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

[Akhenaten]

Umm. . .

How to answer politely . . . ?

*light bulb*


Gee, that's an interesting name.

 

[Lucian]

Umm. . .

How to answer politely . . . ?

*light bulb*


Gee, that's an interesting name.

I know, awful, isn't it? It was a guest post on my roommate's blog. He refers to me as "Animala" on the blog (It's from the movie The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera, which is hilarious). PolarBunny is a reference to my cat. It was cute for the one post, but...yeah...well. Actually, it's Dr. Animala PolarBunny. That sounds a lot more dignified, doesn't it?

 

[carlitos]

"Lucy Ann" is a phonetic girly-name. Just a thought.

I just learned of the YAS via a podcast that i listened to recently. All the best.

 

[Simon39759]

I know, awful, isn't it? It was a guest post on my roommate's blog. He refers to me as "Animala" on the blog (It's from the movie The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera, which is hilarious). PolarBunny is a reference to my cat. It was cute for the one post, but...yeah...well. Actually, it's Dr. Animala PolarBunny. That sounds a lot more dignified, doesn't it?

I don't know; did you try contacting the YAS?

 

[Lucian]

I don't know; did you try contacting the YAS?

Well, it doesn't matter that much, really. It's going to be done pseudononymously regardless. As I said, it's my roommate's blog. For professional reasons, he doesn't want his real name associated with the blog (he tends to be rather free with the term "pig****er" on the blog), and neither do I. The silly thing is that he would like co-author credit, so he "doesn't feel like a third wheel," and I don't really want to do that because it's my work and my writing style (not a pig****er in sight). I know it's silly since we're using pseudonyms and I'm never going to put it on my CV, but I'm still reluctant. Call me petty (it's better than Animala).

 

[Simon39759]

Well, it doesn't matter that much, really. It's going to be done pseudononymously regardless. As I said, it's my roommate's blog. For professional reasons, he doesn't want his real name associated with the blog (he tends to be rather free with the term "pig****er" on the blog),

It's very Australia themed, then?

*Zing*

and neither do I. The silly thing is that he would like co-author credit, so he "doesn't feel like a third wheel," and I don't really want to do that because it's my work and my writing style (not a pig****er in sight). I know it's silly since we're using pseudonyms and I'm never going to put it on my CV, but I'm still reluctant. Call me petty (it's better than Animala).

Actually seems very reasonable to me.
Maybe a mention of *First published on www.porcinefetish.com*; maybe his name in the acknowledgement (as en editor) and that's it.
It's not petty, it's your work, you don't have to share it.

That being said; I'd imagine it it'd be better to keep a consistent "identity" throughout your spektical writings and it might as well be a name you enjoy getting behind...

 

[Akhenaten]

It's very Australia themed, then?

*Zing*

I heard that!

 

[Simon39759]

Heard what?
/Whistles innocently

 

[Lucian]

It's very Australia themed, then?

*Zing*





Actually seems very reasonable to me.
Maybe a mention of *First published on www.porcinefetish.com*; maybe his name in the acknowledgement (as en editor) and that's it.
It's not petty, it's your work, you don't have to share it.

That being said; I'd imagine it it'd be better to keep a consistent "identity" throughout your spektical writings and it might as well be a name you enjoy getting behind...

Well, my theory is that his blog is going to get publicity regardless of authorship (the blog's url is included), but to keep things happy, I'm thinking of "Animala PolarBunny with Bing McGhandi" (yes, he chose that name on purpose).

As for the "Australian theme," I believe they were looking for things that were not laced with profanity.

 

[Simon39759]

Well, my theory is that his blog is going to get publicity regardless of authorship (the blog's url is included), but to keep things happy, I'm thinking of "Animala PolarBunny with Bing McGhandi" (yes, he chose that name on purpose).

As for the "Australian theme," I believe they were looking for things that were not laced with profanity.

