• 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.
joobz said:
Or we could go with the hollywood standards:
Based on a true story.
Semi-biographical
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ based on a true story.

Starring Dolph Lundgren as Jesus Christ; Jack Nicholson as Judas; Nicholas Cage as James "Tommy Two Shoes" and Tom Cruise as Mary the Saintly Whore. Tommy Lee Jones as John the Baptist and Mary mother of Jesus.

Special guest appearence of Arnold Schwarchenegger as Pontius Pilatte.
 
paximperium said:
Jesus Christ based on a true story.

Starring Dolph Lundgren as Jesus Christ; Jack Nicholson as Judas; Nicholas Cage as James "Tommy Two Shoes" and Tom Cruise as Mary the Saintly Whore. Tommy Lee Jones as John the Baptist and Mary mother of Jesus.

Special guest appearence of Arnold Schwarchenegger as Pontius Pilatte.
Click to expand...
Opening Scene, Jesus walks down the corridor of a death star...
 
I think a major flaw in “the Josephus quote about Jesus” is the FACT the there was no J in Hebrew therefore no one was named JESUS it would have been something like Yeshua or something like that. Well so, what you say, Josephus was a Latinized Jew and he simply translated the name, well why wouldn’t he translate all the other references to other men named Yeshua that are mentioned in his writings?
 
That, I'd be curious about finding out.

Aside of the forgery (interpolation being one type of forgery) that is the first quote, there is a second quote from Josephus mentioning James brother of Jesus. Except that it'd seem that the James in question was another James brother of another Jesus, as he was mentioned as being 'the son of Damneus' and being named high priest.
There might also be some interpolation there too; but the quote is too short to be sure.
 
DOC said:
If the Resurrection story was made up, it probably would be clear and detailed.
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
Not at all. If it were made up by the gospel authors in collaboration, this would be true.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you agree that there was likely no collaboration on the gospel accounts.


Hokulele said:
However, if they were taking a very rough outline and making up their own details, you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

There is no rough outline, either Mathew and Luke read Mark's Gospel and took their gospels from it (as has been claimed in the religion forum and implied in this thread) or they didn't. It is not logical to assume that a man like Luke, who has been call a first rate historian and highly detailed by some academics, would just make up his own details. I've already shown you 84 highly detailed facts Luke didn't make up, and I showed you 59 highly detailed facts John didn't make up. Only a supernatural bias and a religious bias could cause one to believe they likely made up any other facts.



Hokulele said:
In addition, if they were basing their supposedly independent accounts on hearsay, speculation, and rumor, you would also be wrong. By all evidence, the third scenario is the most likely. Again, it is all about what they think (or hope) happened, not what really happened
Click to expand...

(boldness added)

Since you used the wording "by all the evidence" what is your source that the gospel writers (of which there is evidence that 2 were likely eyewitnesses to Christ's life) based their accounts on rumor and speculation?

And your "by all the evidence" and "all about" wording (that I bolded) is your opinion about a possibility. Notice the third word "if". Opinions about possibilities mean next to nothing, although I must admit it sounds like it means something when you first read it.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
There is no rough outline, either Mathew and Luke read Mark's Gospel and took their gospels from it (as has been claimed in the religion forum and implied in this thread) or they didn't. It is not logical to assume that a man like Luke, who has been call a first rate historian and highly detailed by some academics, would just make up his own details. I've already shown you 84 highly detailed facts Luke didn't make up, and I showed you 59 highly detailed facts John didn't make up. Only a supernatural bias and a religious bias could cause one to believe they likely made up any other facts.
Click to expand...


Serious question: Do you actually read the responses people make to you?
 
DOC said:
I'm glad you agree that there was likely no collaboration on the gospel accounts.

There is no rough outline, either Mathew and Luke read Mark's Gospel and took their gospels from it (as has been claimed in the religion forum and implied in this thread) or they didn't. It is not logical to assume that a man like Luke, who has been call a first rate historian and highly detailed by some academics, would just make up his own details. I've already shown you 84 highly detailed facts Luke didn't make up, and I showed you 59 highly detailed facts John didn't make up. Only a supernatural bias and a religious bias could cause one to d believe they likely made up any other facts.
Click to expand...

