• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

I've already explained how certain perceived contradictions might not be contradictions at all. For example the one and two angels, (see post 2055). Just because we currently don't understand something doesn't mean their isn't an explanation.

Simon39759 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "almost no mention". And Mark reports of Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. That sounds like a Messiah to me. Also see my next response.

Simon39759 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (synoptic Gospels) all report of the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain (see Mark chapter 9). Where Peter, James, and John, all see Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah. Also a voice comes down from heaven saying this is My Son and to listen to what he says. This shows a person who is more than a human teacher, it shows a person who is the Son of God.

Also Mathew 1-20,21 says an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told Him Mary would conceive a child of the Holy Ghost and Jesus would save his people {the Jews} from their sins. This portrays Jesus as a Savior to the Jews.

Simon39759 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same response as above.

Simon39759 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Paul, all of the apostles, and probably most of Jesus' original followers were Jewish.

And the gospel of Mark, was most likely written for the Jews. While John who lived in the Greek speaking city of Ephesus probably wrote for the Gentiles. Why should John spend a lot of time talking about Jewish laws like some of the other gospels when the Gentiles wouldn't be concerned with that. Jesus did not just come for the Jews. That is why he said to go into all the world and teach all nations.
 
Last edited:
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...
Actually I believe it was received in revelation from a Mormon president.
 
DOC said:
What do you mean by "almost no mention". And Mark reports of Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. That sounds like a Messiah to me.
Click to expand...


Nope. Most scholars agree that the ending of Mark is a later addition. It is highly unlikely to have been written by the same author that wrote the bulk of that gospel.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

In other words, Mark did not report Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually I believe it was received in revelation from a Mormon president.
Click to expand...
Nope, Robroy set this straight.

So, do you not believe in the signed statements from the 8 and 3 witnesses regarding the validity of the gold tablets and the angel?
 
Hokulele said:
Nope. Most scholars agree that the ending of Mark is a later addition. It is highly unlikely to have been written by the same author that wrote the bulk of that gospel.

In other words, Mark did not report Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
Click to expand...


And even then, being ascended into heaven is not reserved to God by any means, isn't it the fate of any good Christians?
 
Hokulele said:
Nope. Most scholars agree that the ending of Mark is a later addition. It is highly unlikely to have been written by the same author that wrote the bulk of that gospel.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

In other words, Mark did not report Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
Click to expand...

Even if this theory is true (and even your article says its alleged), it doesn't explain the Transfiguration reported in Mark Chapter 9 where Jesus is witnessed to meet with Moses and Elijah on the mountain. And a voice comes down from heaven saying this is My Son and listen to Him. This shows that the author of Mark is saying Jesus is the Son of God and not just some teacher.
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
And even then, being ascended into heaven is not reserved to God by any means, isn't it the fate of any good Christians?
Click to expand...
There are no reports of Christians physically ascending into heaven other than Jesus first and I believe the Catholic Church believes later his mother, Mary. Paul received a revelation that at the end times Christians living and dead will be raised into heaven; but this is only possible because of the death of Jesus on the cross that was the perfect sacrifice for the sin of man.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Where does the book of Abraham say that God lives on Kolob.
Click to expand...
kolobWP
It was a reasonable interpretation for the time.

So, DOC, given you find Mormon theology to be wrong, I can only assume you mean that Joseph Smith was wrong. Does this mean that you don't believe he saw the tablets and angels? If not, why not?
 
DOC said:
Even if this theory is true (and even your article says its alleged), it doesn't explain the Transfiguration reported in Mark Chapter 9 where Jesus is witnessed to meet with Moses and Elijah on the mountain. And a voice comes down from heaven saying this is My Son and listen to Him. This shows that the author of Mark is saying Jesus is the Son of God and not just some teacher.
Click to expand...
It's funny that you mention Mark 9
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Click to expand...
when it has such a glaringly false prophecy in it.


ETA:
You (I assume) hadn't listened to the audio that was provided. In Jewish belief, the Son of GodWP does not mean divinity or the literal "son of god".


ETA.A: False prophecies, conflicting stories, condoning slavery, encouraging ritual cannibalism,.... DOC, are you intentionally trying to disprove the bible?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
There are no reports of Christians physically ascending into heaven other than Jesus first and I believe the Catholic Church believes later his mother, Mary. Paul received a revelation that at the end times Christians living and dead will be raised into heaven; but this is only possible because of the death of Jesus on the cross that was the perfect sacrifice for the sin of man.
Click to expand...


There are no reports of Jesus physically ascending into heaven. Just that the tomb was empty, which is different.


And, while not Christian, Elijah would fit the bill quite nicely.

But, really, after multiplying the fish, turning water into wine and raising the dead, having one's own body disappear from a tomb is quite trivial.


The fact is that the synoptic gospels only treat Jesus as a (arguably major) Jewish prophet.
It is only in John where he explicitly take the role of a God incarnate with a message directed predominantly toward the gentiles.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Where does the book of Abraham say that God lives on Kolob.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Kolob is only specified as being closest to the throne of God. See Chapter 3 of Abraham:

". . . and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me . . ." (3:3)
". . . Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest." (3:9)

In explaining the damaged hypocephalus (explanation of Facsimile #2, Fig.1 of the Joseph Smith Papyri) that Smith was presented with (and which he filled in as part of his interpretation), he stated, "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial [kingdom], or the residence of God."
 
Last edited:
Mister Agenda said:
Elijah was not a Christian, he pre-dates Jesus/Yeshua.
Click to expand...

Yes. I decided after posting that I should mention that and went to edit it. Your post and my edit must have been at the same time.

Still, the point remain that Jesus is not an isolated case in the Bible.
 
joobz said:
kolobWPSo, DOC, given you find Mormon theology to be wrong, I can only assume you mean that Joseph Smith was wrong. Does this mean that you don't believe he saw the tablets and angels? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

This thread is not about Mormonism. There have been other threads about that, and your welcome to start another one.
 
DOC said:
This thread is not about Mormonism. There have been other threads about that, and your welcome to start another one.
Click to expand...


No, this thread is about evidence. Joobz brings up a very good point as to when you decide which evidence you find compelling and which you dismiss.

From what we have seen of your and Geisler's arguments, confirmation bias appears to be the deciding factor, hence the reason why it is resonable to ask specifically why you do not find Mormonism as compelling as your brand of religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom