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

[Akhenaten]

by Matt Slick

I just noticed this. Gotta be a joke name, doesn't it?

 

[joobz]

"None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

http://www.carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

Problem 1:
Is it prophecy if in 2010 someone wrote a story set in 2001 that the twin towers would be destroyed?

Problem 2:
The wailing wall still exists. So even if you take that passage as prophecy, it wouldn't have been fulfilled.

 

[Akhenaten]

Apropos of nothing . . .

And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?​

I really like that song, for some strange reason.

 

[kmortis]

Apropos of nothing . . .

And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?​

I really like that song, for some strange reason.

1) it was written by William Blake. How can you not like something written by him?
b) The Emerson Lake and Palmer version is my favorite.

 

[Akhenaten]

a. I couldn't

2. That's exactly the version I had in mind when I posted the snippet.

 

[Simon39759]

Then how come there is no known signature of Julius Caesar in existence. You would think an emperor who controlled much of the world would be signing a lot of documents, authorizations, and decrees.

No, I wouldn't think that, because I am not that dumb.

Signature did not came into widespread use until much later.
You are projecting your modern image of the presidential function, sitting at his desk signing documents onto the Roman emperor, and it's truly naive.

We know for a fact that the Roman empire kept extensive archives, they are referenced many times, Tacitus used them a lot, we know they existed.

Actually there are good reasons to believe most of the gospels were written before 70 C.E.

Ha! I knew Doc would react that way. His pattern of bad faith and dishonesty really is easy to predict...

 

[I Ratant]

I just noticed this. Gotta be a joke name, doesn't it?

.
10961 posts, and FINALLY humor shows up!

 

[Paulhoff]

Signature did not came into widespread use until much later.

Well, don't you know, anything on that is on paper can't be faked. Don't you see the commercials with the Certificate of Authenticity that makes what you buy real. That is why the bible is real, it is on paper.

Paul

 

[Hokulele]

"None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

There are at least two other possibilities: the authors knew that the temple had been destroyed and invented a prophecy regarding this (much the way Matthew is so fond of inventing stories to make Jesus fulfill prophecies), or the authors were writing very close to 70 CE and the political dynamic of the time made prophecy of the Temple's destruction as impressive as prophecy of an earthquake in California sometime in the next 12 months.

In other words, this quote from Mark makes it more likely the gospels were written either very close to or after 70 CE, and as most scholars believe, Mark was the earliest of the canonical gospels.

 

[DOC]

"None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

http://www.carm.org/when-were-gospel...en-and-by-whom

Problem 1:
Is it prophecy if in 2010 someone wrote a story set in 2001 that the twin towers would be destroyed?

No, because we know the author wrote it in 2010. Just like the first few people Matthew Mark and Luke gave their writings to would know they had just been written. Remember Luke wrote his gospel for a friend:

Luke 1: 3,4

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Your theory might explain one writer doing it, but for 3 separate authors doing it, come on.

Problem 2:
The wailing wall still exists. So even if you take that passage as prophecy, it wouldn't have been fulfilled.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1302-jesus-prophecy-and-the-destruction-of-the-temple

 

[Lucian]

a. I couldn't

2. That's exactly the version I had in mind when I posted the snippet.

See, I always imagine people standing in boxes singing it after someone says "mattress" to Mr. Lambert.

Maybe if we all stood in boxes singing "Jerusalem" at the same time, the bag of fallacious reasoning would be removed from this thread and peace and logic would reign.

 

[tsig]

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.

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

I thought all the Apostles were martyred before 70 AD.

 

[tsig]

Ahem. I believe you wrote this to me in your birthday thread.

O ficklest of pharaohs!

God is all things to all women.

 

[Wolrab]

Will the 11,000th post contain a Ramsey, Giesel, Jefferson, Harvard Law dude, embarrassing facts, greatest historian, or just a general Bible as proof reference? Personally I would like to see the Gay Rodeo blimp make that post.

 

[I Ratant]

How about a manifesto from a consortium of DOC, kk, GIA, Ethnikos... a policy statement as it were, to celebrate that 11,000th thingy bobber.
The kids oughta get together real soon, it's not that far in the future.

 

[Lucian]

You guys are gonna be so jealous

Oh. My. Lack-of-God. I got tickets (free) for the Worldview Weekend Rally in Atlanta tomorrow. Guess who one of the speakers is? Norm Geisler! I'm giddy.

