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

[DOC]

So then you don't believe evidence of an empty tomb increases the probability in any way that the resurrection occurred?

Ok DOC, I'll play!

Let's take a closer look at the resurrection.

Q1) To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?

The two Marys
Matthew 28:1, 9
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Mary Magdalene
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
John 20:11-14
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ... and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Cleopas and another
Luke 24:13-31
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus.... And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? ... And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Cephas
1 Corinthians 15:4-5
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Q2) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?

On a mountain top in Galilee.
Matthew 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him.
In a room in Jerusalem.
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Luke 24:33-37
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
John 20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. Q3) Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection?

Q3) Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection?

He told them to go to Galilee.
Matthew 28:10
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Mark 16:7
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

He told them to tarry in Jerusalem.
Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Acts 1:4
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Q4) How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance?

Twelve
1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Eleven
Matthew 28:16-17
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him,they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Luke 24:33-37
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, ... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Ten
John 20:24
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection?

Yes, he did.
Matthew 20:18-19
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Matthew 26:31-32
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mark 10:33-34
Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Mark 14:28
But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
Luke 18:31-33
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

No, he did not.
John 20:9
For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.



You see DOC the new teste-ment can't agree with itself on a pivotal part of the story. This is another reason why you can't use it as evidence of the new teste-ments veracity.


My thanks to the SAB for their help in collating this Q&A

We've been over much of this over 300 pages ago. Another example of skeptics complaining the gospels are too dissimilar. Well I guess that kills the argument of all those skeptics like Hokulele who say the gospels are too similar and just copies of Mark. I guess the above helps prove the 4 gospels are indeed independent for the most part.

And I"ve already brought in a logical analysis that explains the seeming discrepancies after the resurrection.

And here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on this:

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,

the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles,

the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples),

and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles.

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

__

And don't you think the the council of bishops who devoted their lives to the Christian religion knew of these seeming difficulties. They could have just authorized one gospel to put in the bible and their would be no seeming differences. But obviously they felt it was better to include all 4 to give a more complete and comprehensive account of Christ's life.

 

[Toke]

I wonder about the importance of just one empty tomb.
Hadn't there just been a zombie plague?

 

[Lucian]

This whole thread is about stone cold objective evidence.

At first I stared at this sentence in slack-jawed amazement. Then I dissolved into paroxysms of giggles, chortles and, dare I say it, guffaws. This is one of the funniest sentences I've ever read in my life. If The Onion ever produces a book about Christianity (Our Dumb Religion, perhaps), DOC should apply for a job as a copywriter.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I wonder about the importance of just one empty tomb.
Hadn't there just been a zombie plague?

Where was Alice and Jill Valentine when we needed them? Those Christo-Zombies wouldn't have had a chance.

GB

 

[bikerdruid]

At first I stared at this sentence in slack-jawed amazement. Then I dissolved into paroxysms of giggles, chortles and, dare I say it, guffaws. This is one of the funniest sentences I've ever read in my life. If The Onion ever produces a book about Christianity (Our Dumb Religion, perhaps), DOC should apply for a job as a copywriter.

heck, i'd buy and read that. i love the onion.
it often brings tears to my eyes.
there has not been on piece of cold objective evidence presented in this entire thread, at least not in support of the topic.
an empty tomb as evidence???
pullllllease.

 

[John Jones]

At first I stared at this sentence in slack-jawed amazement. Then I dissolved into paroxysms of giggles, chortles and, dare I say it, guffaws. This is one of the funniest sentences I've ever read in my life. If The Onion ever produces a book about Christianity (Our Dumb Religion, perhaps), DOC should apply for a job as a copywriter.

And then Doc went on to say: "And I've already brought in a logical analysis that explains the seeming discrepancies after the resurrection. "

 

[zooterkin]

Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1966 says on this matter under the subject "Resurrection of Christ" page 407.

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,

the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles,

the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples),

and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles.

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

Once again skeptics like you complain the bible accounts are too different. Then you turn around and say they are too similar and copied from Mark. Which is it -- are they too similar are too different?

And on the major points the 4 gospel accounts concur on the resurrection. Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" (1966) says on this matter under the subject "Resurrection of Christ" page 407:

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,

the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles,

the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples),

and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles.

