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

[carlitos]

stolen body theory

So, was there a guard outside the tomb, like in Matthew, or was there no guard, like in Mark, John and Luke?

ETA - Never mind. The idea that the romans would waste manpower guarding a dead crucified Jew, let alone the idea that he would have had a tomb in the first place, is ridiculous.

 

[DOC]

So, was there a guard outside the tomb, like in Matthew, or was there no guard, like in Mark, John and Luke?

ETA - Never mind. The idea that the romans would waste manpower guarding a dead crucified Jew, let alone the idea that he would have had a tomb in the first place, is ridiculous.

So then you believe the apostles risked their lives preaching for something they knew was false.

 

[carlitos]

DOC, any time you start a post with "so then you believe," it really raises a red flag. You lose credibility when you misstate others' beliefs.

 

[DOC]

DOC, any time you start a post with "so then you believe," it really raises a red flag. You lose credibility when you misstate others' beliefs.

You imply the body was stolen when you talk of no guards, so then you either must believe the apostles stole the body and then preached for something they knew was a lie or you believe someone else stole the body and the story that Jesus appeared to all 12 apostles was made up. But then one has to wonder who spread Christianity if it wasn't the apostles.

 

[Fiona]

You imply the body was stolen when you talk of no guards,

Er...no

so then you either must believe the apostles stole the body and then preached for something they knew was a lie or you believe someone else stole the body and the story that Jesus appeared to all 12 apostles was made up. But then one has to wonder who spread Christianity if it wasn't the apostles.

Er...no


DOC this habit of yours is really annoying. Gonnae no do that ?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

So then you already knew that relatively unknown people like

Annas, Aretas, Bernice (wife of Agrippa II), Drusilla wife of Felix, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel Archilaus, Herodias’s Daughter Salome, Lysanias, Porcius, Festus, and Sergius Paulos,

are all included in the NT and they are all mentioned by non-Christian sources also (as was shown in post 16856).

Because of historical evidence like this, the NT doesn't sound like a legend to me, it sounds like stone cold history.

Spidey meets Barack Obama--issue#583:

Ted Koppel--Xmen Unlimited Vol1 #2:

Geraldo Rivera--Xmen #99:

Stephen Colbert and Spidey--issue #573:

When archaeologists dig these up 2000 years from now, they will be proof positive that Spiderman and the Xmen were "stone cold history."

And even better than the NT, they will have ACTUAL IMAGES from contemporaneous eyewitnesses.

GB

 

[Lothian]

But I assume you believe if God exists miracles are possible.

I assume that in a thread about evidence I can ignore all sentences containing the word 'if'

Sure, the empty tomb of a famous person who was followed by thousands of people, and a body of that famous person that has not been found in 2000 years. The empty tomb and a body of a famous person that has not been found in 2000 years is not proof of a resurrection but it is certainly some evidence for a resurrection.

I agree is not proof, but neither do I accept it is evidence for a resurrection. What evidence do you have that the NT authors told the truth about him being taken to a tomb? He could have been thrown in a pit with other criminals and the whole resurrection story made up for all we know.

And we have historical evidence for an empty tomb. A person that has been called a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events has reported Christ existed, preached to multitudes, was crucified, and his tomb was empty.

Luke is an NT author. Quoting Luke as evidence of the NT is circular reasoning. Also the resurrection is supernatural so Ramsay said Luke can not be trusted in this regard.

And Geisler's book reports around 75% of scholars (liberal to conservative) believe the tomb was empty.

They can believe what they want. That is exactly what Ramsay said. Have your faith because there is no evidence for the supernatural resurrection.

Also, gospel writer Matthew reports that the story by the Jews that the body was stolen "has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day". (Matt. 28: 11-15)

Circular reasoning.

Here is what the book cited in post #1 says (on page 283) about this verse.

"That means Matthew's readers (and certainly the Jews themselves) would know whether or not he (Matthew) was telling the truth. If Matthew were making up the empty tomb story, why would he give his readers such an easy way to expose his lies? The only plausible explanation is that the tomb must really have been empty, and the Jewish enemies of Christianitiy must really have been circulating that specific explanation for the empty tomb."

Rubbish. If he never went in a tomb or went in and was taken out, or there never was a tomb, how would anyone know 70 years later when Matthew was written? But as I said earlier sentenses starting with 'If' are not evidence. This assumes everything in Matthew is true then makes an argument from incredulity. This is not evidence.

But there are problems with the stolen body theory.

1) as Geisler points out, how would the sleeping Roman guards know the body was stolen.

Other problems with that theory are pointed out in this link along with other evidence for the resurrection.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Correct, there are big problems like there is no evidence he was ever put in a tomb to be stolen from.

