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

[tsig]

Well there is most likely "some" truth in all religions, but how many other religions do you know has enough evidence to fuel a thread like this one.

DOC, look here.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/index.php

 

[tsig]

There is a difference between faith and blind faith. Yes, you do need faith to believe in Christianity just like you need faith to believe 10 billion trillion stars came from something smaller than an atom.

Also 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT) says this:

"Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it."

As I understand your explanation, if I acknowledge Jesus as my savior, believe in the Resurrection and hold the Bible above all books, I'm going to heaven.

Are these the three pillars of true Christian faith or have I missed something in your explanation?

 

[tsig]

That's interesting... After all, stoning figures quite heavily as a plot devide in the whole sequence of Jesus and the adulteress (as related in John 7:53-8:11). If stoning had been abolished at the time, this story makes no sense...
That would suggest a made up story by somebody with only a passing imperfect understanding of the legal climate of the time...

Well, guess what, looking into it deeper, it would seem that the story was not included in the original manuscripts. And that the scholarly majority view for Jesus and the woman taken in adultery^WP is that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."

So, another cool example of the New Testament not telling the truth. Thanks for pointing that to me...

From the link:

John 7:53 to John 8:11 describes the story of Jesus and the adulteress. It appears to be a forgery that was not part of the Book of John as it was originally written, but was added later by an unknown person:

I wonder why they call it a forgery since the whole gospel was written by an unknown person.

Trying to carve Truth out of an old text written by unknown persons in another language seems like an exercise in futility.

 

[Toke]

My experience is different. Primarily, believers claim there is evidence for their faith being correct when they speak with other believers but claim that faith requires no evidence when speaking to non-believers. The largest exception is when leading believers speak to non-believers but for the benefit of listening believers; in that instance they also claim evidence but realize it is not to the standards of the non-believers. The recent Dembski/Hitchens debate is a perfect example. Dembski isn't stupid; he knows his responses were vacuous from a rational POV, but Hitchens and listening atheists weren't his target.

Then there are threads such as this one when the believer attempts to claim evidence when speaking to atheists, but even here I think there are extraordinary factors that explain its extreme rarity.

I see, perhaps I should have written my personal experience.
As a non-believer with next to no believers around that does match your description.

 

[Simon39759]

Saint Stephen obviously wanted to beat the rush by getting martyred in 34 CE...

Yep; dodgy is right...

It might be that some of the martyrs were actually not Christians and that their story got amalgamated somehow...

I wonder why they call it a forgery since the whole gospel was written by an unknown person.

It was most likely a forgery of a text from an unknown author by an unknown person.
It still is a forgery, the same way than a murder is still a murder even if you can't identify the victim and don't know the identity of the murderer...

Basically, most scholar consider that the Gospel of John has a knife sticking from its body...

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

From the link:
I wonder why they call it a forgery since the whole gospel was written by an unknown person.

Not sure if this question is asked in seriousness or not. If not, apologies for a serious response. I'm aware that serious responses are not really fitting for the nature of this thread...

Basically, the reason that a suspected interpolation would be called a forgery is because it disrupts what might otherwise have been a clear narrative flow. Similarly, the disputed 'Christian' passages in Josephus interrupt a clear narrative flow - they read like an interruption and the narrative reads more coherently if they are removed.

As far as I am aware, there is no serious debate in biblical scholarship about unique compilation/authorship of the gospels. So, one person is generally accepted to have been largely responsible for Mark, another for Luke, another for Matthew and another for John. This can be contrasted with the concept of the Jahwist and Elohist strands of narrative in the OT, which can often be found in the same books but are generally accepted to be separate accounts. Accepting this, it is possible for parts of the books as received to have been added by someone other than the original author and therefore technically a 'forgery'.

Of course, this isn't to say that each book is a unique construct from one person using entirely original material - the synoptic problem clearly gives the lie to this.

Even without knowing the identity of the author of the book which was eventually attributed to John a relatively clear authorial voice can be established - using simple devices such as vocabulary and prominent themes. Some passages can then stick out like sore thumbs because of the absence of a 'Johnian' theme and vocabulary and also because of the way they interrupt what might otherwise be a clear narrative. As such, they are described as forgeries though I don't think it is an enormously helpful word - interpolation seems more proper to me.

Sorry for a boring post to what was probably a frivolous question. I'll end with throwing out a question to those members of the forum who are more knowledgeable than me. Whilst typing the above, I was trying to think of 'obvious' interpolations/forgeries in the NT gospels. The one that immediately sprang to mind was the ending of Mark - I'm fairly satisfied that the current ending is not the original ending. This is based mainly on the evidence of absence - our earliest codices do not have this ending. Also, partly on style - it reads like a rushed summary rather than a natural ending to the gospel.

There are other interpolations like the Adulteress story too. But both of those examples are interesting inasmuch as they seem to be relatively early - they are both accepted as part of the NT text, although sometimes flagged as being possibly controversial. What I can't think of - and I'd love to know if anyone can enlighten me - is any particularly flagrant interpolations that survive but are not represented in the canonical tradition. I'm thinking of interpolations in the vein of some of the more entertaining apocryphal gospels - e.g. the adding of events to support a particular theological concept (perpetual virginity, for instance) or fill a perceived narrative gap. I don't recall ever reading about any, though I am sure that there must be some. Obviously there are differences between the various copies that have survived, but I was thinking of something more substantial than a different rendering of a word or some slightly different phraseology. I'm thinking of the deliberate insertion of a passage into a copy of a gospel. But one that isn't included in the standard current biblical translation.

 

[X]

Not sure if this question is asked in seriousness or not. If not, apologies for a serious response. I'm aware that serious responses are not really fitting for the nature of this thread...

Basically, the reason that a suspected interpolation would be called a forgery is because it disrupts what might otherwise have been a clear narrative flow. Similarly, the disputed 'Christian' passages in Josephus interrupt a clear narrative flow - they read like an interruption and the narrative reads more coherently if they are removed.

As far as I am aware, there is no serious debate in biblical scholarship about unique compilation/authorship of the gospels. So, one person is generally accepted to have been largely responsible for Mark, another for Luke, another for Matthew and another for John. This can be contrasted with the concept of the Jahwist and Elohist strands of narrative in the OT, which can often be found in the same books but are generally accepted to be separate accounts. Accepting this, it is possible for parts of the books as received to have been added by someone other than the original author and therefore technically a 'forgery'.

Of course, this isn't to say that each book is a unique construct from one person using entirely original material - the synoptic problem clearly gives the lie to this.

Even without knowing the identity of the author of the book which was eventually attributed to John a relatively clear authorial voice can be established - using simple devices such as vocabulary and prominent themes. Some passages can then stick out like sore thumbs because of the absence of a 'Johnian' theme and vocabulary and also because of the way they interrupt what might otherwise be a clear narrative. As such, they are described as forgeries though I don't think it is an enormously helpful word - interpolation seems more proper to me.

Sorry for a boring post to what was probably a frivolous question. I'll end with throwing out a question to those members of the forum who are more knowledgeable than me. Whilst typing the above, I was trying to think of 'obvious' interpolations/forgeries in the NT gospels. The one that immediately sprang to mind was the ending of Mark - I'm fairly satisfied that the current ending is not the original ending. This is based mainly on the evidence of absence - our earliest codices do not have this ending. Also, partly on style - it reads like a rushed summary rather than a natural ending to the gospel.

