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

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you believe using non sequiturs is a valid form of argument. :rolleyes:

You claimed the raptor argument a strawman. The only way that could be true is if you believe contradictory accounts of angels in the bible are unimportant. I extended that idea to its logical conclusion.


But, of course, you are intelligent enough to know this. It's clear that you are merely attempting to win points. I was willing to assume you were debating honestly. I guess you helped prove that assumption wrong.
 
Doc, for the love of Zeus, we don't even know who the authors of the new testament gospels were, let alone whether they were reporting the truth. You will have to come up with much more solid evidence than you have thus far if you want to be taken seriously.

If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany 1940 would you sign your name to a document that was a threat to the Nazis as the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows). The Romans thought nothing of killing people who were a threat.

And for all we know the writers did sign the originals of their work. But as is the norm for ancient documents all we have is copies. And I've already presented evidence that Mathew and John did indeed write their gospels.
 
If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany 1940 would you sign your name to a document that was a threat to the Nazis as the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows). The Romans thought nothing of killing people who were a threat.
So you aknowledge that they did not sign their work. Bravo.
And for all we know the writers did sign the originals of their work. But as is the norm for ancient documents all we have is copies.
So you not only aknowledge that you don't have any signed copies, you don't have any originals. Bravo DOC.

Wow. DOC is actually supporting the fact that "we don't even know who the authors of the new testament gospels were, let alone whether they were reporting the truth."

And I've already presented evidence that Mathew and John did indeed write their gospels.
No you did not. Presenting claims about it is not.

Let's say that they did. So? Why should anyone believe the hearsay of of iron age religious nutters?
 
... the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows).
Definitely? :confused:

Really?

If so, please do tell where I need to look to see such evidence

TYIA :)

Oh... and puhlease... resist the urge to quote any more of that inane lying-for-jesus waffle you pretend is evidence... y'know... the sort of stuff that routinely FAILS under the merest whiff of critical thought
 
If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany 1940 would you sign your name to a document that was a threat to the Nazis as the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows). The Romans thought nothing of killing people who were a threat.

And for all we know the writers did sign the originals of their work. But as is the norm for ancient documents all we have is copies. And I've already presented evidence that Mathew and John did indeed write their gospels.
Doc I realise this will come as a surprise as it is a technique you employ a lot.
Evidence does not start with 'If'.
 
DOC, this is for you. It's an answer to a question to Bishop John Shelby Spong from a christian such as yourself.
It starts...........Quote.

Dear Charles,

Thank you for your question, which is perfect for the column that goes out on Christmas Eve. There is no doubt that most people have literalized the images that Matthew and Luke have in their birth stories of Jesus (See Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2), but I do believe it is quite clear that neither Matthew nor Luke thought of them as literal events. The great majority of biblical scholars share that perspective.

The facts are that stars do not travel across the sky so slowly that wise men can keep up with them; angels do not break through the midnight sky to sing to hillside shepherds; and human beings do not follow stars to pay homage to a newborn king of a foreign nation, especially when the same gospel that tells us this story also tells us that Jesus was the son of a carpenter. To continue this train of thought, no real head of state, including King Herod, would deputize eastern magi that he had never seen before to be his CIA to bring him a report of this threat to his throne. That is the stuff of fairy tales.

A star does not lead magi down a wagon track of a road six miles from Jerusalem and then bathe the house in which the baby lies with heavenly light to show these Magi where the child they seek is to be found. Wise men do not bring gifts that symbolize kingship (gold), divinity (frankincense) and suffering (myrrh) that will mark the life of this infant. No one is that prescient.

Virgins do not conceive except in mythology, of which there were many examples in the Mediterranean world. Kings do not order people to return to their ancestral home for enrolling for taxation. There were 1000 years between David and Joseph, or some 50 generations. David had multiple wives and concubines. In 50 generations, the descendants of David would number in the billions. If they had all returned to Bethlehem, there would be no wonder that there was no room at the inn!

A man does not take his wife, who is "great with child," on a 94-mile donkey ride from Nazareth to Bethlehem so that the expected messiah can be born in David's city. One lay Roman Catholic woman theologian said of that account, "Only a man who had never had a baby could have written that story!" No king slaughters all the boy babies in a town trying to get rid of a pretender to his throne, especially if everyone in that town would have known exactly which house it was over which the star had stopped and into which the Magi had entered. The whereabouts of the "pretender" to Herod's throne would not have been hard to identify if this were a literal story that really happened.

Certainly, both Matthew and Luke were aware that they were using these stories to try to interpret the power of God experienced in the adult life of Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew drew his wise men story out of Isaiah 60, where kings were said to come on camels "to the brightness of God's rising." They came bringing gifts of gold and frankincense. Matthew expanded this story with details drawn from other biblical narratives like the visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon and the truckload of spices (myrrh) that she brought with her (see I Kings 10) and the story of Balaam and Balak from Numbers 22-24 in which a star in the East plays a prominent role. Traditional Jewish writings also used a star in the sky to announce the births of its great heroes, Abraham, Isaac and Moses.

Matthew wrapped his interpretation around the well-known story of Moses. That is why he repeated the story of Pharaoh killing the boy babies in Egypt at the time of Moses' birth, transforming it to be a story of Herod killing the boy babies in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth.

