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

[DOC]

For the last time will you get it through your thick skull that the apostles Mathew and John, or any other apostle or disciple did not write the gospels. the authors were unknown until midway through the second century when these names were attributed to them.

How do you know the authors were unknown to those of the first century. And even if we dug up the original Gospel of Matthew and it had the name Matthew on it what does that prove -- nothing. It doesn't mean the apostle Matthew actually wrote it, anybody can write any name they want on a book. The important thing is that the early church accepted that Gospel and the other 3 as being authentic. And they did this long before those 4 gospels were officially canonized.

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How do you know the authors were unknown to those of the first century. And even if we dug up the original Gospel of Matthew and it had the name Matthew on it what does that prove -- nothing. It doesn't mean the apostle Matthew actually wrote it, anybody can write any name they want on a book. The important thing is that the early church accepted that Gospel and the other 3 as being authentic. And they did this long before those 4 gospels were officially canonized.

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

OMFSM...wait...Doc, how many of those people were knighted? Or even called one of the world's greatest historians by a respected knight?

 

[Hokulele]

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

And in modern times with modern scholars who have access to modern research and technology, there are plenty of people saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen."

Have you read Misquoting Jesus yet? I know you have linked to something you think is a rebuttal to this book, but hey, its only fair that you read both sides of the debate, no?

 

[joobz]

How do you know the authors were unknown to those of the first century. And even if we dug up the original Gospel of Matthew and it had the name Matthew on it what does that prove -- nothing. It doesn't mean the apostle Matthew actually wrote it, anybody can write any name they want on a book. The important thing is that the early church accepted that Gospel and the other 3 as being authentic. And they did this long before those 4 gospels were officially canonized.

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

DOC, you keep referring to early christianity like it was a monolithic movement. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the controversies that existed in the early church and how these controversies (if any) would effect your claims about the authorship of matthew?

You are supposed to be providing evidence that the bible authors told the truth. What better way than to describe the settings in which the books came about?

 

[amb]

How do you know the authors were unknown to those of the first century. And even if we dug up the original Gospel of Matthew and it had the name Matthew on it what does that prove -- nothing. It doesn't mean the apostle Matthew actually wrote it, anybody can write any name they want on a book. The important thing is that the early church accepted that Gospel and the other 3 as being authentic. And they did this long before those 4 gospels were officially canonized.

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

It is estimated by well educated scholars that the Gospel attributed to Mathew was probably written around 75-85 ce. with the later date probably more accurate, decades after the supposed Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Besides, most of the apostles were illiterate, as was Jesus, assuming that he existed, which I doubt.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

How do you know the authors were unknown to those of the first century.

The GOSPELS themselves were completely unknown in the 1st century.

But, in the 2nd century we start to see some references to written Gospels - WITHOUT author's names. The names were only attached in late 2nd C., probably by Irenaeus.



Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this SINGULAR un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels, and the lateness of late naming.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given, even though Justin explicitly tells us what they were named ("which are called Gospels".) If Justin knew of any author's names he would CERTAINLY have given them.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.


It's clear that the Gospels were UN-NAMED until late 2nd century.



K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not.

But no Christian knew about the Gospels until early-mid 2nd century.

By then Rome had destroyed Jerusalem and killed or dispersed everyone, and a CENTURY had passed.

Suppose someone started telling tales now about WWI - WHO would argue?

There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

Sure there is :

Numerous Christians did NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh.

Celsus called the Gospels "myth" and "fiction" and "lies".

Porphyry said the were "invented".


K.

 

[Akhenaten]

There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

O rly?

Here's a list of people who said exactly that.

 

[amb]

The gospel stories are no more historic than the Genesis creation tales are scientific.
They were written during a time when myths were being born, exchanged elaborated and corrupted,and they were written to an audience who believed such fables.
They are little different from other religions and fables of the time.

When taking all this into account, it is rational to conclude that the N/T's Jesus is a complete myth.

 

[Belz...]

There were enough people alive when the Gospel of Matthew was written who lived during the time of Christ to know whether it was accurate or not. There is no evidence of people of that time saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen".

I think you're making that up. Who, exactly, would know ? Assuming the oral tradition was already well underway, whether it was true or not, they'd accept it.

 

[DOC]

And in modern times with modern scholars who have access to modern research and technology, there are plenty of people saying "Hey, this thing is wrong, these things didn't happen."

And others disagree like the modern scholars Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, and Dr. Hugh Ross.

 

[Lothian]

And others disagree like the modern scholars Norman Geisler, Ralph Muncaster, and Dr. Hugh Ross.

Doc, I take it back. I have learnt something in this thread. I never knew that the word 'Scholar' could be used in that way.

 

[DOC]

It is estimated by well educated scholars that the Gospel attributed to Mathew was probably written around 75-85 ce. with the later date probably more accurate, decades after the supposed Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Besides, most of the apostles were illiterate, as was Jesus, assuming that he existed, which I doubt.

And a site I saw said the estimate among conservative scholars is between 50 - 70 ad.

The fact that there is nothing about the huge event of the destruction of the temple in 70 ad by the Romans (in Matthew) hurts your estimated times

 

[DOC]

Doc, I take it back. I have learnt something in this thread. I never knew that the word 'Scholar' could be used in that way.

So you don't believe two PHds are scholars with one (Geisler) writing over 60 published books on the Bible.

 

[paximperium]

So you don't believe two PHds are scholars with one (Geisler) writing over 60 published books on the Bible.

So what is Geisler's PhD in and where did he buy it from?

Edit: And the answer to your question is YES.

 

[paximperium]

And a site I saw said the estimate among conservative scholars is between 50 - 70 ad.

The fact that there is nothing about the huge event of the destruction of the temple in 70 ad by the Romans (in Matthew) hurts your estimated times

When you're writing a fantasy story about the past; why would anyone mention the present?

 

[DOC]

Gday,




The GOSPELS themselves were completely unknown in the 1st century.

But, in the 2nd century we start to see some references to written Gospels - WITHOUT author's names. The names were only attached in late 2nd C., probably by Irenaeus.



Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this SINGULAR un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels, and the lateness of late naming.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given, even though Justin explicitly tells us what they were named ("which are called Gospels".) If Justin knew of any author's names he would CERTAINLY have given them.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.


It's clear that the Gospels were UN-NAMED until late 2nd century.



K.

Your post is confusing can you give the Url so we can read it in context.

 

[DOC]

So what is Geisler's PhD in and where did he buy it from?

He received a PhD in Philosophy from Loyola University (1970) and excuse me he's written closer to 70 books.

 

[paximperium]

He received a PhD in Philosophy from Loyola University (1970) and excuse me he's written closer to 70 books.

So his PhD is irrelevant.
So he not only writes crap, he writes a lot of it.

 

[DOC]

When you're writing a fantasy story about the past; why would anyone mention the present?

Tacitus and Josephus didn't think Christ was fantasy.