There are other interpolations like the Adulteress story too. But both of those examples are interesting inasmuch as they seem to be relatively early - they are both accepted as part of the NT text, although sometimes flagged as being possibly controversial. What I can't think of - and I'd love to know if anyone can enlighten me - is any particularly flagrant interpolations that survive but are not represented in the canonical tradition. I'm thinking of interpolations in the vein of some of the more entertaining apocryphal gospels - e.g. the adding of events to support a particular theological concept (perpetual virginity, for instance) or fill a perceived narrative gap. I don't recall ever reading about any, though I am sure that there must be some. Obviously there are differences between the various copies that have survived, but I was thinking of something more substantial than a different rendering of a word or some slightly different phraseology. I'm thinking of the deliberate insertion of a passage into a copy of a gospel. But one that isn't included in the standard current biblical translation.

A superb post, but sadly one that will go unread by the one who most needs to read it.
We've been over the authorship of the gospels before.
DOC is quite certain that the authors were the Apostles Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Because his Bible has those names on it. And the moronic apologists he swears by say so (strangely, their reasons are the same as his).

It has been recommended that he read Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.
But DOC merely says that he has read Misquoting Truth, and odious rebuttal by yet another incompetent but vocal apologist by the name of Timothy Jones.

And for DOC, there is only one side worth considering in any debate or argument.

 

[kmortis]

Pizzadeliveryninja,
We actually prefer posts like that. Good intellectual meat we can sink our teeth into and chew on fir a while. We only fall back on the jovial we all we get is junk food. Mental popcorn and Twinkies do not make for serious conversations.

 

[amb]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is sadly lacking on this thread. Specifically by DOC [apologies to the late great Carl Sagan]

 

[Lothian]

Not sure if this question is asked in seriousness or not. If not, apologies for a serious response. I'm aware that serious responses are not really fitting for the nature of this thread...

snip

....I'm thinking of the deliberate insertion of a passage into a copy of a gospel. But one that isn't included in the standard current biblical translation.

On a similar note. I wonder what was taken out. Obviously we have the gospels that didn't quite make the cutand the Apocrypha. What other omissions were taken out from the fables because they didn't tie up?

 

[tsig]

Not sure if this question is asked in seriousness or not. If not, apologies for a serious response. I'm aware that serious responses are not really fitting for the nature of this thread...

Basically, the reason that a suspected interpolation would be called a forgery is because it disrupts what might otherwise have been a clear narrative flow. Similarly, the disputed 'Christian' passages in Josephus interrupt a clear narrative flow - they read like an interruption and the narrative reads more coherently if they are removed.

As far as I am aware, there is no serious debate in biblical scholarship about unique compilation/authorship of the gospels. So, one person is generally accepted to have been largely responsible for Mark, another for Luke, another for Matthew and another for John. This can be contrasted with the concept of the Jahwist and Elohist strands of narrative in the OT, which can often be found in the same books but are generally accepted to be separate accounts. Accepting this, it is possible for parts of the books as received to have been added by someone other than the original author and therefore technically a 'forgery'.

Of course, this isn't to say that each book is a unique construct from one person using entirely original material - the synoptic problem clearly gives the lie to this.

Even without knowing the identity of the author of the book which was eventually attributed to John a relatively clear authorial voice can be established - using simple devices such as vocabulary and prominent themes. Some passages can then stick out like sore thumbs because of the absence of a 'Johnian' theme and vocabulary and also because of the way they interrupt what might otherwise be a clear narrative. As such, they are described as forgeries though I don't think it is an enormously helpful word - interpolation seems more proper to me.

Sorry for a boring post to what was probably a frivolous question. I'll end with throwing out a question to those members of the forum who are more knowledgeable than me. Whilst typing the above, I was trying to think of 'obvious' interpolations/forgeries in the NT gospels. The one that immediately sprang to mind was the ending of Mark - I'm fairly satisfied that the current ending is not the original ending. This is based mainly on the evidence of absence - our earliest codices do not have this ending. Also, partly on style - it reads like a rushed summary rather than a natural ending to the gospel.

