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

[zooterkin]

Thanks Lothian - I just read it, and its nice to be missed, but I don't really think despite kmortis kind words I have ever contributed much of use to the thread! I get involved every so often, drawn back - "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave". Welcome to the Aberhaten Traingle?

Although the Pharaoh himself has been silent of late.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

This discussion of the identity of the author of Matthew makes me think of something that is perhaps pertinent to the title of the thread.

Both Petrine epistles in the NT explicitly claim to be by the apostle Peter. The apostolic authorship of the second was questioned in antiquity and the first has been challenged more recently. It is generally thought by most scholars that neither epistle was written by the apostle Peter and most probably were written by totally separate authors.

If 2nd Peter is not by the apostle, yet claims to be, would that not be evidence that a New Testament author did not tell the truth?

 

[carlitos]

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

So your thinking is if 4 people write an article about the life of B. Obama and one writer says his father was a Muslim and 3 writers don't mention what his father's religion is then the evidence is his father was not a Muslim.

DOC, for your own sake, don't ever again start a post with "So," and try to re-frame someone's argument. You are really bad at this. It's actually dishonest (a sin).

1 - The bizarre Obama / Muslim non-sequiturs make me wonder just what the hell you are thinking about. What?

2 - The question is pretty simple. Circle one option:

Guard

No guard

 

[Cactus Wren]

....spot on....
amazing...over 16,000 posts and only one poster believes that doc is not deceitful.

Maybe I should have phrased that as, "DOC hasn't succeeded in deceiving anyone".

 

[Cactus Wren]

I nominated Cactus Wren for the following pithtastic post:

(bows)

 

[Rincewind]

Thanks Lothian - I just read it, and its nice to be missed, but I don't really think despite kmortis kind words I have ever contributed much of use to the thread! I get involved every so often, drawn back - "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave". Welcome to the Aberhaten Traingle?

cj x

Ah - Hotel Aberhaten...

Right in the centre of the Triangle IIRC.

 

[Simon39759]

Actually Oral tradition evidence in that era of no paper and little literacy is not rumor, it was actually quite an important way of transferring historical information.

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

Arguably, there have been some pretty reliable oral transmission.

For example, the Celtic bardic tradition.
Then again, the young bards spend their formative years lying down in the dark (so that not to be distracted) repeating the stories until they knew them perfectly.

The Torah, was, partly transmitted orally for a few centuries, then again, the students spend many years studying under the guidance of a master. And, then again, the transmission of the Torah was not particularly accurate.


In other words, you can have a reasonably accurate oral transmission, but it takes A LOT of dedicated efforts.

We have no reference to such effort being made in the Christian communities, in fact, the communities would have been too small to afford such drastic efforts that implies have several people doing nothing but learning the tradition.
Christian writings have no indication of the techniques generally associated with helping memorizing a text, such as repetition or patterns and the variety within the various Christian myths, present as early as we can see, prove that there was not one well structured shared mythology...

I am quite familiar with your dishonesty at this point and that, for you, absence of 100% proof that something did not happen means it happened, but, the facts remain, while there are reliable oral traditions and while they do, indeed, differ from rumors, the Christian tradition firmly has its root in the later.

 

[zooterkin]

Arguably, there have been some pretty reliable oral transmission.

For example, the Celtic bardic tradition.
Then again, the young bards spend their formative years lying down in the dark (so that not to be distracted) repeating the stories until they knew them perfectly.

Weren't the stories also in a form that lent itself to be memorised, (as indeed you mention later) by that stage? Which means that memorability might have taken precedence over accuracy, at least in the early days of the stories. How are you judging how accurately the stories were handed on?

 

[joobz]

Arguably, there have been some pretty reliable oral transmission.

For example, the Celtic bardic tradition.
Then again, the young bards spend their formative years lying down in the dark (so that not to be distracted) repeating the stories until they knew them perfectly.

The Torah, was, partly transmitted orally for a few centuries, then again, the students spend many years studying under the guidance of a master. And, then again, the transmission of the Torah was not particularly accurate.


In other words, you can have a reasonably accurate oral transmission, but it takes A LOT of dedicated efforts.

We have no reference to such effort being made in the Christian communities, in fact, the communities would have been too small to afford such drastic efforts that implies have several people doing nothing but learning the tradition.
Christian writings have no indication of the techniques generally associated with helping memorizing a text, such as repetition or patterns and the variety within the various Christian myths, present as early as we can see, prove that there was not one well structured shared mythology...

I am quite familiar with your dishonesty at this point and that, for you, absence of 100% proof that something did not happen means it happened, but, the facts remain, while there are reliable oral traditions and while they do, indeed, differ from rumors, the Christian tradition firmly has its root in the later.

