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

[joobz]

They might have been too busy evangelizing and getting martyred to write history books to most of the people who couldn't read anyway.

We know something big was happening for there to be such dynamic growth. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward. Could there have been more going on then just the formerly cowardly Peter's preaching?

Now you claim that Peter was too afraid to comment on a zombie apocalypse?
A zombie horde that no one else mentions?

 

[Akhenaten]

And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.

They might have been too busy evangelizing and getting martyred to write
history books to most of the people who couldn't read anyway.

And they didn't have any paper. Except for Moses, who had the first draft of the Old Testament in his back pocket.

In any case . . .

The writers of history books and the people wandering about stirring up trouble and getting themselves nailed to trees aren't at all the same people.

It's obviously escaped your attention that the entire purpose of this tragic thread was originally to make the case that they were, in fact, the same group. Four-and-a-half years of abject failure to do so appears also to have slipped your memory.

We know something big was happening for there to be such dynamic growth. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward.

You like this little graphic, don't you?

Would you like me to make you a screen saver version of it?

Could there have been more going on then just the formerly cowardly Peter's preaching?

A whole heap of things, as a matter of fact. The Roman conquest of Brittania was in full swing, for one thing.

Perhaps you'd like to compare the records we have of that little endeavour from those days of no paper and little literacy with the records we have of your alleged zombie apocalypse in the Middle East.

 

[Akhenaten]

And to DOC, Going into a city and appearing to many could just be 8 people.

And yet, such a catastrophic event is not recorded anywhere else in the history books.

Nor anywhere else in the Gospels, either.

Oh, the other authors knew about it alright, but Sir The World's Greatest Historian advised them to not mention it because he knew that 2,000 years later such glaring inconsistencies would serve as proof for the authenticity of the story.

 

[Akhenaten]

. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward.

Any independent corroboration of this? Otherwise it's just another tall story.

Settle down, mate.

This is Sir The World's Greatest Historian we're talking about here. He doesn't need no steenkin' corbelling coronary corroboree that thing you said.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now you claim that Peter was too afraid to comment on a zombie apocalypse?
A zombie horde that no one else mentions?

They were obviously Secret Ninja Zombies™.

 

[Fireshadow]

Oh goody. We haven't had this one for a while.

Your post will be the trigger for DOC's "How do we know that Juilus Cæsar (for whom we have no signature) and Alexander the Great (who has no known grave) ever existed?" argument.

Always good for a laugh, some sidebar learning about real history and a few pictures.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954dddfd876eb69.gif[/qimg]​

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted it, but I was already committed.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's all good.

No matter what you post you're only going to get one of a dozen or so stock responses.

One could almost make a game of it.

 

[Craig B]

They might have been too busy evangelizing and getting martyred to write history books to most of the people who couldn't read anyway.

We know something big was happening for there to be such dynamic growth. Luke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward. Could there have been more going on then just the formerly cowardly Peter's preaching?

What do you have in mind? Preaching can convert large numbers of people. Even false preaching. People get martyred for false, as well as true, ideas. Anyway I simply don't believe the figures you give. Cite your source, please. The growth of Christianity was pitifully slow. So slow that decades passed before anyone recorded its existence. The first Roman historians to do so wrote around 110-120 AD. At that time the Roman politician Pliny knew almost nothing about them, and had to ask the Emperor Trajan's advice on what to do with them. About the same time, the historian Tacitus had to explain to his readers who the Christians were, when he mentioned them in a book.

http://www.abc-of-christianity.com/info/first-five-centuries.asp

Some historians estimate that about 300 A.D. there were about 50 million people in the Roman Empire, of whom about 10 million were Christians.

So they were still a small minority more than 250 years after Jesus' death. For the incidence of persecution, see http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_the_early_Christians_persecuted in particular the famous statement by Origen. Persecution appears to have been sporadic up to the late third or early fourth centuries. Most (not all) of the stories of early martyrs are preposterous legends. Philomena, Eulalia, Agnes, Perpetua - nonsensical stories. Look them up. We know nothing about the fate of Paul. Persecution of Jews under Christianity was far more severe. Does that make Judaism true?

Or is Islam true? Its growth was vastly more "dynamic". Muhammad died in 632. By exactly 100 years later the Muslims ruled Arabia, Syria, Persia, Egypt, the rest of North Africa and Spain, and had invaded France, where their expansion was finally halted by a defeat at Tours, on the River Loire. A hundred years after Jesus' death, Christianity was only beginning to be noticed, as a band of superstitious sectarians, by the commentators of the day. So your argument is a very unconvincing one, and it would be best left to Muslims, who indeed use it.

In any case, it's a false argument. Truths are not established by majority vote. Or even by "dynamic growth". Aristarchus of Samos, who died about 230 BC, correctly suggested that the Earth goes round the Sun. Almost nobody accepted this, and about 1,850 years later people were still being punished for suggesting it. Does that slow non-dynamic progress mean the idea is wrong?

 

[pakeha]

...A whole heap of things, as a matter of fact. The Roman conquest of Brittania was in full swing, for one thing.

Perhaps you'd like to compare the records we have of that little endeavour from those days of no paper and little literacy with the records we have of your alleged zombie apocalypse in the Middle East.

Ah, yes, Brittania.
They found evidence of an Isis Temple in Londinium dating from those times, you know.
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/Co...rch/Londinium/analysis/religiouslife/deities/
http://www.roman-britain.org/places/londinium.htm

Not so much of a zombie invasion of Jerusalem, though.

