result of witness fallibility. And that's if we're lenient and assume the authors were actually witnesses to the empty tomb. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​


Reason #8: The NT Writers Challenge Their Readers To Check Out Verifiable Facts, Even Facts About Miracles.
It is the authors opinion the claims wou;dn't have been made were they not true. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​


Reason #9: The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.
It is the authors opinion that the accounts are simple and unembellished. And that's if we're lenient and assume the accounts are accurate records of what Jesus did. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible.​


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
It is the authors opinion that the writers held their beliefs till death. Add to that the fact that we don't know who wrote the gospels. But we do know it wasn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And it proves nothing about the veracity of the Bible. It only shows that people can believe strongly enough in a cause to die for it. Which is self-evident, as has been shown to you repeatedly, despite all your special pleading.​


I can't find reasons 5 and 6. Maybe I'll look them up next time I'm in a bookstore. If I happen to remember. And my book store wanderings happen to take me right next to the book. I really don't care enough to go out of my way to find it. They're going to be the same thing. Opinion, based on unsubstantiated claims.

Regarding the unsubstantiated claims, because I get the feeling someone will call me on it: Geisler and Turek take the position that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' teachings and death. This, of course, is completely unsupported by evidence. There is plenty of evidence, however, to show that they were not written by eyewitnesses. So much for a major foundational premise of Geisler and Turek's laughable attempt ad apologetics.



Don't you get it, DOC?

It all rests on the opinion of Geisler and Turek. And their sycophantic followers.
It proves nothing. So stop mentioning the book.
Either bring forward evidence (not hearsay) or admit you have no proof. This shouldn't be a big deal for you. After all, you can just take it on Faith, and we can't touch you.
Your Faith will not convince any of us of the veracity of the Bible, but it gets you out of having to provide the proof you are so plainly lacking.
 
Hmm, you didn't answer my question, DOC. That's too bad.

Well, I have to agree with X. The stuff you mentioned at the beginning of the thread doesn't really count as evidence because it relies on the writers' interpretation. Obviously, that interpretation could be clouded with bias. That makes it unreliable as evidence. You can understand that, right?

Also, as Hokulele's link shows, there are people with different interpretations. Feel free to believe what you want, DOC. I'll stick with the interpretations that I think are more relevant, too.
 
Hokulele said:
Here you go Simon39759.

I am a big Ehrman fan.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link; I too am a big fan.

Ehrman's trajectory, in my opinion, illustrates a good point. That it is only possible to believe in a literal inerrant reading the Bible if you are unfamiliar with the texts themselves.
When you get more knowledgeable, like Ehrman did in the course of his studies, the contradictions just get to difficult to overlook...



DOC said:
Actually similar testimonies about the major points and divergent testimonies about the relatively minor points are normal for eyewitness accounts. Geisler goes into detail about this in the book mentioned in post #1. The fact that there is divergent details on some minor points in the Gospels is actually one of the reasons why Geisler states we know the New Testament writers wrote told the truth and also wrote independently. Geisler's explanation of this can be read on this website -- click to pages 284 to 286.
Click to expand...


First of all, yes, contradictions should be expected. For normal human eyewitnesses. One could only hope that divinely inspired writers, transcribing the inerrant word of God would be somehow protected for such weaknesses.
If not, there are no reason to give the Bible a higher level of trust than we give to other beliefs that only based on a handful of testimonies. And that's not very much.


Second, Ehrman makes a good, and simple, case explaining quite clearly why the traditional attribution of the Gospels is rejected, especially for Matthew and John -referred too at the third person in the gospel.


Third, the contradictions are not, like you seem to believe, trivial or on some points of details.
The message is actually quite different.
For example, Mark has almost no mentions of Jesus as being the messiah. While John's is all about the Godly Jesus and differs from the synoptic Gospels.

Similary, the description of Jesus' death in the synoptic Gospels make it like the terrible ordeal of a human being, a moment of pain and doubt 'Father, why have you forsaken me?'. In John, it is merely a way to fulfil the prophecies, and Jesus is very much in control, he only ask for a drink to fulfil the prophecy and ask God to forgive his tormentors.

The synoptic Gospels deal with a Jesus that was a historical figure and human teacher. John's, on the other hand, deal with a God incarnate.
Also mentioned is the difference between the two interpretation of Jesus death. For Mark, Jesus is buying back the sins of the people, while for Luke, it's mostly a wake-up call for people to realize they are sinners.


There are more differences, that are not mentioned in the interview. Mostly, the synoptic have Jesus as a Jewish teacher that mostly follows Jewish laws.
In John, he is bringing a whole new religion that has little to do with Judaism. By the time of the writing, the Christians had been rejected from the Jewish community and were started to spread among gentiles.
 
Since a lot of people aren't going to read the whole thread anyway:

Could someone sum up the evidence so far?
 
not a lot (can't seem to add actual spaces)








(that's about it)
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No
No, their concept of God is very different from mainline Christianity. And we thus get into the Law of Non-Contradiction. They believe God (the Father) exists in human form similar to you and me and lives on the planet Kolob. This is extremely different from mainline Christianity where God (the Father) is spirit. Most people are unaware of this. They do some good work though.
Click to expand...

Sorry, small correction here. While the LDS God the Father possesses a human form He does not live "on the planet Kolob". Kolob could either be a planet or a star, but in either case it is simply the "nearest unto the throne of God." (Book of Abraham 3:2-3)

Sorry to slow you guys down. :D

joobz said:
I assume it was written on the golden tablets that 8 witnesses signed statements attesting to having seen and held them.
Click to expand...

Book of Abraham for Kolob, actually, along with Doctrines and Convenants for God having a physical (and perfect) body. The BoA was taken from some rough papyrus, which Smith claimed was the said lost book of the Bible, but has since been found to be a common enough hypocephalus, that Smith wasn't even close to deciphering.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom