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

[Elizabeth I]

Actually I didn't from my first post on this issue. The latest post on this issue I only included many relatively unknown people. If you want to include the false Egyptian prophet to that list, fine. And for the record the false Egyptian prophet was also mentioned by Josephus according to Geisler's book.

Way to miss the point.

...don't you think it is possible that the famous Jesus, who had thousands of people attend his preaching, might of had someone...

[highlighting mine] I have tried and tried and I can't stand it any more.

It's "might have had". "Might have," NOT "might of."

 

[carlitos]

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.

My God. DOC, every sentence, nay, every phrase and clause of this is rubbish. "Might of?" For ****'s sake. "Owner of the tomb?" What *********** tomb?

No dead guy
No tomb
No resurrection

 

[Arthur Mann]

Wow, this is one huge thread.




What...




that's it, sorry

 

[Rincewind]

So - let me recapitulate:

An empty tomb was found - in a region where there must have been thousands of tombs since the founding of Jerusalem - therefore it MUST be the tomb of Jesus?

DOC - help me here - what is this based on, other than an extremely wild and hugely exaggerated leap of faith?

 

[Sideroxylon]

[highlighting mine] I have tried and tried and I can't stand it any more.

It's "might have had". "Might have," NOT "might of."

I think he should of got it this time.

 

[zooterkin]

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

I wouldn't hold your breath (I'm sure you're not), he didn't answer a similar question before. He'll happily quote his favourite apologists' assertions, but won't examine them when challenged.

Since it sees we're recycling old posts, here's one of mine

DOC quote:

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



It isn't false:

From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"

Article 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.

And I suppose you have evidence showing how this conclusion was reached? Otherwise, you're just committing the fallacy of argument from authority.

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."

If Jesus existed, and if he was crucified, and if he was buried, then this is a likely spot.

Remind me how this is evidence for how we know the New Testament is true?

So in your opinion most historians and archaeologists saying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ is completely irrelevant as evidence that the NT writers are telling the truth? That simply doesn't make sense, for it shows most historians believe Christ existed and most historians believe his tomb is empty and most historians believe he died in Jerusalem. That supports that the NT writers were telling the truth.

Where's your evidence that 'most historians' actually believe that?

 

[DOC]

DOC, if the babble is 'the inerrant word of your particular flavour of god, why are there two different versions of the genesis myth? Don't be coy and insist that there aren't differences, that would just be dishonest. In order to preserve your integrity, I will indicate the differences below:


First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. AND

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


So come on DOC, why are there such obvious differences and which should we believe and why?

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

 

[Lothian]

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

Yet another no information post.

It is on topic.

This thread is about whether the NT authors told the truth. The NT authors reported Jesus promoting the OT. If the OT is shown to be wrong or contradictory then either the NT authors are clearly wrong and do not tell the truth or the Jesus character is wrong. Take your pick.

Read this article by Roger R. Nicole long been regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America. He was an associate editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and assisted in the translation of the New International Version of the Bible. He was a founding member of both the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the Evangelical Theological Society, of which he is a past president. He holds a M.A. from Sorbonne, an S.T.M. and Th.D. from Gordon Divinity School, a Ph.D. from Harvard University, and a D.D. from Wheaton College. He is Emeritus Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida. He also is professor emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

In particular read the section titled AUTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES which concludes

At the very threshold of his public ministry, our Lord, in his dramatic victory over Satan’s threefold onslaught, rested his whole defense on the authority of three passages of Scripture. He quoted the Old Testament in support of his teaching to the crowds; he quoted it in his discussions with antagonistic Jews; he quoted it in answer to questions both captious and sincere; he quoted it in instructing the disciples who would have readily accepted his teaching on his own authority; he referred to it in his prayers, when alone in the presence of the Father; he quoted it on the cross, when his sufferings could easily have drawn his attention elsewhere; he quoted it in his resurrection glory, when any limitation, real or alleged, of the days of his flesh was clearly superseded. Whatever may be the differences between the pictures of Jesus drawn by the four Gospels, they certainly agree in their representation of our Lord’s attitude toward the Old Testament: one of constant use and of unquestioning endorsement of its authority.

 

[Lothian]

It is vey telling that Doc quotes a post from 4 pages ago rather than address the questions asked on this page.

So, was there a guard outside the tomb, like in Matthew, or was there no guard, like in Mark, John and 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:
You have repeatedly refused to answer this question.
Do I presume that you admit to fabricating this point and have no supporting evidence?