Well, it's your call, of course, but I don't thing you have any duty to include his name as an author.
And, yes, I'd expect an official publication to be biased toward milder, less-offensive material...

 

[Toke]

I was wondering about the alternative "ancient document rule" interpretation here and how it relates to the amount of fiction coming out nowadays.

In 500 years Harry Potter will beam down from the enterprise to fight the storm troopers trying to take over middle earth?

 

[Akhenaten]

Why wait 500 years. I'd buy that now!

 

[Toke]

Why wait 500 years. I'd buy that now!

I am afraid you are confusing a good story with a future historical fact.

 

[DOC]

... Well here's to a thread of infinite length, we may not ever come up with any evidence of why the NT writers told the truth...

Since you're new to the thread you might have missed this information I brought into the thread:

There are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

Respected archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian with regard to facts that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

The fact that there are about 40 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection and how he considered them to have more historical evidence then any other fact in history up to that point.

The Moral Argument,

The Cosmological Argument,

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.

A Jewish Rabbi stated that the Oral Torah {and thus oral tradition evidence} is more important than written the Written Torah.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

PhD. in astrophysics Dr. Hugh Ross claims there are about 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

 

[Toke]

So the fact that the gospels of Rowling and Tolkien will have discrepancies only add to their credibility?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Evidence? And I mean citations.

 

[Akhenaten]

Since you're new to the thread you might have missed this information I brought into the thread:

 

[Akhenaten]

So the fact that the gospels of Rowling and Tolkien will have discrepancies only add to their credibility?

Diagon Alley, yes.

 

[paximperium]

Since you're new to the thread you might have missed this information I brought into the thread:

There are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts in existence compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato and 20 for famous Roman Historian Tacitus.

Respected archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian with regard to facts that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence.

The fact that there are about 40 written sources for the life of Christ (31 Christian + 9 non-Christian) compared to 10 written sources (9 non-Christian + 1 Christian) for the life of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor during the life of Christ.

Christianity had spread all the way to Rome by peaceful means and Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the Roman fire in 64 ad.-- 31 years after the death of Christ.

Jews have been converted to Christianity because of Isaiah Chapter 53 and at least one writer has claimed there are 25 fulfilled prophesies in that one chapter.

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Oxford professor Thomas Arnold's statement regarding the evidence of Christ and the Resurrection and how he considered them to have more historical evidence then any other fact in history up to that point.

The Moral Argument,

The Cosmological Argument,

11 apostles suffered a martyrs death in spite of the fact it was recorded they acted cowardly and uncertain before the resurrection.

Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard Law School, said the 4 Gospel accounts could be admitted in a court as evidence, and that divergent accounts are normal for eyewitnesses.

A Jewish Rabbi stated that the Oral Torah {and thus oral tradition evidence} is more important than written the Written Torah.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5682434#post5682434

PhD. in astrophysics Dr. Hugh Ross claims there are about 2000 fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

Hey he's back!!!
Oh yeah, I notice a complete lack of answering these posts which have rendered your little spamming list completely and utterly falsified.

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...

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.

These posts alone have rendered any claims of the Bible suspect and has rendered Greenleaf's opinion false.

We've already dealt with all those others regurgitated lies in this thread several times but we can revisit them once DOC actually has some balls or honesty to brave these posts that have falsified his claims. By revisiting these false arguments maybe we can use DOC's terrible and dishonesty apologetics to convert another Christian away from this false messenger?

 

[DOC]

DOC Quote:

Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Evidence? And I mean citations.

From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"
Written by Holly Hayes with reference to the following sources:

1. Jerome Murray O'Connor, Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land (1998), p. 47. Dan Bahat (1986). "Does the Holy Sepulchre church mark the burial of Jesus?"Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (1986), 26–45.

"Unlike many historical sacred sites, which often turn out to be based more on pious tradition than historical fact, most historians and archaeologists say the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ. The most important supporting evidence is as follows: [1]

1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)

Based on the above factors, the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes: "Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes."

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-sepulchre.htm