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

Little Sir Echo, how do you do?

We've been over much of this over 300 pages ago. Another example of skeptics complaining the gospels are too dissimilar. Well I guess that kills the argument of all those skeptics like Hokulele who say the gospels are too similar and just copies of Mark. I guess the above helps prove the 4 gospels are indeed independent for the most part.

And I"ve already brought in a logical analysis that explains the seeming discrepancies after the resurrection.

And here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on this:

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,

the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles,

the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples),

and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles.

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

__

And don't you think the the council of bishops who devoted their lives to the Christian religion knew of these seeming difficulties. They could have just authorized one gospel to put in the bible and their would be no seeming differences. But obviously they felt it was better to include all 4 to give a more complete and comprehensive account of Christ's life.

Hello! (Hello!)



Is this the annual outing of this discredited nonsense which you posted before in 2008 and 2009? In fact, it's coming up to the second anniversary of when you first trotted it out.

 

[zooterkin]

I wonder about the importance of just one empty tomb.
Hadn't there just been a zombie plague?

Oh, yes, those many people who came back from the dead and walked the streets, and yet strangely were not recorded anywhere except in the bible? Excellent point.

 

[Toke]

I wonder if Mel Gibson have ever read the bible?

He could have cut the whipping and nailing up part to 20-30min tops, and then switched to the real action.
A small band of legionnaires and a few temple strippers* fighting for survival and escape from the zombies in Jerusalem!!
It would have been his most historically accurate movie ever.

*I am not sure if Roman temples had strippers, but no zombie movie is complete without them.

 

[bikerdruid]

Hello! (Hello!)



Is this the annual outing of this discredited nonsense which you posted before in 2008 and 2009? In fact, it's coming up to the second anniversary of when you first trotted it out.

third time's the charm!

 

[carlitos]

Hello! (Hello!)



Is this the annual outing of this discredited nonsense which you posted before in 2008 and 2009? In fact, it's coming up to the second anniversary of when you first trotted it out.

Thanks for calling my attention to this. Repeating the same posts raises a red flag for me.

 

[John Jones]

Other than the last half of Reason # 9 the 5 reasons I gave in post #1 include all facts and no opinions.

ETA: and the other 5 reasons include all facts as well.

Stop giving reasons first like the apocaloypse,

 

[Simon39759]

We've been over much of this over 300 pages ago. Another example of skeptics complaining the gospels are too dissimilar. Well I guess that kills the argument of all those skeptics like Hokulele who say the gospels are too similar and just copies of Mark. I guess the above helps prove the 4 gospels are indeed independent for the most part.

You are wrong of course. I know you don't care about being factually wrong, and I strongly suspect you'll never read that post or acknowledge its existence, but, nevertheless, you are wrong and terribly ignorant of the history of your own sacred text...

Here is the thing, have you heard about the documentary hypothesis? Basically, both Matthew and Luke contains many long stretches that are literally lifted from Mark, word for words. Let me be clear here, not just the overall story, but the exact wording. To give you an idea, out of Mark's 673 verses, more than 380 are copied word for word by Luke. This is not a coincidence, both Luke and Matthew purposely copied Mark.

And yet, they are differences...
In some cases, the reasons are easy to see. For example, Mark eroneously calls Herod 'King' while Matthew, in some instances (such as Matthew 14:1, correct the verse and uses Herod's correct title of 'Tetrarch'.
In other the correction is more fundamental. Matthew and Luke are not just correcting what they think is incorrect or clumsy wording, they are correcting what they see are factual mistakes or shortcoming.
For example, the Markian tradition makes no mention of Jesus' birth. But, the church tradition Matthew comes from had such a story. Either the story had grown locally, or it became popular after Mark's writing.
At any rate, when Matthew sits down to copy Mark's gospel, the story seems to him to lack the beginning he is now familiar with, and so, he adds it...
Similarly, the story, at some point, Mark does not seem aware of Jesus' apparition to Mary Magdalena or to the eleven apostles... So, he complete the text...
And Mark also seem unaware of many saying of Jesus (from the so-called Q hypothesis) so Matthew put these in...


Later again, it is Luke's turn to gather both of the previous Gospels... By then, the tradition has evolved even a little bit further... Or he learned it from just a little bit different version of the church.
Matthew seems a bit closer from what Luke remembers, so he mostly uses this account, but still, there are part where he too seems mistaken, so Luke corrects these too...