 

[Simon39759]

Indeed, Spiderman references and even meet many historical characters and often correctly state their title. They also correctly identify many real places such as the Brooklyn Bridge and Empire State University and cultural practices.
We also have many more issues of the comics than the Gospels.
We also have clear direct references to these characters by independent contemporary observers (remember, Christianity has to rely on the falsified Josephus or accounts written decades after the facts).


Marvel comics is therefore actually a significantly more credible source than the NT testament...

 

[joobz]

Also, gospel writer Matthew reports that the story by the Jews that the body was stolen "has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day". (Matt. 28: 11-15)

You know what's another story that the Jews circulate to this very day?
....
....
....
The Holocaust.





Why is it whenever I read DOC's post, I get the sense that "the Jews" should be read with an audible emphasis?

 

[DOC]

...The idea that the romans would waste manpower guarding a dead crucified Jew, let alone the idea that he would have had a tomb in the first place, is ridiculous.

So if Roman historian Tacitus is correct when he wrote Jesus received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate one would have to assume the reason Jesus received that ultimate penalty was likely because the Jewish leaders complained to Pilate. If the Jewish leaders had enough influence with Pilate to kill a man Pilate thought innocent, it is not irrational to believe those leaders had enough pull to get a guard at the tomb.

And regarding the tomb, don't you think it is possible that the famous Jesus, who had thousands of people attend his preaching, might of had someone who was wealthy who was a follower and had compassion on him and gave him a tomb. And as Geisler points out, making the owner of the tomb a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the people who helped get Christ crucified) is not something that a Christian writer would have made up -- translation: it was not likely made up.

 

[catsmate]

Sure, the empty tomb of a famous person

Your have failed to provide any proof that
(a) the tomb mentioned actually existed
(b) the tomb was empty of a body
(c) that some supernatural agency was responsible for the removal of the body.

who was followed by thousands of people, and a body of that famous person that has not been found in 2000 years.

Utterly irrelevant, by this "logic" the bodies of everyone alive 2000 years ago should still exist.

The empty tomb and a body of a famous person that has not been found in 2000 years is not proof of a resurrection but it is certainly some evidence for a resurrection.

No it is not. Firstly you'd need to show that "resurrection" is possible, something your (and all the other god botherers) have failed to do.

And we have historical evidence for an empty tomb.

No, actually you don't.

A person that has been called a great historian (Luke)

Ah yes, "Luke". DOC, I asked you seventy days ago to either support or retract your statement, made by you in post 15661 of this thread that:

........Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

You have repeatedly refused to answer this question.
Do I presume that you admit to fabricating this point and have no supporting evidence?

And Geisler's book reports around 75% of scholars (liberal to conservative) believe the tomb was empty.

Utterly irrelevant. Unless this "scholars" can show some evidence for their opinion of course..
I won't bother asking you to justify this 75% figure as you're merely parroting Geisler.

Also, gospel writer Matthew reports that the story by the Jews that the body was stolen "has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day". (Matt. 28: 11-15)

Another xian propagandising for his cult. I assume if your believe "Mark" you've no problem with Joseph Smith and the golden plates? At least we've proof Smith actually existed.

"That means Matthew's readers (and certainly the Jews themselves) would know whether or not he (Matthew) was telling the truth.

Why?

If Matthew were making up the empty tomb story, why would he give his readers such an easy way to expose his lies?

How could anyone disprove his story? It'd be easy for the followers of Jesua to fake the empty tomb and fabricate stories to support it. Perhaps that's why the gospels contradict each other some much?

The only plausible explanation is that the tomb must really have been empty,

Nope. Here's a far more likely story (assuming the tomb actually existed and the dead rebel's body was placed therein). His despairing disciples, used to the influence that they'd gotten from being close of the current messiah claimant, entered the tomb and removed the body to enhance the legend.

as Geisler points out, how would the sleeping Roman guards know the body was stolen.

You have some evidence these guards existed? Why would the Romans bother to guard the tomb, assuming they'd allowed it's interment in the first place.

Other problems with that theory are pointed out in this link along with other evidence for the resurrection.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

You do know that there's not one scrap of evidence presented on that page to support this resurrection nonsense don't you?

 

[joobz]

So if Roman historian Tacitus is correct when he wrote Jesus received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate one would have to assume the reason Jesus received that ultimate penalty was likely because the Jewish leaders complained to Pilate.

Or, we can assume he was advocating against Roman Authority.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Well interestingly enough, the "laws" of physics do break down under certain circumstances such as in the center of a Black Hole.

Citing "black hole" as evidence that the laws of physics break down is specious, as "black hole" is utterly imaginary with no empirical referent.

