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

[six7s]

Or one could say they are very similar in a different way. Kind of like modern day eyewitnesses to events.

No. More Just like re-tellings of other myths and legends

 

[Simon39759]

So then you believe the Roman/Jewish historian Josephus was wrong when he mentions Christ on two separate occasions.

As others have mentionned, at least one of these mention is most certainy a forgery.

The other one is shorter and more difficult to evaluate but there seem to have been an interpolation.
At any rate, these references are not to be considered trustworthy.

 

[Hokulele]

As others have mentionned, at least one of these mention is most certainy a forgery.

The other one is shorter and more difficult to evaluate but there seem to have been an interpolation.
At any rate, these references are not to be considered trustworthy.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[X]

Regarding the "different/similar" problem that DOC is asking about:

It is known that Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source (and the hypothetical Q document) for a large variety of reasons.

An indication that Matthew and Luke used Mark is that the two later gospels generally agree on the historical details of Jesus' life found in Mark (such as his baptism) and disagree on details not found in Mark (such as the birth narratives, genealogies and resurrection appearances)

Also worth reading is the entry on Markan Priority.




The basis here is that many sections are in agreement between Mark, Matthew and Luke.
But some sections, which weren't present in Mark, are vastly different.


Of course, this depends on one having a view of the scriptures that is based on known evidence, not desperate desires.
It rests on the understanding that the gospels were written long after Jesus died, and after Paul wrote his letters.
It rests on the understanding that the names on the gospels were not the authors of their respective gospels.
It rests on the understanding that the gospels were changed over time, by scribes and editors and people with agendas.
It rests on the understanding that the resurrection account in Mark (16: 9-20) was added much later. Around the 4th or 5th century.

None of which DOC accepts. Which, sadly, will likely hinder his efforts to understand how his cherished book came into being, how we know Mark to have been a source for Matthew and Luke, and why some contradictions can't be handwaved away.

 

[six7s]

None of which DOC accepts. Which, sadly, will likely hinder his efforts to understand how his cherished book came into being, how we know Mark to have been a source for Matthew and Luke, and why <insert> it makes no sense whatsoever when </insert> some contradictions can't be <insert> are </insert> handwaved away.

Fixed that for you

 

[DOC]

As others have mentionned, at least one of these {Josephus quotes} is most certainy a forgery.

Yours and Houkele's "Most Certainly a forgery" opinion is a position that is least favorable among academics. Even the position that the quote is totally authentic has a higher favorablility.

According to Paul Maier, a professor of ancient history, in the article "Josephus and Jesus":

"Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding {Josephus'}Antiquities 18:63:

1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position;

2) it is entirely a Christian forgery – a much smaller minority position; and

3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus's original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation.

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his grammar and vocabulary elsewhere. Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a "wise man" [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such personalities as David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible.

Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over "many of the Greeks" is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day."

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2902067/k.C923/Josephus_and_Jesus.htm

 

[Hokulele]

Wow, who would ever have imagined that an apologist such as Meier would hold this opinion.

 

[DOC]

Wow, who would ever have imagined that an apologist such as Meier would hold this opinion.

Where did you get your information that he was an apologist and you didn't mention that he is "The Russell H. Seibert" Professor of Ancient History at the secular Western Michigan University.

 

[Hokulele]

Where did you get your information that he was an apologist and you didn't mention that he is "The Russell H. Seibert" Professor of Ancient History at the secular Western Michigan University.

So you didn't see the Penn & Teller episode where he debated Michael Shermer?

Figures.

 

[Simon39759]

Yours and Houkele's "Most Certainly a forgery" opinion is a position that is least favorable among academics. Even the position that the quote is totally authentic has a higher favorablility.

According to Paul Maier, a professor of ancient history, in the article "Josephus and Jesus":

"Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding {Josephus'}Antiquities 18:63:

1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position;

2) it is entirely a Christian forgery – a much smaller minority position; and

3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus's original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation.

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his grammar and vocabulary elsewhere. Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a "wise man" [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such personalities as David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible.

Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over "many of the Greeks" is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day."

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2902067/k.C923/Josephus_and_Jesus.htm

You realize that your source does mention interpolation as being the most likely?
Do you know what interpolation means? That it is a form a forgery?

The only actual debate is the extent of the forgery, was it entirely made up or created to replace an existing passage about Jesus?
The context of the interpolated passage and the fact that it interrupts the flow of a totally unrelated section have led the majority of scholars to consider this passage as unreliable.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Once again skeptics like you complain the bible accounts are too different. Then you turn around and say they are too similar and copied from Mark. Which is it -- are they too similar or too different?

DOC, when you're confronted with specific questions, you resort to generalities. You will, it seems to me (after following this thread from the beginning), do anything rather than deal with the specific question:

How can

"There was one angel sitting atop the stone outside the tomb",

"There was one MAN sitting INSIDE the tomb",

"There were TWO men STANDING inside the tomb", and

"There were two ANGELS SITTING inside the tomb"

be anything other than contradictory?

 

[DOC]

You realize that your source does mention interpolation as being the most likely?

Yes

Do you know what interpolation means?

Yes

That it is a form a forgery?

Even if there was an interpolation (which some scholars don't believe) there is no way in the world that anyone would be charged by any legal authorities for the crime of forgery. Your trying to transplant our concept of forgery to biblical times The copyists, if they did add something, probably were just trying to give additional info to their readers. Information was very scarce back then -- it's not like they had newspapers or magazines or printed books or CNN back then. Many probably felt the more true information (and clarification) given to the readers the better since information was so scarce.