What these narratives were designed by the gospel writers to proclaim are:

1. Human life could not have produced the presence of God that people believed they had met in Jesus.
2. The importance of his birth was symbolized by having it announced with heavenly signs, a star in Matthew and angels in Luke.
3. In the life of Jesus, they believed that heaven and earth had come together and that divinity and humanity had merged.
4. Messiah for the Jews had many facets. Messiah had to be both a new Moses and the heir to the throne of David. The Moses claim was in the story of how Jesus was taken by Joseph down to Egypt so that God could call him as God had called Moses out of Egypt. The heir to David was the reason his birth was located in David's place of birth (Bethlehem) instead of in Nazareth, where Jesus was in all probability born.
5. This Jesus draws the whole world to himself, even the Gentile world of the Magi as well as the humble lives of the shepherds.

These are the interpretive details of the Christian myths. All of them came into the Christian faith only in the 9th decade. None of them is original to the memory of Jesus. Neither Paul nor Mark had ever heard of them. John, the last gospel to be written, must have known of these birth traditions, but he doesn't include them and, on two occasions, calls Jesus the son of Joseph (see John Chapters 1 and 6).

Given these pieces of data, there is no way the authors of the Christmas stories in the Bible thought they were writing literal history. They were interpreting the meaning they found in Jesus. As long as we understand that, I see no reason why we can't sing, "While shepherds watched their flocks by night" or "O, little town of Bethlehem" even if there were no shepherds who attended Jesus' birth and the probability is that he was born in Nazareth, which is what the first gospel Mark assumes.

As far as I know, adults don't believe there is a literal North Pole inhabited by a jolly elf named Santa Claus, who harnesses his toy-laden sled to his reindeer in order to bring gifts to all of the children of the world on Christmas Eve. Yet we still sing, "Rudolf, the red-nosed reindeer" and "Santa Claus is coming to town" without twisting our minds into intellectual pretzels.

My suggestion is that you separate fantasy from history and then enter into and enjoy the fantasy of the season. Dream of Peace on Earth and good will among men and women, and then dedicate yourself to bringing that vision into being. In that way you will understand the intentions of the gospel writers.

Thanks for writing. Enjoy the holidays, and Merry Christmas.
– John Shelby Spong-
 
So you not only aknowledge that you don't have any signed copies, you don't have any originals. Bravo DOC.

Your post is strictly emotional in nature because you know darn well that is normal for ancient documents. We don't even have a signature for Julius Caesar who was the most powerful man in the world during that time.
 
Originally Posted by DOC

... the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows)


Definitely? :confused:

Really?

If so, please do tell where I need to look to see such evidence

St. Peter's square, right in the middle of the extinct Roman empire would be a good place to look.
 
It wouldn't be hearsay if they did because John and Matthew were apostles and eyewitnesses.

Raymond Brown: Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 109.

..."Yet, most modern scholars do not think that the evangelists were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus."


I could quote more...
 
Raymond Brown: Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 109.

..."Yet, most modern scholars do not think that the evangelists were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus."

Shelby Foote didn't witness the Civil War but that didn't stop him from writing a 3 volume book about it.

__

And Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach the apostles truth after he was gone. So if people like Paul didn't actually witness the ministry they could still receive revelational knowledge about Christ and God if you believe what the bible says.. Paul even admitted that some of his knowledge did not come from man but from the Spirit.
 
Shelby Foote didn't witness the Civil War but that didn't stop him from writing a 3 volume book about it.

__

And Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit who would teach the apostles truth after he was gone. So if people like Paul didn't actually witness the ministry they could still receive revelational knowledge about Christ and God if you believe what the bible says.. Paul even admitted that some of his knowledge did not come from man but from the Spirit.


Ah, so you acknowledge that they weren't eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and were working from hearsay.

Got it.
 
Originally Posted by DOC

... the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows)




St. Peter's square, right in the middle of the extinct Roman empire would be a good place to look.

So your claim is that adopting Christianity as your religion will lead to your downfall?
 
It wouldn't be hearsay if they did because John and Matthew were apostles and eyewitnesses.
Joseph Smith had eyewitnesses for the golden plates. But for some reason, I think you'll make some excuse* about why that doesn't matter.....


*read special pleading
 
Originally Posted by DOC

... the NT was a threat to the Roman empire (as history definitely shows)




St. Peter's square, right in the middle of the extinct Roman empire would be a good place to look.

So your claim is that adopting Christianity as your religion will lead to your downfall?

No, and the US whose official national motto is "In God We Trust" shows that. But some would say the US has been declining lately. There seems to be a parallel with that and the decline of the importance of religion in the US. And we know what happened to the former atheist Soviet Union. Ironically Christianity is growing in China.

But all of this is another thread.
 
Last edited:
No, and the US, whose official national motto is "In God We Trust" shows that. But some would some would say the US has been declining lately. There seems to be a parallel with that and the decline of the importance of religion in the US. And we know what happened to the former atheist Soviet Union. Ironically Christianity is growing in China.

But all of this is another thread.

A pity you posted that instead of some evidence then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom