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

[ddt]

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

Granted.
Have they ever been identified?

Seven have. Their names were Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey.

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?

Simple: whichever version suits DOC's needs best. TBH, it doesn't matter here which translation you take, they say the same.

 

[ddt]

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

It could. But then, why didn't Matthew just say 8? He said "many", strongly suggesting a much bigger number.

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.

So according to you, they did their morning gym for about 36 hours (a.k.a. three days and three nights) between Jesus' death and the resurrection. Why didn't Matthew say so, why did he leave that out?

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.

They not only converted, but miraculously got a ticket to ship themselves to 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.

Most sane people would be scared out when they saw dead people walk about. Moreover, for the townspeople there's no connection at all between the zombies and Christ. They didn't wear a placard "This dead man walks about because the Messiah has risen" or some such.

 

[pakeha]

ddt wrote in reference to my question about the zombies:

Have they ever been identified?
Seven have. Their names were Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey.

Imagine them trooping into Jerusalem...and singing...

...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.

A good point, DOC.
I'm going to learn more about that Council.
Off to read up on the subject.

 

[kmortis]

And to women being second class citizens, wasn't there a female apsotle? And wasn't it the Pauline Christians who tried very hard to erase all traces of her?

Are you sure you have the correct timeline there, DOC?

 

[Craig B]

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.

What do you mean, "alleged contradictions"? These are real contradictions! So, the Council of Carthage wasn't worried! How do we know? They didn't throw out three gospels from the canon. To you, that means there's no contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection.

DOC, I simply can't begin to understand how your mind works. How do we know x is true? Because various maniacs said it was. How do we know y is true? Another lot of maniacs were quite happy with it.

I don't think you'll impress anyone except already-committed believers, with stuff like that.

 

[joobz]

Woman were second class citizens back then, they weren't even counted when a crowd size was being determined.

And this is why one of the genealogies was of Mary's and not....
oh wait....

 

[joobz]

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

Or a million people.
I think a million people rose from the dead and ate everyone who witnessed them. Hence, why we have no records of it. All witnesses were zombie food.

Contradiction, explained!

If God exists miracles are possible---any miracle.

Like a 20 million zombie horde coming through and eating all witnesses.

I am glad you support my zombie horde explanation.

 

[Craig B]

And to women being second class citizens, wasn't there a female apsotle? And wasn't it the Pauline Christians who tried very hard to erase all traces of her?

Are you sure you have the correct timeline there, DOC?

I think you may be referring to Romans 16:7

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Traditional translations give poor Junia a sex change. Here's the Catholic version:

Salute Andronicus, and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-captives: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

 

[welshdean]

Doc, why do the xtians get all hung up on the resurrection. To paraphrase the late and great Christopher Hitchens "it was a bit of a mundanity of the times". I've found nine people resurrected (not including the zombie hordes of Jerusalem). So why pin divinity on just one of many undead? And why laud it as a great accomplishment when everybody seemed to be at it?

Jeebus
all 4 Gospels

Widow of Zarephath's son
(I Ki 17:17-24)

Shunamite's son
(II Ki 4:20-37)

Man tossed into Elisha's tomb
(II Ki 13:21)

Dorcas (Tabitha)
(Acts 9:36-41)

Widow of Nain's son
(Lk 7:11-16)

Lazarus
(Jn 11:1-44)

Eutychus
(Acts 20:7-12)

Jairus' daughter
(Mk 5:35-43)

And of course the undead hordes that arose from the dead with Jeebus.

ETA:

So I make that 250,009 (approx) resurrections, 9 named above and the horde of 250,000 roaming Jerusalem cashing in their nectar points.


Lazarus should be the Mesiah, he was proper dead. Four days proper dead. Jeebus only managed a day and a half pffft.

 

[DrDave]

Like a 20 million zombie horde coming through and eating all witnesses.

I am glad you support my zombie horde explanation.

