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

[Simon39759]

It is unfortunate that such posts are unseemly, but I think by now it is important that punches are no longer pulled. DOC has been politely corrected many times now. DOC no longer deserves politeness. This is an education forum and it is important that false information gets identified as false. If one continues to give false information, that person will be labeled as a liar.

Just thought I would chip on and mention that I think you are spot on.

As I mentioned several times, people have written long and detailled well-thought answers to Doc's nonsense. The only result being to be ignored as Doc'd rather focus on short snippy posts, I guess it is easier than to try to refute actual arguments, or maybe his brain is prone to over-heating when dealing with longer text...

At any rate, he has demonstrated a pattern of unwillingness to lear, intellectual laziness and extreme dishonesty. I agree that, at this point, taking the gloves off may be the least unproductive, at least the least frustrating, way to go.

 

[kmortis]

.
"Fewer" tents, but lots of tense people who get tense over bad tense in the text.

Ya know, for a grammar nazi, you don't read all that well.

my bolding*


Aaaaaaaargh!

Please PM me if you see me post crap like this. It's really embarrassing.


* well, duh, I hear you all saying.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

Actual, unrefuted evidence that the bible writers told the truth?
none.
But is is clear that you knew this already.


Actually, I wish to address this as I have been one of the most vocal in the "DOC is lying" category of posts.

It is unfortunate that such posts are unseemly, but I think by now it is important that punches are no longer pulled. DOC has been politely corrected many times now. DOC no longer deserves politeness. This is an education forum and it is important that false information gets identified as false. If one continues to give false information, that person will be labeled as a liar.

Whilst I think it is pretty clear that DOC has lied in this thread - certainly his constant use of the lie by omission when referring to Sir William Ramsey and his inanities - I think that the more important point is his simple dishonesty.

The majority of well-argued posts against his points, he ignores. If he does respond to them, he will refer to only one small part and try and attack that rather than addressing the wider argument.

More generally, he refuses to recognise that his points have been challenged. As an atheist, I freely admit that I am not unbiassed here, but I genuinely think that an honest Christian reading this thread must admit that there are some serious challenges to the veracity of the resurrection and certainly nothing posted that would warrant the term proof. *

If still unconvinced by the more sceptical argument - and they are perfectly within their rights to be - the honest Christian would not brazenly claim (as DOC does) that they have shown that, for example, the Apostles wrote the gospels. They would acknowledge that whilst they personally believed that, there is also evidence/opinion against it.

DOC refuses to do this. He simply refers to his 'original' (i.e. cribbed) points as though no one has said a word against them, or - as we have seen frequently on this thread - demolished them word for word. The refusal to recognise this is, quite simply, dishonest. I would say, were I inclined to the more biblical turn of phrase, that it is not simply dishonest but is a clear demonstration of someone deliberately and knowingly 'bearing false witness'. If DOC has been reading the thread, then he must be aware that his interpretation has been challenged and challenged in a manner that he has generally failed to answer. To not acknowledge this is to give false testimony.

Given this, it's hardly surprising that this has turned into a car crash of a thread. The challenge, depending on your level of naivety is to either win at DOC bingo or actually get him to honestly respond to a serious post. One is perhaps less constructive, but at least stands some chance of success.

The simple fact is, even if it were possible to demonstrate that we know that the New Testament writers told the truth - and I don't think that it is possible to conclusively demonstrate on either side - the starter of the thread has not displayed the slightest hint of the intellectual ability or honesty to do so. And there seems no likelihood of that changing.

* It is telling that at least one poster has stated that this thread has actually made them lose their faith in Christianity.

 

[DOC]

He is wrong. totally and completely. There is no ambiguity. There is no evidence to support his argument and all EXISTING evidence CONTRADICTS it.

So are you saying the word university (or a similar foreign word) was not derived from uni + versus. And are you saying the word diversity is not related to versus.

 

[dafydd]

So are you saying the word university (or a similar foreign word) was not derived from uni + versus. And are you saying the word diversity is not related to versus.

University
c.1300, "institution of higher learning," also "body of persons constituting a university," from Anglo-Fr. université, O.Fr. universitei (13c.), from M.L. universitatem (nom. universitas), in L.L. "corporation, society," from L., "the whole, aggregate," from universus "whole, entire" (see universe). In the academic sense, a shortening of universitas magistrorum et scholarium "community of masters and scholars;" superseded studium as the word for this.

