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

[kmortis]

Actually, having written that facecious post, it makes me think that the only reason we know about the legend of Romulus and Remus, or Tyr and Fenris or any other myth is because someone, along the way wrote it down. Otherwise they would have died with the respective cultures.

Why does Odin have so many names? Becuase every tribe that worshiped him called him something different. They all told similar stories about Wotan, Odhinn, Wednes whathaveyou but his name was changed.

Just because something has an oral tradition, doesn't make it any more true than that with a written one. And neither gives evidence to the truthfullness of the claims of the stories. I'm a test engineer by profession and if I gave my customer an oral report, he'd not only not pay the bill but he'd never return.

 

[kmortis]

70AD? I thought you believe Jeebus died at thirty-something...

Seriously, DOC. All this does is make you look retarded.

Naaa...that doesn't make him look retarded. The 1699 other posts of his do that.

70 ad is still within possiblity of an eyewitness's lifespan. The apostle John allegedly died in ~100AD, so it's possible that others who are not named but actually penned the gospels were still alive.

Having said that, it still lends no credibility to the writings themselves. Look at Tesla's later writings and what he claimed he did. He was most definately an eyewitness to his experiments that he'd performed 20+ years earlier, but man did he embellish.

This isn't to say that the authors, if they had been eyewitnesses, embellished; it's just that we have no way of telling if they did. For example, maybe the story of the loaves and fishies wasn't really thousands of people being fed with five loaves and fishes; but rather 20 people with 10 loaves and 10 fishes...Jesus knows how to strech his food drachma...little manna helper here, little tuna caserole there...

 

[Simon39759]

I think very relevant, some people in here have complained that the gospels were not written contemporary to Christ's life. My last post has shown passing along information by writing was the exception rather than the rule before 70 ad. 70 ad, was right around the time scholars say Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels.

No, it was not, two examples do not a rule make. The Roman administration, primitive as you may find their civilization, made quite extensive records.

The best you could pretend to with this post it to show that the early Torah is pretty much as much unreliable BS than the identification of the Gospels authors. I don't dispute that, I think that few people would.

 

[Lucian]

Of course I haven't because it is not true. Several of the people mentioned in the site I brought in stated they learned the name of the gospel from "tradition" (they never say they named them just out of the blue). (Oral)Tradition was a very important method of knowledge in the non literary paperless society back then when the great majority of the people couldn't read or write. Tradition is not the same thing as legend. Geisler or Muncaster discuss that. Once again people are trying to transport our modern ultra media society into that primitive non literary society. Even the great majority of the Talmud was written from oral traditions of at least 100 years and possibly 200 years.

I've studied oral tradition to a certain extent, and not just by looking stuff up on Wikipedia and Google. Oral tradition is rich and complex and, you're right, it doesn't simply equate to lies and fairy tales. If I wanted to know more about oral tradition, I might look at Walter Ong's Orality and Literacy, Alfred P. Lord's The Singer of Tales and the work of Eric Havelock and John Miles Foley. You know what I wouldn't look at? Geisler or Muncaster.

If a work or a bit of lore comes from oral tradition, it isn't necessarily false. It isn't necessarily true, either. Whether or not Beowulf as we know it was actually an oral composition, it comes from oral tradition. Does that make it true? Same with the mythological works* in the Poetic Edda. Are you preparing yourself for Ragnarok?

Coming soon to a thread near you: Evidence for why we know the authors of the Poetic Edda told the truth.

*The heroic ones, too.

 

[kmortis]

Coming soon to a thread near you: Evidence for why we know the authors of the Poetic Edda told the truth.

Paul of Damascus totally copied Snorri?

 

[Lucian]

Paul of Damascus totally copied Snorri?

I wouldn't put it past him. Also, just to be clear, Snorri wrote the Prose Edda, an unambiguously literary composition about the composition of oral formulaic poetry. (Sorry for the pedantry).

 

[Simon39759]

70AD? I thought you believe Jeebus died at thirty-something...

Seriously, DOC. All this does is make you look retarded.

70 CE would correspond to the writing of the Gospel of Matthew.
Of course, the date for this writing range from around 65-70 all the way to the early second century, Doc authoritatively pick about the absolute earliest date he can get away with. It's not random, of course, it's a deliberate choice to make the traditional authorship appear more likely.
It's not really honest, of course, to do so...

 

[kmortis]

I wouldn't put it past him. Also, just to be clear, Snorri wrote the Prose Edda, an unambiguously literary composition about the composition of oral formulaic poetry. (Sorry for the pedantry).

Oh, I dunno, since Paul died some 1000 years before Snorri was born, that might put a damper on my theory.

Yeah, I knew that Snorri wrote the Prose Edda, but I couldn't think of an earlier author/compiler to use. And using Bullfinch seemed lame.

