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

[zooterkin]

On page 238 of the book cited in post #1 it gives logical evidence why it doesn't make sense that none of the NT books mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. (the NT does talks about the Temple but no mention of its prophecized destruction). Translation: the books were written before 70 A.D. I mentioned this a little before but the book goes into greater detail. Unfortunately the link doesn't also give page 237. To read page 238 go to this link and hit the arrows at top until you get to 238. People outside of the US won't be able to read this information.

Do you actually have the book yourself, or are you relying on the pages visible on google books?

 

[Lothian]

On page 238 of the book cited in post #1 it gives logical evidence why it doesn't make sense that none of the NT books mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. (the NT does talks about the Temple but no mention of its prophecized destruction) if those books were written after 70 A.D.. I mentioned this a little before but the book goes into greater detail. Unfortunately the link doesn't also give page 237. To read page 238 go to this link and hit the arrows at top until you get to 238. People outside of the US won't be able to read this information.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

ETA

Also page 244 in the above link responds to the argument the Gospels weren't early enough.

And page 236 gives info about the early writings of the 2nd century writers we talked about a few pages back.

Why should a story mainly set around 20-30CE write about events 40-50 years later? Should a story about the second world war discuss the space shuttle?

Please refrain from using the word 'logical' in your posts until you can demonstrate that you know what it means.

 

[ddt]

People outside of the US won't be able to read this information.

So you have no evidence then?

Why should a story mainly set around 20-30CE write about events 40-50 years later? Should a story about the second world war discuss the space shuttle?

No but it should obviously discuss David Irving. Somehow that parallel seems apt.

 

[Lothian]

No but it should obviously discuss David Irving. Somehow that parallel seems apt.

I disagree. The Bible purports to explain events at the time from the view of the authors, It does not provide others opinions. Hence we don't have

Matthew 27:28

And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. I know Mark and John claim it is purple but they can't be trusted. Look at how their accounts of the angels at the tomb differ from each other and the true version given by me.​

 

[catsmate]

Muslims believe that Gospel is originally a divine revelation.

Given that this "god" is fictional that might explain why the gospels contradict each other, and reality, so much.

 

[ddt]

I disagree. The Bible purports to explain events at the time from the view of the authors, It does not provide others opinions. Hence we don't have

Matthew 27:28

And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. I know Mark and John claim it is purple but they can't be trusted. Look at how their accounts of the angels at the tomb differ from each other and the true version given by me.​

And for whoever missed the implied sarcasm in my post: the aptness of introducing Irving referred to the veracity of his writings.

 

[Garrette]

On page 238 of the book cited in post #1 it gives logical evidence why it doesn't make sense that none of the NT books mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. (the NT does talks about the Temple but no mention of its prophecized destruction). Translation: the books were written before 70 A.D. I mentioned this a little before but the book goes into greater detail. Unfortunately the link doesn't also give page 237. To read page 238 go to this link and hit the arrows at top until you get to 238. People outside of the US won't be able to read this information.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

ETA

Also page 244 in the above link responds to the argument the Gospels weren't early enough.

And page 236 gives info about the early writings of the 2nd century writers we talked about a few pages back.

Page 236 lists the writers and the books they quoted. It does nothing in regard to establishing the claim that the quotations were sufficient to recreate the NT (minus a few verses). I take it you have abandoned this claim?

Page 238 attempts to prove its case by using the analogy of histories written about the USS Arizona and about the Twin Towers. Geisler says that if those histories do not include the sinking of the Arizona or the attack on the towers then it is safe to conclude that the first was written before September 7, 1941 and the second before September 11, 2001.

He is correct in what he says about histories of the Arizona and the Twin Towers. He is incorrect in calling it an apt analogy. The New Testament is not a history of Jerusalem or the Temple. It is a story about a man called Jesus and the religion that sprang up around him. His argument falls down at the start.

On page 244 Geisler says this:

Some skeptics may think that a 15- to 40-year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him is too wide for the testimony to be reliable. But they are mistaken.

He uses two arguments to buttress his claim.

(1) The memory of things that made a strong emotional impact are strong, citing memories of where we were when the Challenger Shuttle exploded or when Kennedy was assassinated as proof. This is laughable for so many reasons. First, memory of a location is not equivalent to memory of details. Second, it has been reliably shown that memories, even memories of emotionally significant events, are quite unreliable. Third, the writers are not using their own memories (unless you have separate proof that the NT authors are all eyewitnesses). Fourth, even if my other points are incorrect, the memories of the most emotionally significant events differ tremendously. Who was first at the tomb? Was there an angel there? Where did the women go next? Geisler's disproves himself by claiming the reliability of memory.

(2) Geisler says that historians today write reliably about events that occurred ten, twenty, or thirty years ago by "consulting their own memories, those of other eyewitnesses, and any written sources from the time." This is, to an extent, true, but not in the way Geisler implies. Memories may be added to written accounts, but if they are not separately corroborated they will not be part of any reliable history. The reference to written accounts is certainly legitimate, particularly if those written accounts are primary sources, but this does not apply to the NT. Or does it, DOC? Is there a primary source? Are you agreeing that Q exists? Be careful, though, because agreeing that Q exists mean you will have to accept that it was adapted for the individual agendas of the later authors. You would also have to accept that the authors aren't eyewitnesses.

DOC, you really need to stop pretending that Geisler is credible, and you need to stop relying on him as a source. But if you're going to rely on him, then at least read more than is on Google. It is obvious that you don't have this book since you only reference the content of the pages that are on Google.

But as I said, stop using Geisler all together. His evidence isn't evidence at all, and if your faith is truly faith, then you don't need the evidence anyway. Can you not simply admit that your faith is purely faith?

 

[zooterkin]

(1) The memory of things that made a strong emotional impact are strong, citing memories of where we were when the Challenger Shuttle exploded or when Kennedy was assassinated as proof. This is laughable for so many reasons. First, memory of a location is not equivalent to memory of details. Second, it has been reliably shown that memories, even memories of emotionally significant events, are quite unreliable. Third, the writers are not using their own memories (unless you have separate proof that the NT authors are all eyewitnesses). Fourth, even if my other points are incorrect, the memories of the most emotionally significant events differ tremendously. Who was first at the tomb? Was there an angel there? Where did the women go next? Geisler's disproves himself by claiming the reliability of memory.

<several good points snipped.>
There is also the point that today we have so many reminders of events such as the Challenger disaster, with it being replayed on TV, as well as being documented in other media. It is so easy to check on things now that it is hard to realise how much an often-retold story might change in just twenty years if there is nothing to refer back to.

 

[joobz]

On page 238 of the book cited in post #1 it gives logical evidence why it doesn't make sense that none of the NT books mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. (the NT does talks about the Temple but no mention of its prophecized destruction). Translation: the books were written before 70 A.D. I mentioned this a little before but the book goes into greater detail.

The claim that the bible didn't mention the temple destruction is false.
100% false.
as you have previously presented:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5689293#post5689293

actually there are good reasons to believe most of the gospels were written before 70 C.E.

From the article: When were the gospels written and by whom?
by Matt Slick

"None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

http://www.carm.org/when-were-gospel...en-and-by-whom

How can one claim that a text predicts an event while also claiming the text doesn't mention the event?

 

[Akhenaten]

<polite snip>

DOC, you really need to stop pretending that Geisler is credible, and you need to stop relying on him as a source. But if you're going to rely on him, then at least read more than is on Google. It is obvious that you don't have this book since you only reference the content of the pages that are on Google.

But as I said, stop using Geisler all together. His evidence isn't evidence at all, and if your faith is truly faith, then you don't need the evidence anyway. Can you not simply admit that your faith is purely faith?

Wow, that made my response look really crappy.

Sincere thanks for taking the trouble to read and analyze what DOC so obviously hasn't.

 

[Garrette]

Wow, that made my response look really crappy.

Sincere thanks for taking the trouble to read and analyze what DOC so obviously hasn't.

I live but to serve Your Greatness, My Pharaoh.

 

[ddt]

The claim that the bible didn't mention the temple destruction is false.
100% false.
as you have previously presented:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5689293#post5689293


How can one claim that a text predicts an event while also claiming the text doesn't mention the event?