 

[DrDave]

Always good for a laugh, some sidebar learning about real history and a few pictures.

Those are the best bits!

 

[Mojo]

TLuke reports Peter converted 3000 one day and 5000 men (not including women) shortly afterward.

How many men was that including women?

 

[DOC]

How many men was that including women?

Woman were second class citizens back then, they weren't even counted when a crowd size was being determined. So when Luke says Peter converted over 5000 men on a single day, there could have been many woman converted too but they weren't counted. I don't believe woman back then could even testify at a court hearing.

This is what is so unusual about the gospels reporting woman were the first to discover that Christ was risen. If the story was made up, 2nd class citizens (who couldn't testify at a court hearing) would not have been the first to discover Christ had risen. It would have been the apostles. Translation: the story wasn't made up.

 

[pakeha]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to post this explanation of the Creator's design for the 'naughty bits'

 

[DOC]

Let me get this straight.
Jeebus dies.
An earthquake occurs.
The tombs of the saints are wrenched open.

It says many saints. Many saints could be 8 people.

Said saints are resurrected, but lie still for 36hours.

Who said anything about lying still; several translations say the tombs were opened and the saints arose. So if the tombs are opened, light and fresh air is coming through, they can stand up sit down, and even walk outside the open tomb. The New Living Translation said, after Christ rose they left the cemetery.

These bloody zombies laid where they were for 36 hours, didn't move, then got up and perambulated around town on a drippy flesh, bones showing, Thriller-esque meet & greet?
They must have had the patience of a sain.... ahhh fuhgeddaboudit.

Once again, what's with this they didn't move. And if a God has the power to resurrect them, he certainly has the power to give them an even cleaner and healthier body than they had before they died.

If God exists miracles are possible---any miracle. Remember, Luke reports incredible growth of the church with at least 8000 men being converted 7 to 9 weeks after the resurrection. If you count woman and teenagers, that could be 10,000 being converted in about 2 months. This great growth could explain how Christians ended up in Rome in 64 CE being blamed for the fire in Rome.

Could the raised saints (maybe 8 or more) have contributed to this great growth, we don't know, but people seeing formerly dead people now alive certainly wouldn't hurt getting converts, and might help explain the great sudden growth of possibly 10,000 in 2 months.

 

[Craig B]

This is what is so unusual about the gospels reporting woman were the first to discover that Christ was risen. If the story was made up, 2nd class citizens would not have been the first to discover Christ had risen. It would have been the apostles. Translation: the story wasn't made up.

Which of the contradictory stories wasn't made up?

 

[pakeha]

It says many saints. Many saints could be 8 people.

Granted.
Have they ever been identified?

Who said anything about lying still; several translations say the tombs were opened and the saints arose. So if the tombs are opened, light and fresh air is coming through, they can stand up sit down, and even walk outside the open tomb. The New living Translation said, after Christ rose they left the cemetery.

DOC, now you've switched to yet another translation, the New Living Translation.
Is there some reason the KJV or Young's Literal doesn't cut the mustard with this story?
How is a person supposed to know which translation is the best to follow for any given verse?

If God exists miracles are possible---any miracle. Remember, Luke reports incredible growth of the church with at least 8000 men being converted 7 to 9 weeks after the resurrection. If you count woman and children, that could be 10,000 being converted in about 2 months. This great growth could explain how Christians ended up in Rome in 64 CE being blamed for the fire in Rome.

Could you explain the maths of that estimate, please?

Could the raised saints (maybe 8 or more) have contributed to this great growth, we don't know, but people seeing formerly dead people now alive certainly wouldn't hurt getting converts.

Why?

 

[Craig B]

This is what is so unusual about the gospels reporting woman were the first to discover that Christ was risen. If the story was made up, 2nd class citizens would not have been the first to discover Christ had risen. It would have been the apostles. Translation: the story wasn't made up.

But may I ask you to read this? Similar lists of discrepancies can easily be found.

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)? Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail. Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)? Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out. Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”

http://galileounchained.com/2011/10/17/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account/ Translation: there's lots of stories, and they're all made up!

 

[DOC]

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)? Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail. Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)? Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out. Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”

We've been over all of this in part 1 of this thread. If someone wants to find a possible scenario that explains the alleged contradictions , there are some on the web.

And the many bishops at the Council of Carthage-- who officially determined what writings were considered inspired and part of the official church cannon-- didn't seem too worried about any of the above. If they were worried they could have simply chose one Gospel to be in the bible and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

 

[Mojo]

We've been over all of this in part 1 of this thread. If someone wants to find a possible scenario that explains the alleged contradictions , there are some on the web.

Can you find any of them? It's your claim that they exist.

 

[ddt]

Woman were second class citizens back then, they weren't even counted when a crowd size was being determined. So when Luke says Peter converted over 5000 men on a single day, there could have been many woman converted too but they weren't counted. I don't believe woman back then could even testify at a court hearing.

And again, you're wrong.. Women could testify in court.

For example, in his trial against Verres, Cicero calls several women as witnesses, and shames Verres for having forced him to compel respectable women to appear in court to testify against him.[8] His objection is clearly against disturbing women of station, and the shock of women appearing and speaking in public in a traditionally male venue, not against trusting a woman's testimony--to the contrary, Cicero certainly trusts them, that's why he is calling them to testify! We even have actual court documents from the time of Jesus and Paul that include summaries of female testimony given at trial.[9] Examples aside, Roman law was quite explicit in permitting women to swear oaths and testify in court.