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

[DOC]

And your knowledge of the bible is so poor you can't find them?

Oh, I can find them but the person who is making the claim should bring the verses in. I'm challenging them to bring the verses in if they want to use them to support an argument. One has to wonder why they don't bring them in. I don't have the time to do other peoples work for them.

 

[RobRoy]

I don't have the time to do other peoples work for them.

I understand DOC. It's all you can do to misrepresent the quotes you're already using!

 

[DOC]

Here are examples of problems between what the author of Acts writes and what other sources (including the Bible itself) have to say:

Acts 1:18 - Judas dies by falling on his head and bursting open so his bowels gush out.

Matthew 27:5 Judas committed suicide by hanging himself.

Same ol', Same ol'. So I'll have to bring in the same ol' responses:

From the Voice in the Wilderness website:

And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he "fall headlong"? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his "entrails gush out" when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a 'mess

http://www.a-voice.org/qa/judas.htm#top

 

[Hokulele]

Same ol', Same ol'. So I'll have to bring in the same ol' responses:

From the Voice in the Wilderness website:

And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he "fall headlong"? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his "entrails gush out" when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a 'mess

He climbed to the top of a high tree to hang himself?


And if Luke was such an excellent historian, why did he leave out that little tidbit about the hanging? Maybe he was just a lazy researcher?

ETA: And to make life even more difficult for the apologists, Luke's account isn't even a suicide, but an accident. Curiouser and curiouser...

 

[joobz]

And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he "fall headlong"? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his "entrails gush out" when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a 'mess

http://www.a-voice.org/qa/judas.htm#top

Officer: So, tell me how the victim died...

Witness 1: Sir, it was quite clear. The man, he bought this land. Yeah, and while on the property he fell and cracked his head open. It just burst open like a piniata.
Officer: why did he fall?
Witness 1: I don't know. He just fell.
Officer: did he fall from a height?
Witness 1:I don't know.
Officer: Did he fall from a tree?
Witness 1: I don't know. I can't be sure of that at all, I only know that he definitely bought the land he died on and then fell on that land and broke open.
Officer: Ok. And how about you. What did you see?
Witness 2: Well I don't know nothing about bursting open. But I do know that he didn't buy any field. I mean. He had given up his money and hung himself.
Officer: he hung himself?
Witness 2: Yup! And hadn't bought any field.
Officer: So he didn't by it.
Witness 2: Yup, but I guess these priests bought some field with the cash.
Officer: Was it the same field he died in?
Witness 2: um, Don't know. I do know they plan on burying people in it.
Officer: Ok...
Witness 2: Yup. They're gonna call it the field of blood too.
Officer: umm.... So let me get this straight. The victim fell and burst open but also had hung himself.
Witnesses: Yup.
Officer: Witness 1, I thought you said he died by falling.
Witness 1: That's what I saw.
Officer: Did he die that way.
Witness 1: I don't know.
Officer: then why did you describe that?
Witness 1: Um, cause.um...it was gross?
Officer: Nevermind. And he bought the field he died?
Witness1: Yes, he bought it.
Witness2: No, the priests did. Or at least, they bought A field.
Officer: Well, which is it.
Witnesses: Both.
Officer: Alright, How.
Witnesses: Well, I guess the priests bought a field in his name and bought the place where he fell and burst open?
Officer: did they?
Witnesses: I don't know.
Officer: You guys are retarded.

 

[DOC]

These are all from your "preferred" KJV translation, here ya' go:




Note the poetic repetition. This is fairly common in OT prose-poems.




One donkey, young and male.




One donkey, young and male, very similar to the previous story, but we already knew that Luke plagiarized from Mark.




One donkey, young and male. Here, John even quotes Zechariah almost verbatim ("as it is written"), demonstrating quite clearly that the New Testament authors were aware of the Old Testament prophecies and made sure to tie them into their stories.

And finally:




Two donkeys, a female and her colt. Oopsie.

But it is pretty clear where Matthew was going with this. He has the details found in Mark^*, with embellishments of his own. He also cites the verse from Zechariah (much as John does), but interprets it literally rather than poetically (as do the authors of the other Gospels).

These types of details make it fairly clear that the gospel writers were not only aware of the Old Testament prophecies, but that they were willing to skew their own narratives to more closely fulfill those prophecies.