And lets not forget the fact that the early Christian faith was HIGHLY fractured and varying. Not something that would arise from an oral tradition that was rigorously exact.

 

[Waterman]

So your thinking is if 4 people write an article about the life of B. Obama and one writer says his father was a Muslim and 3 writers don't mention what his father's religion is then the evidence is his father was not a Muslim.

Irrelevant to the points you are attempting to make below.

And actually it makes sense that the Jewish tax collector eyewitness Matthew whose main theme of his gospel was that Christ was the Jewish Messiah would be the one most likely to mention the guards because

The bolded phrase positively identifies the entire argument below as speculation is thus not equal to evidence.

1) he was a tax collector who most likely dealt with the Romans to give them the money he collected in taxes. Thus he would be the writer who had the most contacts with the Romans and thus would be most likely the one to get the most information about their activities.

The bolded phrase identifies this as speculation and thus does not equal evidence

2) being an apostle, he lived in Jerusalem whereas we don't really know where Mark and Luke lived during Christ's death. Thus he is more likely (along with the very young John) to know what was happening in Jerusalem with any guards around the tomb.

First part, special pleading the only support for being in Jerusalem provided was he was an apostle. But isn’t Mark and apostle too? By saying that we aren’t sure where Mark and Luke were at the time that means that you are unsure if they were witnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection? So anything that they wrote about it must be considered is hearsay. Therefore it would not count as evidence.

Second part the bolded phrase identifies this as speculation and thus does not equal evidence.

3) Since the theme of his gospel was Christ was the Jewish Messiah. He seemed more concerned with all things Jewish than the other writers. Thus he would seem more likely to hear about the Jewish leaders offering to pay the guards to say the disciples stole the body while the guards slept.

The bolded phrase identifies this as speculation and thus does not equal evidence.

And just because someone writes a Gospel doesn't mean he had access to everything that dealt with the life and death of Christ. That's probably why the Church chose to include 4 gospels instead of just one. Because it gives a deeper understanding of the life of Christ from several sources. And that would outweigh any minor seeming differences. But as I've said before, I have never seen a seeming discrepancy in the NT that can't be logically explained.

OK so the above post boils down to

Since the theme of his (Matthew’s) gospel was Christ was the Jewish Messiah. He seemed more concerned with all things Jewish than the other writers.

I’ll accept this as it probably can be supported. It is a statement about the relative ‘jewishness’ of the nature of the 4 gospels. It is not a statement of veracity of the contents.

And just because someone writes a Gospel doesn't mean he had access to everything that dealt with the life and death of Christ. That's probably why the Church chose to include 4 gospels instead of just one. Because it gives a deeper understanding of the life of Christ from several sources. And that would outweigh any minor seeming differences.

The speculation on your part here is in regard to the CoN and actually is not a claim for or against the veracity of the story. First sentence is OK in general, no biographer has complete access to all events of a persons life. However we are talking about human biographers. The gospels are supposed to be the divinely inspired word of god so we cannot fairly compare a the gaps in a human biographers knowledge to the author of the gospels who information came from a higher source. IF additional sources were important to give a bigger picture why were not all the stories of Jesus include to give the best possible picture of his life. Why eliminate entire chapters and significant events from the saga of the life of Jesus. Would they not clarify thing more?

But as I've said before, I have never seen a seeming discrepancy in the NT that can't be logically explained.

I believe that you believe this. But in the immortal word of Inigo Montoya ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’

 

[Rincewind]

And lets not forget the fact that the early Christian faith was HIGHLY fractured and varying. Not something that would arise from an oral tradition that was rigorously exact.

Actually, it doesn't seem like there's been much progress in the past 2000 years, eh?

 

[kmortis]

Actually, it doesn't seem like there's been much progress in the past 2000 years, eh?

Or the addition of a written record.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Slightly off-topic but there is a Church of Elvis in the Traveller RPG and Robert Asprin's Phule books.

 

[KingMerv00]

Actually Oral tradition evidence in that era of no paper and little literacy is not rumor, it was actually quite an important way of transferring historical information.

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

So you believe the Epic of Gilgamesh I presume?

 

[dafydd]

So you believe the Epic of Gilgamesh I presume?

And the Bhagavad Gita?

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

And the Bhagavad Gita?

Additionally, the Koran was written based on oral tradition and memory of the divine revelation to Mohammed. This was quite soon after the death of the prophet and by people who had known him in real life. Indeed, some who were venerated in life as companions of the Prophet were then lamented because they died in his name soon after - before they had chance to pass on their knowledge of the sayings of the Prophet. All of this is evidence that the writers of the Koran told the truth. Especially the proximity of the oral sources of the Koran. These were people who had met and actually lived with the Prophet. If they had falsified anything, the people of Medina would clearly have known and have punished them accordingly. And we know about the terrible justice of Islam, don't we? I think that people lose credibility when they fail to appreciate or address this.