However, unless DOC is positing that we live in the center of a black hole or before the Big Bang, or a parallel universe with a different set of physical laws, his hypothesis is entirely out to lunch.

Appeals to "big bang" are also fallacious, it's equally hypothetical, a story invented by a belgian priest who feared the onslaught of science against superstition, so he concocted a "let there be light" scenario that's impossible to falsify.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Citing "black hole" as evidence that the laws of physics break down is specious, as "black hole" is utterly imaginary with no empirical referent.



Appeals to "big bang" are also fallacious, it's equally hypothetical, a story invented by a belgian priest who feared the onslaught of science against superstition, so he concocted a "let there be light" scenario that's impossible to falsify.

I haven't noticed you on this thread before. Do you believe (as DOC does) that the NT authors were telling the truth (miracles, resurrection and all)?

Or are you just going to spout nonsensical pseudo-science?

GB

 

[Simon39759]

So if Roman historian Tacitus is correct when he wrote Jesus received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate one would have to assume the reason Jesus received that ultimate penalty was likely because the Jewish leaders complained to Pilate. If the Jewish leaders had enough influence with Pilate to kill a man Pilate thought innocent, it is not irrational to believe those leaders had enough pull to get a guard at the tomb.

And regarding the tomb, don't you think it is possible that the famous Jesus, who had thousands of people attend his preaching, might of had someone who was wealthy who was a follower and had compassion on him and gave him a tomb. And as Geisler points out, making the owner of the tomb a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the people who helped get Christ crucified) is not something that a Christian writer would have made up -- translation: it was not likely made up.

A cursory look currently finds 126,000 contemporary academic works referencing spider-man.

And these are contemporary. Clearly, Spider-Man is a few thousand time more credible that your Jesus guy...

 

[John Jones]

[...]

Sure, the empty tomb of a famous person who was followed by thousands of people, and a body of that famous person that has not been found in 2000 years. The empty tomb and a body of a famous person that has not been found in 2000 years is not proof of a resurrection but it is certainly some evidence for a resurrection.

[...]

A more likely explanation is that the body was removed from the tomb, or never was there in the first place. These are prosaic explanations that don't require reliance on miracles.

Elvis Presley's tomb is empty. His body was moved to Graceland after some people tried to steal it and hold it for ransom.



http://oldies.about.com/od/elvisdeathfaq/f/elvisgrave.htm

The crypt that Elvis was interred in at Forest Hill is empty now, preserved for tourists, ...

Give it a few hundred years and see how this Elvis thing turns into a religion.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

A more likely explanation is that the body was removed from the tomb, or never was there in the first place. These are prosaic explanations that don't require reliance on miracles.

Elvis Presley's tomb is empty. His body was moved to Graceland after some people tried to steal it and hold it for ransom.



http://oldies.about.com/od/elvisdeathfaq/f/elvisgrave.htm



Give it a few hundred years and see how this Elvis thing turns into a religion.

No need to wait a few hundred years, Elvisism is already a religion.

http://www.uncoveror.com/elvites.htm

...“I was one of the original twelve who witnessed the vision of Elvis. On the first anniversary of The King’s passing, we gathered together at Graceland. We were the first, and last, tour group ever to be allowed upstairs. As we shared our stories of how he remembered him, we began to weep. A woman named Jessica exclaimed ‘Elvis! If only you were here with us, we could’…” He explained that before she could finish, a strong wind blew into the room, a haze formed in front of them that brightened to a blinding light, then The King appeared before them."...

GB

 

[John Jones]

No need to wait a few hundred years, Elvisism is already a religion.

http://www.uncoveror.com/elvites.htm



GB

You're right about that. There have been published Elvis sightings at least as recently as 1989. I try to avoid that nonsense any more, even though I was born and raised in Memphis, where Elvis lived and was loved.

 

[Hokulele]

...And Geisler's book reports around 75% of scholars (liberal to conservative) believe the tomb was empty.

Do you have any citations from these scholars to support Geisler's assertion?

 

[wollery]

So if Roman historian Tacitus is correct when he wrote Jesus received the ultimate punishment from Pontius Pilate one would have to assume the reason Jesus received that ultimate penalty was likely because the Jewish leaders complained to Pilate. If the Jewish leaders had enough influence with Pilate to kill a man Pilate thought innocent, it is not irrational to believe those leaders had enough pull to get a guard at the tomb.

And regarding the tomb, don't you think it is possible that the famous Jesus, who had thousands of people attend his preaching, might of had someone who was wealthy who was a follower and had compassion on him and gave him a tomb. And as Geisler points out, making the owner of the tomb a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (the people who helped get Christ crucified) is not something that a Christian writer would have made up -- translation: it was not likely made up.

DOC, do you have any evidence that Jesus "had thousands of people attend his preaching"?