There are other interpolations like the Adulteress story too. But both of those examples are interesting inasmuch as they seem to be relatively early - they are both accepted as part of the NT text, although sometimes flagged as being possibly controversial. What I can't think of - and I'd love to know if anyone can enlighten me - is any particularly flagrant interpolations that survive but are not represented in the canonical tradition. I'm thinking of interpolations in the vein of some of the more entertaining apocryphal gospels - e.g. the adding of events to support a particular theological concept (perpetual virginity, for instance) or fill a perceived narrative gap. I don't recall ever reading about any, though I am sure that there must be some. Obviously there are differences between the various copies that have survived, but I was thinking of something more substantial than a different rendering of a word or some slightly different phraseology. I'm thinking of the deliberate insertion of a passage into a copy of a gospel. But one that isn't included in the standard current biblical translation.

Thanks for the interesting reply. It was rather a throw away question but the underlying point is when do we start calling additions or forgeries since to the Jews the whole NT is a forgery and an addition to the text.

 

[Craig4]

There is a difference between faith and blind faith. Yes, you do need faith to believe in Christianity just like you need faith to believe 10 billion trillion stars came from something smaller than an atom.

Also 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT) says this:

"Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it."

How is it coming on providing evidence the Laws of Thermodynamics can be or have been suspended allowing for the multiplying of the loaves and fishes? I will further clarify that I mean the multiplying of dried or salted fishes incapable of breeding due to their deadness.

 

[zooterkin]

How is it coming on providing evidence the Laws of Thermodynamics can be or have been suspended allowing for the multiplying of the loaves and fishes? I will further clarify that I mean the multiplying of dried or salted fishes incapable of breeding due to their deadness.

If that is too hard, perhaps DOC could start by showing where in the bible it says that Christians should worship on Sunday rather than the Jewish Sabbath?

 

[Lothian]

If that is too hard, perhaps DOC could start by showing where in the bible it says that Christians should worship on Sunday rather than the Jewish Sabbath?

You need to realise that the bible was written for primitive goat herders so was addressing their issues in a language they could understand.

If Jesus was here today he would express things differently and have different rules but what would the ignorant ancients made of that?

1.1 And Lo Jesus got on twitter and tweeted.
1.2 Look I know it is bind, but we need to squeeze in the communal praying malarkey sometime.
1.3 It is so much easier to make you feel guilty and fill the collection plate if you are there in person. Newsletter appeals don’t hack it.
1.4 The weekend is going to be best.
1.5 Saturday morning you will need to go shopping for the weekend; in the afternoon there is the football. Saturday night you will probably be getting rat-arsed.
1.6 Sunday afternoons you have all the sprogs parties. Sunday night it is ‘Come Dine With Me’ and getting things ready for Monday.
1.7 Sunday morning looks best. Face it you will probably be hung over and wouldn’t do anything anyway.
1.8 At least it will get you out of the house and into the fresh air.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks for the interesting reply. It was rather a throw away question but the underlying point is when do we start calling additions or forgeries since to the Jews the whole NT is a forgery and an addition to the text.

OK, so Jews don't believe in the NT, most Christians don't believe in the book of Mormon, and none of them believe in the Koran. Can someone do a venn diagram which shows the truthiness of the Old Testament?

Just to get DOC thinking, here's another one I found here - http://snarla.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/venn-diagram-al-qaeda-islam-muslims.jpg

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

On a similar note. I wonder what was taken out. Obviously we have the gospels that didn't quite make the cutand the Apocrypha. What other omissions were taken out from the fables because they didn't tie up?

The obvious response would be the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark. I'm relatively ambivalent about its authenticity and don't really think it can be proved either way. However, in terms of your question I think it doesn't really matter as it is pretty much what we might expect to be omitted were it original.

However, here I tend to almost agree with the asinine Geisler. There's sufficient embarrassing material within the NT -especially the gospels - to make it a reasonable assumption that redaction in that direction perhaps did not happen so much.

