Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[RoboTimbo]

I use the bible as historical evidence just as Bart Ehrman does. Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

What does he say about Jesus being divine?

 

[DOC]

It's also far from scholarly to accept them uncritically, particularly when they often disagree with each other.



These writings are certainly not historical on a number of points, where they even disagree with each other. Here are a few examples:

1) Matthew and Luke disagree on almost every particular in the Nativity.

2) John disagrees with the Synoptic gospels as to when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.

3) Mark and Luke disagree as to whether both thieves on the cross reviled Jesus, or whether one reviled him while the other adored him.

4) There is complete disagreement between all four gospels and 1 Corinthians as to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness. We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying. The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up. As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

 

[Mojo]

DOC, do you understand why the New Testament cannot be considered to be "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

 

[Akhenaten]

I've been over this before. I'll repeat it as time permits.

Of course you will. All you ever do is repeat the same few assertions over and over again.

 

[Mojo]

DOC, do you understand why the New Testament cannot be considered to be "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

I'll give you a hint - it is to do with a couple of words being repeated there. And they aren't "why" or "the".

 

[ddt]

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness. We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying. The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up. As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

So how is it with Jesus' date of birth? Matthew says during Herod's reign, i.e., before 4BC, and Luke says during Quirinius' tenure, i.e., after 6AD. How do you explain that time warp? I've given you a detailed analysis of Luke 2:2 and you never responded.

And how's your crash course Greek?

 

[Akhenaten]

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness.

The people who wrote the gospels weren't eyewitnesses and you well know it.

We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying.

Which occurs frequently enough that it's easy enough for a child to see that sections of the stories were copied holus-bolus from each other.

Again, you know this to be true.

The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up.

Links?

As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

Only because you believe the lies and other drivel that you post to be explanatory.

As in everything else, you're completely wrong.

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

Complain, DOC? On the contrary, I think you'll find that most of us here are quite happy that the amateurish way in which these silly fairy stories were cobbled together means that they pretty much debunk themselves.

 

[GeeMack]

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness. We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying. The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up. As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

Some god believers claim support for their beliefs by pointing out where the gospels are similar, then others claim support for their beliefs by pointing out where they're different. Some believers, however, use the dishonest tactic of covering it all by switching strategies from one claim to the other when they're backed into a corner.

 

[ddt]

So how is it with Jesus' date of birth? Matthew says during Herod's reign, i.e., before 4BC, and Luke says during Quirinius' tenure, i.e., after 6AD. How do you explain that time warp? I've given you a detailed analysis of Luke 2:2 and you never responded.

And how's your crash course Greek?

Here's a little reminder:

Or there simply could have been a Palestine census at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

First of all, the text does not support that. You have brought in Heichelheim and Geisler claiming that, but you have not given any argumentation why their claims are valid. Let's go over that 9-word sentence of Luke 2:2 again:

αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη πρωτη ἐγενετο ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

Now, let's break down that sentence.

It's subject is αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη - "that census". The word αὑτη is a demonstrative pronoun ("that"), and refers back to the previous verse where it said that Augustus ordered a census. The word ἡ is the definite article (which is usual in Greek in this construct but obviously not translated in English). Lastly, ἀπογραφη means census; it's a feminine word; as it's the subject, it's in the nominative; and it's singular;. The words αὑτη and ἡ are inflected to agree with that.

The verb is ἐγενετο. It's the aorist indicative, 3rd person singular of γιγνομαι - to become, to be, to happen (cf. the English word Genesis). It acts here as a copula.

Then the word we've skipped: πρωτη. That is a superlative of an adjective that has no positive grade, and means "first" or "earliest". A Greek superlative may also be translated as "very ...", so "very early" would also be possible. It's inflected in the nominative singular feminine, and so it's the predicate of the copula.

Then the last four words: ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου. They are a genitive absolute construction. The word ἡγεμονευοντος is the genitive singular masculine of the present participle of ἡγεμονευω, "to rule", "to govern", so literally it means "ruling". This verb happens to have its direct object in the genitive case too; that object is της Συριας, i.e., Syria (της is the genitive singular feminine of the definite article "the"). The last word, Κυρηνιου, is the genitive singular of Κυρηνιος, the Greek transcription of the name Quirinius. So the whole construct means "Quirinius ruling over Syria". A genitive absolute construct is called "absolute" because it stands "loose", it is independent grammatically, of the rest of the sentence. It is typically translated as a subordinate clause, with simply a temporal relation ("while", "when") or a causal relation ("because") or a concessive relation ("although") or whatever the translator deems appropriate. The fact that the participle employed here is a present participle means that the action in the genitive absolute construction is contemporaneous with the action in the main clause.

So, all in all, my translation is: "This census was the first, while Quirinius ruled over Syria".

Now, I don't see any mention in this sentence of two censuses as your favourite apologists contend, but I'll give you some rope to hang yourself with. Some scholars claim that the NT writers now and then employed a superlative (here: πρωτη, "earliest") when they actually meant a comparative (which would be προτερη, "earlier"). In case of a comparative there has to be a thing you compare it with, say: "Peter is taller than Paul". You can't just say "Peter is taller". That (the italicized part) can be expressed in two ways in Greek: (1) the word ἠ stands for "than" and the actual thing is in the same case as the thing we compare it with, or (2) the thing we compare it with is put in the genitive case.

Now, obviously the word ἠ is absent; and the genitive construction doesn't work either IMHO: firstly, the verb ἐγενετο is placed in between which makes this unlikely to have been the idea (Greek word order is not that free); and secondly, the genitives are there for a genitive absolute, not for a comparative.

And even if you were able to convince me of such a translation, there are also historical reasons why this doesn't work.

A census in Judea around 4 BC is right out, for several reasons. Herod reigned over Judea, and the finances of Judea was not the Romans' worry. They had an agreement with Herod how much tax he had to turn over and it was his business how to get that. There was no need for the Romans to mandate he conduct a census, and still, then it would have been Herod's census and not Quirinius' c.q. Augustus' census.

Varus was the governor over Syria in the last years of Herod's reign. Even in your fantastic scenario of a Roman census in that time, Quirinius would have been a subordinate. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 however is very clear:

ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

which means "while Quirinius reigned over Syria". The use of the verb ἡγεμονεω leaves open a subordinate position, however, της Συριας is a direct object (in the genitive) and precludes anything but him being the boss - otherwise, Luke would have written ἐν τῃ Συριᾳ ("in Syria"). But we're here already in the realm of fantasy, as noted above.

But to put your last fantastical delusions to an end: if you're going to argue Quirinius may have been governor of Syria after Varus, then this is the first instance we know that the same man had been governor twice of the same Roman province. Surely Josephus, Tacitus or any other Roman historian would have told us.

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

Your posts here are a testament to the gullibility of the general populace to take any story they're told at face value. Skeptics who critically engage a story were in the minority then as well as now. Most of Luke's readers were not in the position to challenge the story. They didn't have Wikipedia to look up that there's actually a gap of 10 years between Herod's death and Quirinius' tenure. They couldn't check the claim that Joseph had to travel for a census. However, there's a definite advantage to Luke's story - from a Christian perspective. After the Jewish Revolt, Jews were looked upon with suspicion by Romans. The early Christians had to disambiguate their cult from the Jews. There also was the story (per Josephus) of the revolt of Judas the Galilee as a reaction to Quirinius' census. Having Joseph be an obedient Roman subject, willing to make an arduous journey with his highly pregnant wife paints Christians as law-abiding Roman subjects from the outset.

Bump. DOC, any reaction forthcoming?

 

[Lucian]

So how is it with Jesus' date of birth? Matthew says during Herod's reign, i.e., before 4BC, and Luke says during Quirinius' tenure, i.e., after 6AD. How do you explain that time warp? I've given you a detailed analysis of Luke 2:2 and you never responded.

And how's your crash course Greek?

One of the drawbacks of being an intact virgin: labor takes years.

 

[ddt]

One of the drawbacks of being an intact virgin: labor takes years.

Well, yes, if you consult Luke 1, it's strange. He says that during Herod's reign an angel came to Mary to tell her that her cousin Elisabeth was pregnant (of John the Baptist). Mary goes to visit her cousin, and the baby (John) jumped up in the womb. Then an angel announces that Mary will bear God's child. She returns home.

The obvious problem here is that according to the same Luke, the great historian, it would take another 10 years for Jesus to actually be born. The only explanation I can think of, which also explains why Jesus didn't jump in the womb, as well as why Jesus was so special, is that he was a lithopedion.