Diverse
From Middle English diversite, from Old French diversite, French diversité = Provencal diversitat = Spanish diversidad = Portuguese diversidade = Italian diversità, from Latin diversita(t-)s, difference, contrariety, from diversus, different, diverse: see diverse, divers, adjective

Versus

Mid-15c., in legal case names, denoting action of one party against another, from L. versus "turned toward or against," from pp. of vertere "to turn," from PIE *wert- "to turn, wind," from base *wer- "to turn, bend" (cf. O.E. -weard "toward," originally "turned toward," weorthan "to befall," wyrd "fate, destiny," lit. "what befalls one;" Skt. vartate "turns round, rolls;" Avestan varet- "to turn;" L. vertere (freq. versare) "to turn;" O.C.S. vruteti "to turn, roll," Rus. vreteno "spindle, distaff;" Lith. verciu "to turn;" Gk. rhatane "stirrer, ladle;" Ger. werden, O.E. weorðan "to become," for sense, cf. "to turn into;" Welsh gwerthyd "spindle, distaff;" O.Ir. frith "against").

 

[DOC]

That's your opinion -- I've already given evidence that two (Matthew and John) did write their gospels.

And the other 2 (Mark and Luke) were companions of the apostles (Paul and Peter).

1.) You did not.

Huh, have you been reading this thread, do you want me to bring it in for the 3rd time.

Indeed, very clear evidence was given that naming the gospels as written by specific apostles didn't occur until 150 years after Jesus died.

What is your source for the 150 year figure?

.

 

[paximperium]

Huh, have you been reading this thread, do you want me to bring it in for the 3rd time.

You could bring it in for the first time.

What is your source for the 150 year figure?

Evidence that DOC did not have the decency or honesty to read the long and very detailed posts. DOC, this figure was cited several times within the last 2 weeks.

 

[Lucian]

So are you saying the word university (or a similar foreign word) was not derived from uni + versus. And are you saying the word diversity is not related to versus.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying. What you have been told repeatedly is that "university" does not come from a conflation of "unity" and "diversity." No one is saying that it is not derived from "uni" and "versus." No one is saying that "diversity" is not also derived from "versus." Lots of words contain an element derived from the Latin verb "vertere." There's perversion, invert, subvert, convert, conversion, conversation, etc. But "convert" isn't a conflation of, say, "convict" and "diversity." It has nothing to do with the word "diversity." Similarly, "university" has nothing to do with the word "diversity."

To add to what Dafydd said, here is the OED's etymology for "diversity:"

[a. OF. diverseté, diversité (12th c. in Hatz.-Darm.) difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity:--L. diversitat-em contrariety, disagreement, difference, f. diversus DIVERSE.]

And "diverse:"

[In origin identical with DIVERS; but in later use prob. more immediately associated with L. diversus (cf. adverse, inverse, obverse, perverse, reverse). Hence, no longer (since c1700) used in the merely vague numerical sense of divers, but always distinctly associated with diversity.]

And "divers:"

[ME. divers, diverse, a. OF. diviers, divers, fem. -erse (11th c. in Littré) different, odd, wicked, cruel, = It., Sp., Pg. diverso:--L. divers-us contrary, different, unlike, separate, orig. ‘turned different ways’, pa. pple. of divertere to DIVERT. The spelling was in ME. indifferently divers and diverse. The stress was orig. as in OF. on the last syllable, but in conformity with English habits, was at a very early date shifted to the first, though, as with other words from French, both pronunciations long co-existed, esp. in verse. After 'divers became the established prose form, esp. in sense 3, in which the word is always plural, the final s came, as in plural nouns, to be pronounced as z, and the word to be identical in pronunciation with the plural of diver.]

And "divert:"

[a. OF. divertir (14-15th c. in Hatz.-Darm.) = It. divertire, Sp. divertir, ad. L. divertere to turn in different directions, turn out of the way, with which is also blended L. devertere to turn away or aside.]

So, yes, the "-versity" part of "university" and "diversity" have the same root, but the "uni-" and "di-" parts make them entirely different words, neither of which is derived from the other.

 

[DOC]

You could bring it in for the first time.

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4099592#post4099592

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me. You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

 

[Toke]

Linking back to page 9 is not that impressive.

 

[paximperium]

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4099592#post4099592

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me. You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

And Lothian provided evidence from the very same website that said silly things like:

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: there is no internal, direct evidence for authorship. Sometime early in the second-century the Gospel of Matthew was designated as such.

The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew.

The Gospel of Matthew could not have been written before Mark (mid-60's).

So let's assume this Matthew fella wrote the gospel.
So? Did he ever meet Jesus or claim to have met this Jesus fella?