70 CE would correspond to the writing of the Gospel of Matthew.
Of course, the date for this writing range from around 65-70 all the way to the early second century, Doc authoritatively pick about the absolute earliest date he can get away with. It's not random, of course, it's a deliberate choice to make the traditional authorship appear more likely.
It's not really honest, of course, to do so...

And it's about as late as you can get before all those who could have been an eyewitness died off.

 

[Simon39759]

And it's about as late as you can get before all those who could have been an eyewitness died off.

Yep, yep and indeed.
By the way, sorry of me repeating your post, I don't have ay problem with you explanation but I didn't see it when I started typing... It seems like the fora might have been lagging or something...

 

[kmortis]

Yep, yep and indeed.
By the way, sorry of me repeating your post, I don't have ay problem with you explanation but I didn't see it when I started typing... It seems like the fora might have been lagging or something...

No worries. I figure that the more times we post the same info independantly of each other just bolsters the claim. Cause, post count = veracity, right?

actually, since we have different posting styles those who might not get my flippant style might get your more scholary one and vice versa.

 

[Simon39759]

I have a scholarly style?

I'm really sorry.
From now on, please read all my posts with a inner voice cockney accent, 't might help, guvna...

 

[Her Dark Star]

Seth and Sobek, Horus and Hathor - and all of the old gods - predate your silly little Jeebus by millennia, and their names were carved in stone before the alleged founders of your cult had dragged themselves, kicking and screaming, from the twilight of the neolithic.

They must be more true, mustn't they?

Akhenaten, in reference to all your posts not just the quoted one you have succeeded where so many others have failed.
I am now a Theist

You are my god and I worship thee

 

[Hokulele]

Seems like the Jews started to take writing things down seriously just about the time Matthew (former Jew), Mark (former Jew), and Luke and did. So this is evidence that passing information along by writing in that non literary society was the exception rather than the rule.

*Facepalm*

Pop quiz for DOC, what is the Tanakh and when do most scholars believe it was codified?

 

[kmortis]

I have a scholarly style?

I'm really sorry.
From now on, please read all my posts with a inner voice cockney accent, 't might help, guvna...

Well, scholary compared to me. Let's face it, you're a "Graduate Poster" and I'm just the Chief IDIOT.


Is that argumentum ad title?

 

[I Ratant]

Well, scholary compared to me. Let's face it, you're a "Graduate Poster" and I'm just the Chief IDIOT.


Is that argumentum ad title?

.
Poser!
Who died and elected you the chief idiot?
There's a host of suitable candidates!
Harrummphh!

 

[kmortis]

.
Poser!
Who died and elected you the chief idiot?
There's a host of suitable candidates!
Harrummphh!

Um....I earned this title in the Great Humor War. El Presidente gave it to me on the eve of the Politics Invasion. I stand at the barrier of all Teh Funny and keep watch that no UnFunny gets in.

 

[Belz...]

I think very relevant, some people in here have complained that the gospels were not written contemporary to Christ's life. My last post has shown passing along information by writing was the exception rather than the rule before 70 ad. 70 ad, was right around the time scholars say Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels.

And therefore didn't live in Jesus' time...

 

[laca]

Naaa...that doesn't make him look retarded. The 1699 other posts of his do that.

70 ad is still within possiblity of an eyewitness's lifespan. The apostle John allegedly died in ~100AD, so it's possible that others who are not named but actually penned the gospels were still alive.

I'm not sure, but I think the average lifespan was much shorter back then, that's why I assumed it was too late for an eyewitness (unless the eyewitness was a baby/teenager at most when Jeebus lived, in which case the credibility of the stories gets a major blow).

 

[Simon39759]

Well, scholary compared to me. Let's face it, you're a "Graduate Poster" and I'm just the Chief IDIOT.

Is that argumentum ad title?

That'd be argumentum ad authoritatum.
But then again, you have way more posts than I do which obviously makes you righter...

I'm not sure, but I think the average lifespan was much shorter back then, that's why I assumed it was too late for an eyewitness (unless the eyewitness was a baby/teenager at most when Jeebus lived, in which case the credibility of the stories gets a major blow).

To a large extent, the difference in life expectancy (about 25 to 30 years at birth) was due to a gigantonormous amount of infant death and, if one assume Matthew would have been in his mid-twenties at the time of Jesus' death, he would have been in his early 60ies by the time the Gospel (mis)attributed to him might, possibly, has been written and it would conceivable for Matthew to be alive at that time. Emperor Tiberius died at 77, after all.
Of course 'conceivable' is in no way evidence that he did, let alone evidence that he wrote the gospel that Christians legends attribute to him.

 

[joobz]

*Facepalm*

Pop quiz for DOC, what is the Tanakh and when do most scholars believe it was codified?

WARNING: DOC threads 5 times more likely to cause facial bruising than airbags.