 

[Hokulele]

No, because we know the author wrote it in 2010. Just like the first few people Matthew Mark and Luke gave their writings to would know they had just been written. Remember Luke wrote his gospel for a friend:

Luke 1: 3,4

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So what? You are once again using the NT as evidence for the NT. If Theophilus had written a letter in return that made it down through history, it would be a bit more convincing. On its own, that says nothing about dating, nor about veracity. In addition, remember Matthew is already known for making stuff up to support prophecy.

 

[Akhenaten]

.

Or words to that effect.

Will the 11,000th post contain a Ramsey, Giesel, Jefferson, Harvard Law dude, embarrassing facts, greatest historian, or just a general Bible as proof reference? Personally I would like to see the Gay Rodeo blimp make that post.

As it is written, so let it be done.

Ankh-en-ptah, the Royal Scribe, busies himself with this task even as we speak.

Oh. My. Lack-of-God. I got tickets (free) for the Worldview Weekend Rally in Atlanta tomorrow. Guess who one of the speakers is? Norm Geisler! I'm giddy.

I hope there's singing. Don't forget your cardboard box.

 

[paximperium]

No, because we know the author wrote it in 2010. Just like the first few people Matthew Mark and Luke gave their writings to would know they had just been written. Remember Luke wrote his gospel for a friend:

Luke 1: 3,4

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Your theory might explain one writer doing it, but for 3 separate authors doing it, come on.




http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1302-jesus-prophecy-and-the-destruction-of-the-temple

Hello DOC, before you get "distracted" again.
Would you care to take up these posts or are you conceding that NONE of the gospels were named until a century after they were supposedly written or that Greenleaf is completely wrong on his opinion?

I have of course noticed how you have continued to rudely ignore waterman's well reason and intelligent post. He has been extremely polite to you and your continue denigration of his attempts is truly disgusting behavior on your part.

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.

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...

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.

Doc, you still have not responded to the Greenleaf discussion, nor to my repeated requests for responses. Since you are responding to other posts and ignoring mine I am going to conclude that you can't refute it. If you do bring Greenleaf back into the discussion fully expect that someone will remind you of this discussion.

Frankly, I consider myself well within my rights to point out that, in answering my original post, you shot down your own argument (my lame attempt at humour notwithstanding). I also notice that in the wall of quotes you provided, X is curiously absent. Here is his post again, for those of you with selective memories.



Bolding mine.

And what is going to happen to a 'tradition' over the course of several generations? With no written media, you are relying on memory and word of mouth - fallible at the best of times, and tremendously prone to embellishment. You are partly correct in that tradition and legend are not synonymous, but traditions passed on verbally with no accompanying evidence are no more reliable than legends.

For instance, in England there is a traditional story of a village idiot* who sees the moon's reflection in a pond, and tries to fish it out with a rod and line. Unfortunately, around a dozen villages claim this as their own, to the point where no-one knows if it ever took place, much less where.

*In some versions, it's several people who are actually perfectly sane, but acting mad to fool a tax collector. I don't think Revenue & Customs would fall for it

In my first post re: Greenleaf, I had identified him and what appeared to be his argument from the Ancient DOcuments Rule (per wikipedia) and speculated where he may have erred.

You then challenged me to accrualy read his words and see if I still held that position (you however did not provide any logical counter argument).

I did read his words as did Simon. We pointed out numerous areas were he made a number of logical fallacies as well as pointed out that the same arguement could be made to validate ANY religion that has a long standing written tradition.

You have yet to respond to this second set of posts by myself (who focused on the Ancient Document Rule) and Simon (who gave an overview of the most glaring issues he observed). Greenleafs argument goes undefended. As always for you to defend his argument you need to counter the argument made by Simon and myself not post additional quotes by Greenleaf, academic or legal credential or support of others.

A truely logical argument stands on its own. It is not need the props of famous people, quotations, degrees or ancient traditions.

 

[paximperium]

So what? You are once again using the NT as evidence for the NT. If Theophilus had written a letter in return that made it down through history, it would be a bit more convincing. On its own, that says nothing about dating, nor about veracity. In addition, remember Matthew is already known for making stuff up to support prophecy.

Don't worry. DOC has already posted evidence from his own links that show that that whoever wrote Matthew was not the apostle.

I would like to thank DOC for advancing this thread although not in the direction he wanted.