Additionally, I think that the posts of DOC in his thread on the use of the name Mohammed strongly argue that it is more likely that Islam is a truer religion than Christianity. And the law of non-contradiction would then demonstrate that Islam is true, because both can't be right and yet people today are still willing to die for Islam whereas Christians simply moan about fatwah envy.

 

[Craig4]

Additionally, the Koran was written based on oral tradition and memory of the divine revelation to Mohammed. This was quite soon after the death of the prophet and by people who had known him in real life. Indeed, some who were venerated in life as companions of the Prophet were then lamented because they died in his name soon after - before they had chance to pass on their knowledge of the sayings of the Prophet. All of this is evidence that the writers of the Koran told the truth. Especially the proximity of the oral sources of the Koran. These were people who had met and actually lived with the Prophet. If they had falsified anything, the people of Medina would clearly have known and have punished them accordingly. And we know about the terrible justice of Islam, don't we? I think that people lose credibility when they fail to appreciate or address this.

Additionally, I think that the posts of DOC in his thread on the use of the name Mohammed strongly argue that it is more likely that Islam is a truer religion than Christianity. And the law of non-contradiction would then demonstrate that Islam is true, because both can't be right and yet people today are still willing to die for Islam whereas Christians simply moan about fatwah envy.

To be completely fair, to make this argument Muslims are going to need to come up with a winged horse.

 

[Rincewind]

Or the addition of a written record.

Well, what should we expect?

DOC tells us they had nothing to write on - and Mr Biro was yet to invent his pen...

 

[Agatha]

To be completely fair, to make this argument Muslims are going to need to come up with a winged horse.

There's a winged horse in the first and last books of The Chronicles Of Narnia*, written by Christian and apologist C S Lewis. The Narnia books are Christian allegory, even down to the death and resurrection of Aslan, and the whole point of the children meeting Aslan was to bring them closer to Jesus and/or God.**

So now we have our winged horse!

*Fledge, formally Strawberry the cab-horse, in The Magican's Nephew and The Last Battle.

**Aslan's words to Lucy in The Voyage of The Dawn Treader. I don't have a copy here at work but it's along the lines of "I brought you here so that you would know me, now you must know me in your world" In context, this is a clear reference to Aslan being Jesus/God.

 

[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?...

Well the moderator said I could answer your question about Genesis 1 and 2. Your post was long and could take a long time to answer but I will get to it eventually. I will deal with the 1st sentence of your post first where you talk about a "myth". Here is part of what former skeptic Ralph Muncaster said in his 600 page apologetic book "Examine the Evidence" about Genesis starting on page 77.

Step 1 (Genesis 1: 1,2) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

It is important to recognizes the presence of the “spirit of God" at the “surface of the waters”. This frame of reference will be important in considering the remaining steps of Genesis. Science says” There was a beginning of time, space, and matter according to general relativity which was first proposed by Albert Einstein...

Step 2 (Genesis 1:3) And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Because the spirit of God was hovering over the “surface of the waters”, this reference indicates that light became visible from the vantage point of God – in other words, at the surface of the ocean. Science says : Light throughout the universe would have been available long before Earth developed . However, when considering the language of the Bible, science would agree to the point of Genesis 1:3 – that the next development step, from the vantage point of the surface of the earth, would be that dense gases would become translucent - allowing a small amount of light to reach the earth. This step is vital for photosynthesis, necessary for plant life.

Step 3 (Genesis 1:6) And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so."

Science says: the next step in development was that heated water would evaporate into clouds. This would set up the hydrological cycle, which is necessary for life.

Step 4 (Genesis 1:9-10) "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."

Science says: The next phase of planetary development would be heavy seismic and volcanic activity, which would have caused creation of the continents and other land masses in a proportion of 30 percent land -– ideal for life.

Step 5 (Genesis 1:11) Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so."

Science says: Of all the life forms mentioned in the creation account of the Bible, vegetation would be the next step. Light, water, and the large amounts of carbon dioxide that were all present on the early earth would have set the stage for plant life.

Muncaster goes on to describe 5 more steps which I might bring in later as time permits. He then says on page 81

“the ten steps of creation in Genesis agree with the listing of the order of those same events as defined by science. The odds of randomly “guessing” this order would be about 1 chance in 4 million, similar to the odds of winning a state lottery with a single ticket.”

I'll get to your points about the alleged differences as time permits.