You need to write it down in a book and then reference that book as it's own proof. Make sure that you include embarrassing details about the zombies though. That makes it true-erer

 

[kmortis]

I think you may be referring to Romans 16:7 Traditional translations give poor Junia a sex change. Here's the Catholic version:

That would be the one.

 

[joobz]

You need to write it down in a book and then reference that book as it's own proof. Make sure that you include embarrassing details about the zombies though. That makes it true-erer

Romero 10:2
"They're eating their brains! My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Naturally you have a citation for this.

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.

And there could have been none whatsoever.

For that matter there could (and probably were) no men either.

Until you produce an extra biblical source to back up this claim, 'nobody at all' seems the safest assumption.

I don't believe woman back then could even testify at a court hearing.

What you believe or not is as far from a test for truth as it's possible to get, but in any case this unevidenced speculation of yours is, as usual, completely irrelevant.

This is what is so unusual about the gospels reporting woman were the first to discover that Christ was risen.

Was this in the gospel according to Martha, Mary, Lucy or Joanna?

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.

If the story was made up (and it is), Podsnaps (who couldn't be employed as giraffe trainers) could quite easily have been the first to discover the Higgs boson.

It would have been the apostles.

You mean the blokes who don't appear to have a clue about who was there?

Matty 28:1

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.​

Mark 16:1-2

¹And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

²And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun..​

Sir The World's Greatest Historian 24:9-10

⁹ And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

¹⁰It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.​

John 20:1

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.​

​

Translation: the story wasn't made up.

Correct translation: whole cloth.

 

[DOC]

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

I'm not talking about Roman woman in Italy, I'm talking about Jewish woman in Judea.

From the article: 12 Historical facts by Gary Haberman:

"In the first century, Jewish law said women could not testify in a court of law."

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

But woman should be thankful Christ came. Even your source said most of the early Christians converts were woman. This site seems to give us reasons why:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm/

 

[RoboTimbo]

But woman should be thankful Christ came.

Slaves should have been thankful also. As long as they wore their sunscreen.

 

[ddt]

I'm not talking about Roman woman in Italy, I'm talking about Jewish woman in Judea.

From the article: 12 Historical facts by Gary Haberman:

"In the first century, Jewish law said women could not testify in a court of law."

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

What are Habermas' (please note the spelling) sources for that? If you'd read the Carrier article I cited, you'd seen that he argues the same held for Jewish women in Judea. He argues this on the basis of the Talmud and Mishna, and the specific research by Judith Wegner on this issue.

 

[kmortis]

I'm not talking about Roman woman in Italy, I'm talking about Jewish woman in Judea.

From the article: 12 Historical facts by Gary Haberman:

"In the first century, Jewish law said women could not testify in a court of law."

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

But woman should be thankful Christ came. Even your source said most of the early Christians converts were woman. This site seems to give us reasons why:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm/

You are correct. The reports are that the early church was rather pro-women. That all changed, however, once Paul took over, and for the most part hasn't recovered.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm not talking about Roman woman in Italy, I'm talking about Jewish woman in Judea.

From the article: 12 Historical facts by Gary Haberman:

"In the first century, Jewish law said women could not testify in a court of law."

Why did the alleged Sanhedrin have to take the alleged Jesus before the very real Procurator, Pilate, for judgement?

Could it have been because the province of Iudæa at that time was subject to Roman law, not Jewish law?

But woman should be thankful Christ came.

Which woman?

Also, eeyew.

Even your source said most of the early Christians converts were woman.

Then why doesn't yours?

By the way, do you know what the plural of 'woman' is, DOC?

 

[TimCallahan]

DOC: Do yo assert that any of the gospel writers were witnesses to the Crucifixion and Resurrection? If so, which one(s)? Do you think that Paul witnessed them? If none of them witnessed the Resurrection, upon what did they base their testimony?

 

[Rincewind]

And to women being second class citizens, wasn't there a female apsotle? And wasn't it the Pauline Christians who tried very hard to erase all traces of her?

Are you sure you have the correct timeline there, DOC?

Hmmm - female apostle, huh?

If DDT's suggestion is correct, that'll be Snow White....