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

[Akhenaten]

Has JREF ever tried to scientifically prove by reenacting the ''tomb opening'' whether it's possible to have ALL the four gosples witnesses being exactly correct?

Now we're talking. What an excellent idea!

I want to play the part of 'strange-looking fellow lurking in the shadows at Gethsemane'

No doubt DOC will wish to play William M Ramsay, world famous historian, whose words stand for all and see themselves.

It's only a traditional farce if Derek Nimmo, dressed as a vicar, is sitting in a chintz sofa eating scones and drinking tea.

Can we have Dawn French as the Vicar of Golgotha and the Phantom's Skull Cave as Teh Tomb™ ?

 

[Akhenaten]

Not at all, I am just assuming that the NT writers told the truth.

51 Thiz one guy wuz followinz Happy Cat, wearinz nuddin but linen undiez. Teih catched him,
52 but he left teh linen undiez and ran off nakedz. lol!

Ceiling Cat approves.

Can you imagine the version of the NT we could write between ourselves here?

Maybe after everyone's had a turn at winning DOC Bingo we could give some thought to it. A chapter each or something.



ETA: Just like the original, in other words.

 

[amb]

Now we're talking. What an excellent idea!

I want to play the part of 'strange-looking fellow lurking in the shadows at Gethsemane'

No doubt DOC will wish to play William M Ramsay, world famous historian, whose words stand for all and see themselves.






Can we have Dawn French as the Vicar of Golgotha and the Phantom's Skull cave as Teh Tomb™ ?

Pretty please, can I be the centurion at the bottom of the cross, can I pretty please with sugar on it?

 

[Lothian]

Now we're talking. What an excellent idea!

I want to play the part of 'strange-looking fellow lurking in the shadows at Gethsemane'

No doubt DOC will wish to play William M Ramsay, world famous historian, whose words stand for all and see themselves.

How about making it a musical? I want to be Jesus so I can sing Tubthumping by Chumbawamba.

 

[Akhenaten]

This idea is just so going to fly. We're all crazy you know.

 

[dafydd]

I'm in a hotel, so I grabbed a bible. Let me just get this straight about the ladies going to see the sepulchre:

• Matthew - Great earthquake, angel of the Lord descends from heaven and "rolled away the stone" at the door. Angel has "countenance like lightning, rainment as snow." See, Jesus is gone. Jesus meets them later, says "Go tell everyone the good news. Follow my commandments, baptize all the nations." End.
• Mark (this one was written first, right?) - Young man in long white garment inside, stone being already rolled away, Jesus is not here, he is risen. He appears later "in different form," etc.
• Luke (great historian that he is, badump-ching) - Now, the ladies have some "others" with them to witness events. Stone again already rolled away. No Jesus. TWO men in shiny garments tell them the good news and confirm the prophecy (crucified, died, rose on 3rd day).
• John - Mary Magdalene goes early, it's still dark. Stone is rolled away already. She runs to go get Simon Peter and another disciple. They see the linen clothes and napkin from his head. They don't go in. The disciples leave and Mary Magdalene sees 2 angels in white. They tell her "they" have taken him to the Lord, and she knows not where they laid him. She turns around and who is there? Jesus, who tells her to go tell everybody the good news. Now we get another Chapter and a half of stuff that wasn't in Matthew, if I'm reading this right.

I'm just curious, how do those books that DOC has explain this, given the different authors and the timing of when they were written? In Mark, there is a guy there, they leave, have visions of seeing Jesus "in different form" and then he appears later and gives them the stump speech.

I apologize for stretching out the thread. Maybe the explanations will be bingo friendly.

And theists have the cheek to call them the synoptic gospels.

 

[amb]

It proves that they are not historical. They are myths. Something like Jack and the beanstalk tales.

 

[Belz...]

No. God's morality is timeless and absolute... even especially when he re-writes the rules.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Elizabeth I]

How about making it a musical

It's been done.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's been done.

But not with dancing cats, a big choo choo, and a green witch.

Mary Magdalene as Elphaba, hmmm? Or maybe Jesus, with a swimmer's bod, and Hamlet (both with serious daddy issues) could travel back in time and save Ophelia? You're not going to tell me that's been done before now are you?

 

[DOC]

hiliting mine




DOC, you are a LIAR!

Anybody who has read this thread knows what I'm saying. And I've already responded to your false assertion. I've listed the many highly detailed facts Luke got right at least 4 times. People who have read the thread know exactly what I'm saying and your big red shock words are trying to win on emotion and sensationalism rather than cool calm debate. If your argument had any meat to it you wouldn't need big red shock words.

 

[kmortis]

This idea is just so going to fly. We're all crazy you know.

Sounds like a good TAM event. It can fill the void left when Rebecca got married last year.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Anybody who has read this thread knows what I'm saying. And I've already responded to your false assertion. I've listed the many highly detailed facts Luke got right at least 4 times. People who have read the thread know exactly what I'm saying and your big red shock words are trying to win on emotion and sensationalism rather than cool calm debate. If your argument had any meat to it you wouldn't need big red shock words.

Sorry, you missed on that one. Would you like to try again? If you try enough times you might get close to why he called you a liar.

We do know what you're saying. And, yes, X was quite accurate in his assesement.

 

[kmortis]

Anybody who has read this thread knows what I'm saying. And I've already responded to your false assertion. I've listed the many highly detailed facts Luke got right at least 4 times. People who have read the thread know exactly what I'm saying and your big red shock words are trying to win on emotion and sensationalism rather than cool calm debate. If your argument had any meat to it you wouldn't need big red shock words.