In the first instance, although the formation of the canon was a fourth century occurrence it was basically building on the popular tradition of the churches. It wasn't exactly an X-Factor style vote-off but equally it wasn't far off - the most popular and therefore most accepted texts were the ones which made the cut. And whatever the merits of the 4 canonical gospels, I think it is difficult to argue that any of the non-canonical ones are 'closer' to the original tradition/truth than the 4 - or, rather, the 4 they picked were the best they had.

Given that - e.g. a relatively widespread use and popularity of the canonical 4 gospels - I think that the idea of deliberate omissions is something we would never be able to truly have any idea about. If you assume - as the early Christian church did and some later Christian fools do - that the gospels were written by the people whose names were eventually appended to them then altering by either addition or omission becomes a very difficult act for a christian.

As far as we can see, this might have happened - the obvious example being the end of Mark. But even that appears to be a case of "this doesn't quite end properly, let's end it in an 'orthodox' manner and do it quickly". The brevity of the end I think (and this is my interpretation, rather than any scholarly opinion) suggests a degree of tentativeness to the conclusion, as though the writer was aware that something was missing but wasn't willing to thoroughly pretend to be the author and extend things out for a chapter. I'd suggest that this isn't an example of deliberate alteration in the sense of trying amend something that the author said which wasn't comfortable for later generations, but rather an honest (by C1-3 standards) attempt to fill in what Mark should have said. The success of it is attested by the fact that it wasn't until the mid C19 that the ending of Mark was seriously questioned. And even then, it was only the discovery of Codex Vaticanus which prompted it.

Long diversion, I'm aware, but the point of it is that what is clearly an interpolation to everyone except idiots and DOC was actually unsuspected and unspotted for centuries. It made it into the canon and was then reproduced endlessly. Without suspicion.

This is why one of the most accepted scholarly explanations is that the original manuscript of Mark was in some way damaged and lost the ending. Because the change was so quick and so widely accepted - we have nothing to suggest that there were competing versions of Mark when the canon was discussed - it may well have been made at first generation of manuscript.

With that in mind, I think it is probably quite unlikely that there were significant omissions to the now canonical gospels between them being written and being accepted as canon. And just to clarify, I focus on canon precisely because once something is canonical significantly differing versions become problematic. But again, I don't think that there is anything in the sources to suggest that there were debates about verses omitted in the accepted gospel in certain areas but there in others. As far as I recall, it was assumed that the gospel of Luke in Caesaria was the same as the gospel of Luke in Antioch.

This is hardly surprising - the canonical gospels were relatively quickly accepted amongst the early christian communuties. There was therefore only a short space of time where they were editable - once everyone was using them, across the community any alterations had the potential to be visible. And again, there was a standing disincentive because the entire point of the texts was that they were accepted as being from apostolic hands - who would have the temerity to change them?

So my supposition (DOC note that word, you might find it useful) would be that there probably was not much omission from the canonical texts after a certain period. What went on before then is entirely lost. We simply have no knowledge of how these texts were transmitted and when.

 

[amb]

The canonical gospels are full of supernatural events which could not have happened. The laws of nature as far as we know, have never been broken throughout the history of this universe. A dead man cannot be brought back to life if he is truly dead, or walk on water, or the many other examples of bending the laws of physics.
For those reasons, the gospels cannot be used to prove any historical fact written in them.

 

[Rincewind]

The canonical gospels are full of supernatural events which could not have happened. The laws of nature as far as we know, have never been broken throughout the history of this universe. A dead man cannot be brought back to life if he is truly dead, or walk on water, or the many other examples of bending the laws of physics.
For those reasons, the gospels cannot be used to prove any historical fact written in them.

Now c'mon - you're just using facts and common sense here.

Clearly, you can use facts to prove anything!

 

[X]

Now c'mon - you're just using facts and common sense here.

Clearly, you can use facts to prove anything!

But if he repeats it 50 times, his repetitions become evidence of what he says.

 

[John Jones]

Now c'mon - you're just using facts and common sense here.

Clearly, you can use facts to prove anything!

IIRC, It goes something like this:

Facts? You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!