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

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

So - let me recapitulate:

An empty tomb was found - in a region where there must have been thousands of tombs since the founding of Jerusalem - therefore it MUST be the tomb of Jesus?

DOC - help me here - what is this based on, other than an extremely wild and hugely exaggerated leap of faith?

 

[Yithmas]

Spidey meets Barack Obama--issue#583:
[qimg]http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/8/e0/4be831ed12a27.jpg[/qimg]

Ted Koppel--Xmen Unlimited Vol1 #2:
[qimg]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070922153003/marveldatabase/images/3/31/Ted_Koppel.jpg[/qimg]

Geraldo Rivera--Xmen #99:
[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tW3g8zCM6c0/Syxil44RmrI/AAAAAAAAAfA/puneGTFfrbw/s320/xmen99+geraldo.jpg[/qimg]

Stephen Colbert and Spidey--issue #573:
[qimg]http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/6/a0/4be82809b182f.jpg[/qimg]

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

Excellent!

 

[DOC]

Yet another no information post.

It is on topic.

This thread is about whether the NT authors told the truth. The NT authors reported Jesus promoting the OT. If the OT is shown to be wrong or contradictory then either the NT authors are clearly wrong and do not tell the truth or the Jesus character is wrong. Take your pick.

As I said before Jesus gave new revelation on things like divorce and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth that was different from the OT. Jesus says regarding divorce this was because of the hardness of the people's hearts at that time. If the OT had perfect knowledge Jesus never would have needed to come, and his death on the cross was a waste of time.

I need a moderator to say it is OK to answer the question about Genesis.

 

[DOC]

It is vey telling that Doc quotes a post from 4 pages ago rather than address the questions asked on this page.

What is it telling?

 

[amb]

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.

One word DOC.................Paul!

 

[Lothian]

As I said before Jesus gave new revelation on things like divorce and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth that was different from the OT. Jesus says regarding divorce this was because of the hardness of the people's hearts at that time. If the OT had perfect knowledge Jesus never would have needed to come, and his death on the cross was a waste of time.

Why is Roger Nicole wrong?

 

[Lothian]

What is it telling?

It is telling me that you can't answer the questions you are ignoring.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I need a moderator to say it is OK to answer the question about Genesis.

What a lame (and rather dishonest) excuse for not wanting to answer.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

As I said before Jesus gave new revelation on things like divorce and an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth that was different from the OT. Jesus says regarding divorce this was because of the hardness of the people's hearts at that time. If the OT had perfect knowledge Jesus never would have needed to come, and his death on the cross was a waste of time.

I need a moderator to say it is OK to answer the question about Genesis.

Did you report those "off topic" posts and ask a moderator if it is okay to reply? As you have been told frequently, the moderators don't have time to crawl the forum looking for stuff to moderate, so unless you report posts you find objectionable, it is likely they will be overlooked.

I would think it likely, however, that if you do report these posts, this thread will either be set to "moderated" status or closed outright, so think about it before proceeding.

And, of course, if you continue to use this "If my mommy says it's okay, I can play wif you" excuse we will know what to think. At least I will.

 

[Lothian]

Did you report those "off topic" posts and ask a moderator if it is okay to reply? As you have been told frequently, the moderators don't have time to crawl the forum looking for stuff to moderate, so unless you report posts you find objectionable, it is likely they will be overlooked.

I would think it likely, however, that if you do report these posts, this thread will either be set to "moderated" status or closed outright, so think about it before proceeding.

If Doc would prefer, I am more than happy to start a new thread on the topic. Just let me know.......

 

[welshdean]

Well this OT post is off topic. I'll tell you what, if a moderator says it is OK to respond, I'll respond to this within 10 days.

10 days, 10 freaking days! What's with the 10 days all the time? While your researching that DOC, have a look for an answer to this;
If the NT writers did tell the truth how can there be contradictory accounts about the resurrection? Bear in mind that xtianity is fundamentally dependant on the resurrection, yet they can't agree on who was the first to clap eyes on jeebus:

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.


Nor do they agree on where he went first after rising from the dead:

Was it 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.

Or was it 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.

So come on DOC, did the NT writers tell the truth, yes or no? If you answer yes then the NT itself disagrees with you. If you answer no then this thread is a waste of 1's and 0's.

 

[Mojo]

If the OT had perfect knowledge Jesus never would have needed to come, and his death on the cross was a waste of time.

Why would the OT not be perfect if, as is claimed, it is the word of God?