DAMNIT! "big red shock words" isn't on the list.

Although, there is at least a 20 in there.

 

[AdinDraco]

I've never understood why people would want to try and explain away the differences in the gospels as being equivalent to the minor differences in eyewitness testimony (eg the car accident analogy). If two witnesses descibe something in slightly diffently ways, then one of them is - by definition - not 100% accurate. In fact, they can both be inaccurate, about any detail. This leads to the problem: how do you decide which details, if any, are accurate?

It is so frustrating that theists smugly trot out this "eyewitness defence" when it causes more problems than it supposedly solves, as it means that at least some of the bible is wrong - it absolutely has to be!

Btw, as this thread has gone on for way too many pages I can't remember if anyone answered a question I asked a long time ago. Here it is again, and please theists only - how did Judas die? I know, I know - it's an old done-to-death question but I haven't heard an honest attempt to reconcile this question that wasn't laughably moronic....I live in hope that if they indulge in enough mental gymnastics, they'll sprain something.

 

[DOC]

The Luke who you mention DOC could be any number of people. Most scholars don't think that the Luke who wrote that gospel bearing his name is the Luke the apostle.

Luke was not an apostle. He was a physician, and traveling companion of Paul. And we know how Sir W. M. Ramsay felt about him.

All the gospels were written anonymously, only much later were names given them as the authors.

Actually we don't know that because as is almost always the case we don't have the originals of ancient documents. But there are more manuscripts (hand written copies) of the New Testament (around 5000) then any other ancient document. For example we have only 7 copies of Plato's work, and 20 copies of the famous historian Tactitus' writing.

And as I said before, it makes sense not to put your name on a Gospel in Roman occupied lands where they would think nothing of torturing and killing a trouble making Christian trying to spread Christianity by writing a gospel.

Usually they were communities, they each could have more than one author as the gospel called Mark appears to have.

What is your evidence that the any of the four gospels were written by a community and we've already been over the Mark topic.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And as I said before, it makes sense not to put your name on a Gospel in Roman occupied lands where they would think nothing of torturing and killing a trouble making Christian trying to spread Christianity by writing a gospel.

You're not getting way with this again. When were the gospels written? Where were they written? What is the evidence that the Romans were persecuting Christians at that time and in those places?

 

[DOC]

I'm in a hotel, so I grabbed a bible. Let me just get this straight about the ladies going to see the sepulchre:

• Matthew - Great earthquake, angel of the Lord descends from heaven and "rolled away the stone" at the door. Angel has "countenance like lightning, rainment as snow." See, Jesus is gone. Jesus meets them later, says "Go tell everyone the good news. Follow my commandments, baptize all the nations." End.
• Mark (this one was written first, right?) - Young man in long white garment inside, stone being already rolled away, Jesus is not here, he is risen. He appears later "in different form," etc.
• Luke (great historian that he is, badump-ching) - Now, the ladies have some "others" with them to witness events. Stone again already rolled away. No Jesus. TWO men in shiny garments tell them the good news and confirm the prophecy (crucified, died, rose on 3rd day).
• John - Mary Magdalene goes early, it's still dark. Stone is rolled away already. She runs to go get Simon Peter and another disciple. They see the linen clothes and napkin from his head. They don't go in. The disciples leave and Mary Magdalene sees 2 angels in white. They tell her "they" have taken him to the Lord, and she knows not where they laid him. She turns around and who is there? Jesus, who tells her to go tell everybody the good news. Now we get another Chapter and a half of stuff that wasn't in Matthew, if I'm reading this right.

I'm just curious, how do those books that DOC has explain this, given the different authors and the timing of when they were written? In Mark, there is a guy there, they leave, have visions of seeing Jesus "in different form" and then he appears later and gives them the stump speech.

I apologize for stretching out the thread. Maybe the explanations will be bingo friendly.

Your above post tells me you have not read all of this thread, because we have been over much of this. And you have not "specifically" said what in this thread (that it appears you haven't read all of) has made you lose your faith in God (as you claim this thread has).

 

[joobz]

Anybody who has read this thread knows what I'm saying. And I've already responded to your false assertion. I've listed the many highly detailed facts Luke got right at least 4 times. People who have read the thread know exactly what I'm saying and your big red shock words are trying to win on emotion and sensationalism rather than cool calm debate. If your argument had any meat to it you wouldn't need big red shock words.

Sorry, you missed on that one. Would you like to try again? If you try enough times you might get close to why he called you a liar.

We do know what you're saying. And, yes, X was quite accurate in his assesement.

DOC, I agree with Ichneumonwasp. And I am certain others will agree with me.

Knowingly taking a person's quote out of context to imply something that wasn't intended IS lying.

1.) Ramsay excluded the religious aspects of Luke's writing when making his comment.
2.) You use the quote to bolster Luke's reputation in attempt to add validity to Luke's religious based statements.
3.) This is exactly the reason why Ramsay had qualified his statement to avoid such claims.
4.) You know this, yet continue to use the quote. THAT IS CALLED A LIE.

 

[joobz]

Your above post tells me you have not read all of this thread, because we have been over much of this.

DOC, It is hard to claim this because even through this exact issue has been raised, you failed to address it.

Like I said before, Slight differences in story are expected. But that isn't what the 4 gospels say. If the 4 gospels were the testimonies of witnesses to a murder, the murderer would never be convicted.

And you have not "specifically" said what in this thread (that it appears you haven't read all of) has made you lose your faith in God

Sure he did. All of your arguments (That you've repeated ad nauseum.)

(as you claim this thread has).

You are being a coward.