Are you in fact suggesting that the evangelists wrote the gospels after the fall of Jerusalem, and inserted an alleged prophecy of Jesus that the temple would be destroyed?

In other words, are you suggesting that the evangelists lied for baby Jeebus? Nah, that's too far-fetched.

 

[DOC]

The claim that the bible didn't mention the temple destruction is false.
100% false.
as you have previously presented:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5689293#post5689293



How can one claim that a text predicts an event while also claiming the text doesn't mention the event?

The verse in the bible has Jesus saying to the disciples not one stone of the temple will be left upon another.

"As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1)

Jesus doesn't say how the temple will be destroyed. When Jean Dixon predicts in the late 50's a Democratic president will win in 1960 but will not finish his first term she is accurate but she is not actually mentioning in what way. When Jesus predicted the temple was to be destroyed he mentions nothing about how it would be done. And the authors mention nothing about it being fulfilled. This seems odd, why not mention this to their readers as a great prophecy. Not one of the 9 NT writers says anything about this huge event in Jerusalem (the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans) even though at least 3 of the NT writers mention Jesus and the temple.

Translation: They most likely wrote their books before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

 

[ddt]

The verse in the bible has Jesus saying to the disciples not one stone of the temple will be left upon another.

"As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1)

Jesus doesn't say how the temple will be destroyed. When Jean Dixon predicts in the late 50's a Democratic president will win in 1960 but will not finish his first term she is accurate but she is not actually mentioning in what way. When Jesus predicted the temple was to be destroyed he mentions nothing about how it would be done. And the authors mention nothing about it being fulfilled. This seems odd, why not mention this to their readers as a great prophecy. Not one of the 9 NT writers says anything about this huge event in Jerusalem even though at least 3 of the NT writers mention Jesus and the temple.

So you're equating Jesus' prediction that the temple will be destroyed with a cheap psychic's trick? Predicting the next US president will be a Democrat has roughly a 50% probability. But wait, Jeane Dixon raised her odds to 100%. Quoting wiki on this:

In the May 13, 1956, issue of Parade Magazine she wrote that the 1960 presidential election would be "dominated by labor and won by a Democrat" who would then go on to "e assassinated or die in office though not necessarily in his first term." She later admitted, “During the 1960 election, I saw Richard Nixon as the winner”,[11] and at the time made unequivocal predictions that JFK would fail to win the election.

So whether JFK won or Nixon won, she always had a right prediction. As to the odds that a US president doesn't finish their term(s), I'm not going to do the counting but that is a sizable number too.

Predicting a building will once be torn down is a no-brainer too. How many buildings from that era are preserved now?

So there's actually two (non-exclusive) options:
(a) Jesus' prediction was a cheap trick.
(b) The evangelists included the "prediction" after the fact.
Either way you lose.

 

[joobz]

The verse in the bible has Jesus saying to the disciples not one stone of the temple will be left upon another.

Yup.
the bible mentioned the destruction of the temple.
In other words, Geisler's claim is false.

 

[DOC]

So you're equating Jesus' prediction that the temple will be destroyed with a cheap psychic's trick?...

No Jesus' prediction was more impressive, to go along with His other miracles:

1. turning water into wine John 2:1
2. many healings luke 1:32
3. Cleansing a Leper Matt 8:1
4. Healing roman centurians slave Matt 8:5
5. Healing Peter's mother in law Matt 8:14
6. Calming the storm Matt 8:23
7:driving out deamons near the tombs Matt 8:28
8. Healing a paralytic Matt 9:1
9. Healing the woman with the issue of blood Matt 9 20
10. Raising Jairus' daughter from dead matt 9 23
11. Healing two blind men Matt 9 27
12. Healing a demon posessed mute man matt 12 10
13. Healing a man with a paralyzed hand matt 12 22
14. feeding the 5000 matt 14 15
15. Walking on water matt 14 22
16. Healing the gentile mother's daughter matt 15 21
17. feeding 4000 matt 15 32
18. healing the epileptic boy matt 17 14
19. cursing the fig tree matt 21 18
20. healing demon poss man in the synagogue mark 1 23
21. healing the deaf mute mark 7:31
22. healing the blind man at Bethesda Mark 8:22
23. healing the blind at Jericho mark 10:46
24. a miraculous catch of fish luke 5:4
25. A widow's son raised to life Luke 7:11
26. Healing a disabled woman Luke 13:11
27. Healing a man with edema Luke 14:1
28. healing 10 lepers Luke 17:1
29. Healing Malchus's ear luke 22:50
30. Healing an officials son John 4:46
31. Healing the lame man at the Bethesda pool Lu 5:1
32. Healing a man born blind John 9:1
33. Raising Lazerus from the dead Luke 11:38
34. A second miraculous catch of fish Luke 21:1