 

[paximperium]

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.

Gday,



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?




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.

Reposted Kapyong's great posts that DOC purposefully ran away from and ignored like he does consistent.

 

[DOC]

At the expense of what little remains of my sanity, I have reviewed the quoted post. It refers to two older posts about the authorship of the gospels of Matthew and John.

You are mysteriously silent on the points raised by Lothian and Hokulele in the posts following yours; namely, that the website you quote from demonstrates that sections of the respective gospels show that they were not written by Matthew and John. Also, the only point in your post about Matthew that is not complete and utter BS heresay is refuted by jeremyp.

Another tick for the "caught Doc lying" tally, if anyone's counting...

Here is the conclusion of the site:

From the article "the gospel of Matthew":

The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something in Aramaic or Hebrew that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

And it is always possible he wrote both the Aramaic and Greek versions. He was a tax collector who had to deal with a lot of different people who spoke different languages.

 

[Toke]

I do have the impression that the new testament were put together without the benefit of proofreading.

 

[Simon39759]

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4099592#post4099592

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me. You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

Can you please read your own post?
Ireneus: 130-200 CE (in Adversus Haereses, written in 180 CE)
Origen: 185-254 CE
Eusebius: 263–339 CE
Pantaenus : died 200CE (apparently "originated the tradition" but we don't have any actual writings of his. Also; the tradition describe him as travelling to India and discovering Christians already established there and using the Gospel of Matthew... It all seem rather unlikely).


It's all perfectly in line with the timeline advanced by Joobs: there is no tradition anterior to about 180 CE (I guess Joobs was probably referring to Ireneus). In all reference prior to that, the Gospels were unattributed.

It is also worth mentioning that the first allusion, that of Ireneus, was not a work of history. It was designed as a work of propaganda in the theological fight against the gnostic sects. While one can not argue one way or the other, there was a definite political interest in the part of Ireneus in making his own traditions appear more legitimate by harking back to the original apostles...

 

[paximperium]

Here is the conclusion of the site:

From the article "the gospel of Matthew":

The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something in Aramaic or Hebrew that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

And it is always possible he wrote both the Aramaic and Greek versions. He was a tax collector who had to deal with a lot of different people who spoke different languages.

Thanks for posting the conclusions that say the exact opposite. Your author's conclusion is wrong and he basically refuted himself by his own facts and is making apologies for it.

Rebolded by me.

 

[joobz]

So are you saying the word university (or a similar foreign word) was not derived from uni + versus. And are you saying the word diversity is not related to versus.

of course not, but versus does not equal diversity and uni does not equal unity.
And most certainly the word "university" is not a compound word describing the charters of universities.

In other words, Geisler's book is plain wrong about this. (And many other things).


ETA: Both Lucian and dafydd understood the argument being made. They both were able to understand that University (as in a place of higher learning) is NOT derived from a contraction of the words Unity and Diversity.

 

[joobz]

What is your source for the 150 year figure?

.

Simon has the right of it. I based my information on Simon's and Kapyong's excellent posts (Which you had ignored). 180 AD - 30AD (approximate when jesus died) gives you 150 years.

 

[Simon39759]

Simon has the right of it. I based my information on Simon's and Kapyong's excellent posts (Which you had ignored). 180 AD - 30AD (approximate when jesus died) gives you 150 years.

I have to respectfully decline.
You might have based your information on Kapyong's excellent post but I contributed nothing.

 

[X]

Here is the conclusion of the site:

From the article "the gospel of Matthew":

The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something in Aramaic or Hebrew that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm

And it is always possible he wrote both the Aramaic and Greek versions. He was a tax collector who had to deal with a lot of different people who spoke different languages.

I highlighted a rather important section you seem to have glossed over.

It is also interesting to note that all the sources on he website you linked to, which the author uses as evidence for some sort of document (NOT the gospel of Matthew, although the document may have influenced the Gospel) is based on the testimony of people who lived a century of more after the events (allegedly) took place. His conclusion that the Apostle Matthew wrote something, therefore, is based on hearsay. That doesn't rule out that Matthew wrote a document, of course. But it would be nice to have some contemporary corroboration.

Nevertheless, at best, this website says that the Apostle Matthew may have written something which later influenced the author of the Gospel bearing his name.

It does NOT say that the apostle Mathew wrote that Gospel. In fact, the website makes it rather clear that this is not the case at all.


Just a thought, DOC...
Next time, you might want to try reading the websites you use as support for your position.
That way, you won't wind up in the embarrassing situation of linking to a website which actually disproves the very claim you are using it to make.