Or Luke meant Antipas, Herod's successor, who was also called Herod.

Or Luke goofed up.

Or Luke wanted to show how loyal subjects of Rome Joseph and Mary were.

 

[Robrob]

I've been over this before. I'll repeat it as time permits.

Yes, you've made the same claims and been debunked by the same facts before. What you'll do is avoid the question, take some time to "cool" and then post the same claims all over again.

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness.

Since none of the authors were eyewitnesses, your point?

We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying.

Funny how the argument is that the inherency of the Bible proves it is of God, right up till its flaws and errors become too overwhelming to ignore, then those same flaws and errors become proof it is of God.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up. As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

So you agree the Old Testament is flawed and inconsistent? Were the Old and New written by a different God?

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

Out of curiosity, who claims the stories in your book of fables are "too similar?"

 

[joobz]

I use the bible as historical evidence just as Bart Ehrman does. Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

----

The New Testament was authored by 8 or 9 writers---including Luke who has been called a great historian---who had no idea their writings would end up in something called the bible. Their writings can be considered historical evidence. You then use that historical evidence along with other factors, other evidence, and other considerations to make conclusions. That's what historians and apologists do.

You didn't answer my question. Please answer it below.

Ok, DOC. I shall assume you are telling the truth regarding your A in Philosophy 101. I shall also assume that you performed "A" quality work in the logic segment of the course.

Now, DOC, I ask you to apply the logic that was taught in this course to my following question. I do not ask for your opinion or slant, but rather a cold analytic detachment of what your lessons in logic would conclude, ok?


Do you believe a document that has some verifiable truthful statements is logically sound evidence that other statements in the same document are true?

Please justify your position using the material taught to you in your logic class.

Please apply your course in logic and answer this question. Once you do, we can discuss the bible and Ehrman's arguments.

 

[Craig B]

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness. We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying. The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

None of this is relevant, as has been pointed out. You claim that the NT is somehow a special inspired work. You don't usually dismiss it as the work of a band of semi-literate, ignorant writers.

Where independent accounts disagree, one or both of them must be false. Paul's companions did hear, or did not hear a voice. What I object to is you taking one of these statements, and giving it as proof, when you knew that in the very same book of Acts there was another statement that contradicts it. That is totally unacceptable and arises either from ignorance, or from a desire to mislead.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up. As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

Using apologetic methodology, anything can be "explained", but the explanations are valueless. Example: Acts makes Judas of Galilee come after Theudas. Josephus (and all common sense) puts Theudas long after Judas. Apologists' solution - there must have been some other person called Theudas who lived before Judas, known only to the author of Acts. Yes, by such means, discrepancies can be "explained". Maybe Paul heard Jesus in the sky twice? On one occasion his companions heard the voice, on the other they didn't?

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

Then address these sceptics' arguments as and when you encounter them. For the moment you're discussing Acts with me, not the gospels with them.

 

[joobz]

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness. We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying. The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

independent and unreliable.

 

[DOC]

Yes, you've made the same claims and been debunked by the same facts before. What you'll do is avoid the question, take some time to "cool" and then post the same claims all over again.

What's been debunked and where?

 

[Mashuna]

What's been debunked and where?

Your claims, this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

What's been debunked and where?

Everything you've ever posted. Everywhere.

 

[DOC]

Depends which statement by Paul you pick. It most certainly is far from being "perfectly clear"! In which of the following is Acts (written by a Great Historian, remember) speaking the truth? For it is contradicted by the other one...

Actually they don't contradict unless you make an assumption that isn't there.

Here is what the the verse says in the King James version:

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

You are assuming that the voice they heard was God's, but it could have been Paul's voice. It is not specific which voice they heard.

And Acts Chapter 9 is written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

 

[Craig B]

What's been debunked and where?

Your statement that Acts says that Paul's companions heard the voice is debunked by the fact that Acts also states that they didn't hear the voice. This makes Acts undependable, so it can't be used as "proof" of what anyone heard or did not hear.

If a witness says contradictory things in court, the evidence will be disregarded. All the more so should we apply this standard to the alleged "word of God". Now please address this discrepancy. Did they hear the voice or didn't they?