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080323192659AAYoPaH

 

[Lothian]

The verse in the bible has Jesus saying to the disciples not one stone of the temple will be left upon another.

"As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1)

Jesus doesn't say how the temple will be destroyed. When Jean Dixon predicts in the late 50's a Democratic president will win in 1960 but will not finish his first term she is accurate but she is not actually mentioning in what way. When Jesus predicted the temple was to be destroyed he mentions nothing about how it would be done. And the authors mention nothing about it being fulfilled. This seems odd, why not mention this to their readers as a great prophecy. Not one of the 9 NT writers says anything about this huge event in Jerusalem (the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans) even though at least 3 of the NT writers mention Jesus and the temple.

Translation: They most likely wrote their books before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

Garrette has answered this fully. Read his post then come for clarification if you need it.

Also consider this.

In the accounts of Jesus's birth why does no author mention his death and resurrection? If true the resurrection is the most incredible event in history and it happened to Jesus. If the Authors wrote their gospels after his death why do they not mention it when describing the events at the time of his birth?

 

[joobz]

No Jesus' prediction was more impressive, to go along with His other miracles:

not as impressive as Harry Potter thwarting Voldemort.

 

[Lothian]

No Jesus' prediction was more impressive, to go along with His other miracles:

1. turning water into wine John 2:1.. snip...34. A second miraculous catch of fish Luke 21:1

They are only impressive if true.

Pick any one of the 34 and provide evidence the NT account of it is true.
If you can do that for just one little miracle I will believe in the whole bible story.

 

[Akhenaten]

No Jesus' prediction was more impressive, to go along with His other miracles:

1. turning water into wine John 2:1
2. many healings luke 1:32
3. Cleansing a Leper Matt 8:1
4. Healing roman centurians slave Matt 8:5
5. Healing Peter's mother in law Matt 8:14
6. Calming the storm Matt 8:23
7:driving out deamons near the tombs Matt 8:28
8. Healing a paralytic Matt 9:1
9. Healing the woman with the issue of blood Matt 9 20
10. Raising Jairus' daughter from dead matt 9 23
11. Healing two blind men Matt 9 27
12. Healing a demon posessed mute man matt 12 10
13. Healing a man with a paralyzed hand matt 12 22
14. feeding the 5000 matt 14 15
15. Walking on water matt 14 22
16. Healing the gentile mother's daughter matt 15 21
17. feeding 4000 matt 15 32
18. healing the epileptic boy matt 17 14
19. cursing the fig tree matt 21 18
20. healing demon poss man in the synagogue mark 1 23
21. healing the deaf mute mark 7:31
22. healing the blind man at Bethesda Mark 8:22
23. healing the blind at Jericho mark 10:46
24. a miraculous catch of fish luke 5:4
25. A widow's son raised to life Luke 7:11
26. Healing a disabled woman Luke 13:11
27. Healing a man with edema Luke 14:1
28. healing 10 lepers Luke 17:1
29. Healing Malchus's ear luke 22:50
30. Healing an officials son John 4:46
31. Healing the lame man at the Bethesda pool Lu 5:1
32. Healing a man born blind John 9:1
33. Raising Lazerus from the dead Luke 11:38
34. A second miraculous catch of fish Luke 21:1

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080323192659AAYoPaH

DOC, have you forgotten that these are the very fairytales that you're supposed to be providing evidence for?