Even if they were aware of the prophesies that doesn't mean Jesus didn't ask the disciples to get a colt and a donkey. Luke and Mark just mention Jesus asked for a colt. That doesn't mean Jesus didn't also ask for its mother also. Remember Luke and Mark are getting this information 2nd hand. Maybe their sources (like Peter and Paul) just informed them of the colt and not the donkey. That doesn't mean they made up the story.

Donna might ask me, "did you tell Bob to get the wine"?. I might say, "yes I did tell Bob to get the wine". That doesn't mean I didn't also ask Bob to get to get the cheese also. I just didn't report that to Donna. There is no conflict, It's just that Mark and Luke didn't report all the info whereas the eyewitness Matthew did.

And the eyewitness John, doesn't even say how Jesus got the colt. And the fact that John doesn't mention the mother of the colt doesn't mean it wasn't there.

This is just another much ado about nothing in the big scope of Jesus' purpose and teachings.

 

[Hokulele]

Oh, I can find them but the person who is making the claim should bring the verses in. I'm challenging them to bring the verses in if they want to use them to support an argument. One has to wonder why they don't bring them in. I don't have the time to do other peoples work for them.

Hmm. My post 3272 was made several hours before this response.


It is almost as if DOC never read it...


ETA: OK, that was funny.

 

[six7s]

My exceedingly simple question from ELEVENTY PLUS ONE sunrises ago:

If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.

You don't feed babies prime rib. Jesus was speaking in ways the unlightened of that time could digest. That's why he spoke in parables.

Serious question: How do these two seemingly incongruous statements gel - in your view - DOC?

 

[DOC]

My exceedingly simple question from ELEVENTY PLUS ONE sunrises ago:

​

You're flooding the thread. I've already responded to this question. If you don't like my answer then so be it. I'll have to report this to a moderator if you bring it in again.

 

[six7s]

You have responded only with dodges, not answers

If you persist in lying (even for Jesus) you will burn in hell, no?

 

[Hokulele]

Even if they were aware of the prophesies that doesn't mean Jesus didn't ask the disciples to get a colt and a donkey. Luke and Mark just mention Jesus asked for a colt. That doesn't mean Jesus didn't also ask for its mother also. Remember Luke and Mark are getting this information 2nd hand. Maybe their sources (like Peter and Paul) just informed them of the colt and not the donkey. That doesn't mean they made up the story.

You are missing the point. The authors are deliberately trying to match history to the prophecies, not the other way around. Heck, Matthew even admits that this is exactly what is happening, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,". However, Matthew gets the prophecy wrong.

Donna might ask me, "did you tell Bob to get the wine"?. I might say, "yes I did tell Bob to get the wine". That doesn't mean I didn't also ask Bob to get to get the cheese also. I just didn't report that to Donna. There is no conflict, It's just that Mark and Luke didn't report all the info whereas the eyewitness Matthew did.

Sure, however, if Donna asks you to bring a bottle of wine, and you bring the wine and then make a special trip to Sonoma valley to pick up the vintner as well, she may look at you a bit strangely.

Zechariah is clearly talking about a single animal. Only Matthew (well, and you) seem to miss this.

And the eyewitness John, doesn't even say how Jesus got the colt. And the fact that John doesn't mention the mother of the colt doesn't mean it wasn't there.

And the fact that Matthew suffers from poor reading comprehension doesn't mean it was.

This is just another much ado about nothing in the big scope of Jesus' purpose and teachings.

No, this is an example of why the fulfillment of prophecies is completely meaningless. Matthew clearly states that this is the reason they were looking for donkeys outside of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, he doesn't know how to read poetry. Or how to count.

ETA: Basically, either Matthew was making things up to support his claim of Jesus being the Messiah, or Jesus was deliberately trying to match his actions to the prophecy to support his claim of being the Messiah. Too bad that the Zechariah prophecy clearly involved military action regarding the kingdom of Judah, and really didn't have much to do with the apocalyptic larking about in which the apostles were invested. So once again, I do not see any reason to put any weight in the nonsensical claims that the fulfillment of OT prophecy in the NT is any sort of evidence of anything other than the fact that 3 out of 4 gospel writers could understand what they read.