The only actual debate is the extent of the forgery, was it entirely made up or created to replace an existing passage about Jesus?

This is false, according to Professor Maier, there is actually more scholars that believe the whole Josephus quote is authentic than believe the whole quote was false.

 

[paximperium]

Pax, why don't you just admit I did bring in some evidence -- it might not be proof, but it is evidence.

No. There is nothing to admit. You have presented OPINION and circumstantial nonsense that you claim is evidence. You have been called on it multiple times and your continued usage on such nonsense is evidence that you are a liar.

You have the right to have your opinion about the evidence, but I did bring in some evidence. You would of had much more credibility if you would have said, "You know Doc, I was mistaken about what I said, but I don't think the evidence is that good." I

Worry about your own credibility DOC. You have none and listening to someone like you about credibility is like listening to Hitler talk about mercy. I don't apologize for stating the truth.

Instead you continue to call me a liar and I think your credibility suffers as a result. And I'm sure that when you call me a liar in the future it won't have much impact to many who have followed the last few pages, in fact I think it will have a reverse effect.

I'm still calling you a liar. You have done nothing except to show that you make claims and ignore every other post that show your claims to be nonsense. No change in my statement. Six7 and Joobz have also shown the multitude of other lies you've used as well.

ETA: I've basically stated that some people in these threads throw around the term liar at the drop of a hat. I think the last few pages support that statement.

No. You've not shown that at all. You've claimed it and just pretend that it is true just like you make up all your other claims.

 

[paximperium]

Even if there was an interpolation (which some APOLEGIST scholars don't believe) there is no way in the world that anyone would be charged by any legal authorities for the crime of forgery.

This is NOT a legal statement This is a statement of truth. It was changed on purpose therefore that passage is unreliable and useless.

Your trying to transplant our concept of forgery to biblical times The copyists, if they did add something, probably were just trying to give additional info to their readers.

Or making things up to make their story seem more "realistic".

Information was very scarce back then -- it's not like they had newspapers or magazines or printed books or CNN back then. Many probably felt the more true information (and clarification) given to the readers the better since information was so scarce.

So they made things up. Gotcha.

This is false, according to Professor Maier, there is actually more scholars that believe the whole Josephus quote is authentic than believe the whole quote was false.

So? Does he have a nice poll or is he making things up as well?

I love how you contradict yourself. First you justify that the statement was changed and then you do a round about and claim it wasn't. Great thinking process.

 

[Mojo]

Even if there was an interpolation (which some scholars don't believe) there is no way in the world that anyone would be charged by any legal authorities for the crime of forgery. Your trying to transplant our concept of forgery to biblical times

Nobody is bringing up the legal definition of forgery (apart from you, that is), or trying to "transplant" it to biblical times.

 

[paximperium]

Nobody is bringing up the legal definition of forgery (apart from you, that is), or trying to "transplant" it to biblical times.

He is well aware of it. He is jumping the gun and is using a red herring by with his "legal definition" nonsense and is attempting to change the scope of discussion to create an "apology" for the changes in the text because "they knew something" that apparently Josephus decided not to include but which Christian writers somehow did. Of course it is more likely Christian writers made it up and tried to use Josephus' reputation and respect to support their claim just as DOC keeps misusing Thomas Jefferson quotes to support his nonsense. This shows he is well aware of the "forgery" claim.

I prefer to use the more specific definition and call it academic fraud, more specific falsification and fabrication as opposed to "forgery".

 

[joobz]

Isn't it important to note the different reports were by different people and at different times? As far as I can recall each reported what they remembered so I see not fault with different reports, all were true according to each witness. Makes perfect sense to me.

That would make perfect sense..... If they were supposed to have been seperate witnesses....but....

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
3And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
4And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

1Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
4So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Three of the 4 accounts specifically mention Mary Magdalene in the witnessing of the empty tomb. Only Luke gives a non-descript "they". Although, "They" refer to the women who took Jesus down.

As such, it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim they are seperate observations at seperate times and my critique still stands. The empty tomb accounts aren't MINOR differences, but represent ENORMOUSLY different accounts.


The bizarre point to the "seperate times/seperate observations" excuse is that it requires a complete lack of having read the bible.

 

[Belz...]

Once again skeptics like you complain the bible accounts are too different. Then you turn around and say they are too similar and copied from Mark. Which is it -- are they too similar or too different?

Passages are too similar, DOC, passages. This alone indicates that one account was taken from another.

But then, if they were, why the hell are they so different ? Why do YOU think ?

 

[Belz...]

Yours and Houkele's "Most Certainly a forgery" opinion is a position that is least favorable among academics. Even the position that the quote is totally authentic has a higher favorablility.

According to Paul Maier, a professor of ancient history, in the article "Josephus and Jesus":

"Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding {Josephus'}Antiquities 18:63:

1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position;

2) it is entirely a Christian forgery – a much smaller minority position; and

3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus's original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation.

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his grammar and vocabulary elsewhere. Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a "wise man" [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such personalities as David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible.

Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over "many of the Greeks" is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day."

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2902067/k.C923/Josephus_and_Jesus.htm

In any event, since we don't have the original text, why bother ? It's not conclusive, so why don't you try and find something besides Josephus ?

Oh, wait. That's because there's nothing else.

 

[Belz...]

Even if there was an interpolation (which some scholars don't believe) there is no way in the world that anyone would be charged by any legal authorities for the crime of forgery. Your trying to transplant our concept of forgery to biblical times The copyists, if they did add something, probably were just trying to give additional info to their readers.

A simple "yes" would've sufficed.