So, you see, the idea the the synoptic both copy and contradict each others is not, actually paradoxical at all...

And I"ve already brought in a logical analysis that explains the seeming discrepancies after the resurrection.

And here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on this:

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,
the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles,
the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples),
and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles.

That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

That's stupid. On two counts.
First of all, he, guess what, this sequence is not actually share by the Gospels.
The appearance of the angels and then of the risen Christ was not part of the original Markian tradition... The Gospel was modified later.
Second, more fundamentally, so what? Of course, the core of the story will be the same. The authors were part of the same Christian tradition (an evolving tradition that varied somewhat geographically). And the various communities were in communication with each others (maybe not in a very effective kind of way but still) as illustrated by Paul's epistles or by the fact that the Gospels were shared around...

And don't you think the the council of bishops who devoted their lives to the Christian religion knew of these seeming difficulties. They could have just authorized one gospel to put in the bible and their would be no seeming differences. But obviously they felt it was better to include all 4 to give a more complete and comprehensive account of Christ's life.

So? First of all, let's be careful here 'devoting ones life to the Christian religion' back in these days (I suspect you are trying to think about the first council of Nicaea) meant, having a posh administrative job with a lot of power and money (and no, dirty minded readers, the vows of celibacy did not got put in place until the XIIth century so that wouldn't even be a consideration here...)
Second, the first council of Nicea did not really pick and choose, the way Dan Brown mis-describe it, they just confirmed the texts that were most popular in the region (because they were written by the local tradition, not surprisingly) as canonical...
Most importantly? So what?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's a good question, DOC. Let me ask it of you instead. Do you feel that empty tombs are evidence that the person who should be inside it has risen from the dead?

YES or NO, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you don't believe evidence of an empty tomb increases the probability in any way that the resurrection occurred?

Of course not. It's an absolutely preposterous line of reasoning.

You can't even demonstrate that this hole you're talking about exists, so it isn't evidence of anything at all, is it?

On the other hand, there are many, many known empty tombs that people can visit on the guided tour. Do these increase the probability that lots and lots of resurrections occurred?

 

[maatorc]

...... How come scientists say that there are no known natural forces that could cause the Big Bang? Therefore it is beyond the natural.

My underline and bolding.
Currently accepted perceptions of exact knowledge of universal natural forces do not , as of course you will know, necessarily embrace all such forces.
Exact cosmological knowledge will continue to expand from the present incomplete form.
Present ignorance of certain universal forces does not demonstrate they do not exist and do not universally operate.
What science does not know is not equivalent to what does not exist or not operate in the natural universal order.
That which we do not yet know, while beyond our current knowledge, is not thereby demonstrated to be beyond the natural order, and if and when we discover it we will find it to be necessarily natural, beyond which there is and can be nothing.
If the Big Bang occurred it was necessarily based on natural force or forces, even if they are presently unknown.
NOTHING cannot give rise to SOMETHING. What IS NOT cannot give rise to WHAT IS.

 

[Robin]

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events:

the discovery of the empty tomb by women,

That is not quite true, is it?

In Matthew they discover the tomb sealed and guarded. Then there is an earthquake and an angel descends and rolls away the stone and the guards collapse in a faint.

That is a pretty major discrepancy.

 

[DOC]

Hello! (Hello!)



Is this the annual outing of this discredited nonsense which you posted before in 2008 and 2009? In fact, it's coming up to the second anniversary of when you first trotted it out.

Where were you when a fellow skeptic trotted out slavery (actually servants) 40 or 50 times?

And in which post was my post discredited?

 

[DOC]

Thanks for calling my attention to this. Repeating the same posts raises a red flag for me.

Where were you when a fellow skeptic repeated the same slavery theme (actually servants) 40 or 50 times?

 

[Akhenaten]

Where were you when a fellow skeptic trotted out slavery (actually servants) 40 or 50 times?

We were all right here DOC, watching you flounder about playing exactly the same semantic game with the slave/servant thing and ultimately claiming that being beaten was no worse than sunburn.

Comedy gold.

And in which post was my post discredited?

All of them DOC. Every single one.