 

[Greediguts]

Same ol', Same ol'. So I'll have to bring in the same ol' responses:

From the Voice in the Wilderness website:

And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he "fall headlong"? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his "entrails gush out" when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a 'mess

http://www.a-voice.org/qa/judas.htm#top

That would have to be one VERY tall tree for his body to burst open...

Here are examples of problems between what the author of Acts writes and what other sources (including the Bible itself) have to say:

Acts 1:18 - Judas dies by falling on his head and bursting open so his bowels gush out.

Matthew 27:5 Judas committed suicide by hanging himself.
--
Acts 5:36-37 Theudas raises up with some followers and is killed. After his attempted revolt, Judas the Galilean rose up with his followers at the time of the census and was killed.

Josephus Antiquities 20:97-98 Theudas raised a revolt around 44-46 CE. Judas the Galilean opposed the new taxes following the census of Quirinius in.......6 or 7 CE.
--
Acts 7:30 Scene of the burning bush story on Mt. Sinai

Exodus 3:1 Scene of the burning bush story on Mt. Horeb
---
Acts 11:28 Great famine happened during the reign of Claudius (who appointed Herod of Agrippa). "Luke" then describes Herod Agrippa's actions against the church, after the famine.

Josephus Antiquities 20:51-53 Heord Agrippa died in 44 CE. Josephus mentions the famine happening in 47 CE.
---
Hopefully this is a small enough post so DOC will read it.

I'm not even going into the differences between Paul's own letters and "Luke's" accounts in Acts.

DOC, any plans to address the other points I brought up or was the post too long for ya?

 

[L The Detective]

You're flooding the thread. I've already responded to this question. If you don't like my answer then so be it. I'll have to report this to a moderator if you bring it in again.

You definitely never answered my question! Your only response was to say that you didn't feel like responding. What's up with that?

 

[joobz]

You're flooding the thread. I've already responded to this question. If you don't like my answer then so be it. I'll have to report this to a moderator if you bring it in again.

DOC, you never once answered that question.
You may think you did. But you did not.

If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.

You don't feed babies prime rib. Jesus was speaking in ways the unlightened of that time could digest. That's why he spoke in parables.

Serious question: How do these two seemingly incongruous statements gel - in your view - DOC?

DOC how can something be the best teaching in history but be in code? Teaching means that you pass along information and understanding of that information to people in a way that makes the most people understand that information completely.

CODE is meant to hide information from plain sight. It is meant to ensure that only CERTAIN people know what the information is saying.

 

[Marcus]

My exceedingly simple question from ELEVENTY PLUS ONE sunrises ago:

Please, ask one more time. That will make 24 and Doc is sure to answer.

 

[RobRoy]

Please, ask one more time. That will make 24 and Doc is sure to answer.

Wanna bet? No, seriously. The rent is due, and I'm a little short this month. Whaddya say to some real, cold, hard cash that DOC doesn't either ignore the question (again) or post another dodge (again)?

It's what makes this entire thread a joke at this point, albeit one I've watched with more and more amusement as every point DOC makes is repeately shot down in a ball of illogical flames.

 

[six7s]

My exceedingly simple question from ELEVENTY PLUS TWO sunrises ago:

If a messiah did come doesn't it seem logical that he would preach the most moral and sublime teachings ever known to man.

You don't feed babies prime rib. Jesus was speaking in ways the unlightened of that time could digest. That's why he spoke in parables.

Serious question: How do these two seemingly incongruous statements gel - in your view - DOC?

 

[DOC]

You definitely never answered my question! Your only response was to say that you didn't feel like responding. What's up with that?

Why are you making this statement to a post I directed at Six7s. This is deceptive. Why don't you use your own post and question, to make this statement?

 

[paximperium]

Why are you making this statement to a post I directed at Six7s. This is deceptive. Why don't you use your own post and question, to make this statement?

Hahahaha...snort...Why aren't you answering the question? Ignoring the multiple times L has posted his question is deceptive.

 

[joobz]

Why are you making this statement to a post I directed at Six7s. This is deceptive. Why don't you use your own post and question, to make this statement?

DOC, I find this to be quite amusing.
You've called all my questions related to slavery "the same question" and act like you have already answered them.

Now you claim that the question that six7s, L the detective and I have asked are different questions even though we have all quoted eachother asking you to answer this question.