What, in my opinion likely happened is that a very rough outline was imported from Palestine and by people like St Paul that was wandering around founding churches.
This outline was very rough and imprecise, Jesus only taught for a couple of years and eyewitnesses soon died.
So, people started to fill in the gap and several traditions develloped.

These traditions may have been very similar between churches in close relationship with each others or very dissimilar with others.
After a while, a second generation Christian wrote down his church traditions, the gospels that were to be attributed to Mark.

These writings got copied and circulated onto other neighbouring churches, where they did not perfectly jive with the local traditions. So, some locals decided to copy them, incorporating what he thought were "corrections". Or he just got inspired to do the same thing for the local tradition and got lazy at several points and just copied the passages that seemed correct to him.
This produced the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Moreover, it seem likely that these two authors did, indeed, have access to more informations, it is what would constitute the 'Q document'.

Hence, we have the synoptic gospels, so close between each other and yet, clearly contradictory.

On the other hands, isolated churches developed more unique traditions, giving birth to the apocryphal gospels.



Since you used the wording "by all the evidence" what is your source that the gospel writers (of which there is evidence that 2 were likely eyewitnesses to Christ's life) based their accounts on rumor and speculation?

And your "by all the evidence" and "all about" wording (that I bolded) is your opinion about a possibility. Notice the third word "if". Opinions about possibilities mean next to nothing, although I must admit it sounds like it means something when you first read it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so possibilities means next to nothing?
Well, here are the only known facts: At the birth of the second century, a small apocalyptical cult, based on Jewish traditions, emerged in the Eastern Mediterranean. They were destined to convert an emperor and become the Religion of the Empire and, from there, the world biggest religion.
That's it. All the rest are suppositions and possibilities.

It is very likely that these early Christians were already claiming to be following the teaching of Christ. But we don't know that for certain, as the gospels were still a generation away.
It is also very likely that this Christic figure did indeed exist and was named Jesus and was an itinerant teacher in first century Palestine, one that was quite likely to catch the eye of the occupation forces, an interest that is likely to bring him to the cross. But we can't know for sure, there are several decades passing by without us getting any evidences whatsoever.

So, yeah, bitching at at valid hypothesis is silly when you have nothing but hypothesis to go on.
And it becomes downright dishonest when your whole point is that, because we only have hypothesis with little evidences to build them on, we might as well believe ones that are actually contradicted by the evidences we have.
 
DOC, here is a basic undergraduate textbook on early Christianity and the sources of the New Testament, including various theories, their support, and their problems. There is enough on Markan priority and the Quelle (Q) document to keep you busy for weeks. It is also available on Google books (at least in the US) and isn't all that difficult reading.

All the evidence your little heart could ever desire is in here, with footnotes and a bibliography. I am almost positive you will never, ever read this book (at best, you may lamely cherry-pick a few passages that you wish would support your beliefs), but there are others who may be interested in what current scholarship thinks of your unread bible and its origins.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=0521007208
 
joobz said:
In other words, the overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the quote is a forgery.

ETA: I can't help but notice that you again avoided my ON TOPIC question.

It's funny how you drop a subject when you know you can't win and then go back to that topic later as though we never addressed your points.

The latest issue was the inconsistencies in the gospels. It's clear that they can't ALL be right. So regarding the ressurection, if all we have are inconsistent stories written decades apart and later after the fact, How can we know that it even happened?

Fact is, based upon your use of the word evidence, We have more evidence of Elvis being alive in the 90s than we do of the resurrection ever happening.
Click to expand...

Why should I believe the gospels all can't be right? I am not seeing anything that is contradictory! Different writers explained things a bit different but that does not prove they are not all telling the truth of what they know and witnessed. I believe God preserved his Word quite nicely.

And I am here to testify to you I have experienced the resurrection myself because Jesus is still very much alive and active in the world today. Christians do not tell people we are born again of the Holy Spirit to lie to you. God is my witness and I tell you the truth, Jesus died to redeem this lost word but death could not keep him just as he said, he rose again and lives in me and my hubby,and millions of other Christians around the globe. Just because you cannot see him does not prove he isn't there. HE IS! Jesus lives!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom