• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for links, Reality Check!
Throw out three gospels?
Impossible, sir!
...Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6–10, of God's throne borne by four creatures with four faces—"the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle"—equivalent to the "four-formed" gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth...
Click to expand...


..Irenaeus is also our earliest attestation that the Gospel of John was written by John the apostle,[27] and that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul.[28]...
Click to expand...

An interesting man, Irenaeus.
He had strong opinions on a number of vital subjects, such as QuartodecimanismWP, MontanismWP, ChiliasmWP, and the Number_of_the_BeastWP
 
pakeha said:
... An interesting man, Irenaeus.
He had strong opinions on a number of vital subjects, such as QuartodecimanismWP, MontanismWP, ChiliasmWP, and the Number_of_the_BeastWP
Click to expand...
He seems also to have introduced another concept, that has since been responsible for the deaths of millions.
The use of the word heresy in the context of Christianity was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents during the early centuries of the Christian Community. He described the community's beliefs and doctrines as orthodox (from ὀρθός, orthos "straight" + δόξα, doxa "belief") and the Gnostics' teachings as heretical. He also pointed out the concept of apostolic succession to support his arguments.
Click to expand...
And who can argue with the apostolic succession? The word heresy seems to derive from the Greek word for "choice" - a truly devilish concept indeed. See wiki.
The word "heresy" comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αιρεομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers.
Click to expand...
 
...Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated...
Click to expand...


Was anyone else reminded of this?

Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen.
King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.
Galahad: Three, sir.
King Arthur: Three.
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
A key figure in Church history, then?
Click to expand...

The church has only one key figure. Matthew 16:18-19:
You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Click to expand...
 
TimCallahan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Since I can't seem to get an answer from DOC, I'll begin to answer the question myself. Let's start with Luke. He (or perhaps she) disqualifies himself as an eyewitness early on (Lk. 1:1 - 4, hiliting added):

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

So, Luke states that he is basing his account on material delivered to him and others by eyewitnesses. Thus, he's saying he, himself wasn't a witness. His history is, at best, secondhand.

Now, as to other clues as to eyewitnesses, let me ask you DOC: Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on one donkey or two?
 
Reality Check said:
It is the Councils of Carthage (there were a series of councils over several centuries).
The Councils of Carthage did not choose the New Testament canon. They issued a statement about an existing canon - "The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[4] on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible...". The concept of the New Testament containing 4 gospels was established about 200 years earlier.
Click to expand...

A concept is just that, a concept. The Council of Carthage (made up of many bishops), or probably any of the early popes could have invalidated the concept of 4 Gospels. Bottom line is if the Catholic Church was worried about alleged contradictions they had the opportunity to change the 4 traditional gospels into one official gospel (which would get rid of the alleged contradictions). They didn't do that over a period of several centuries, so that implies they weren't that worried about any alleged contradictions in the 4 gospels. I contend a possible reason for this is that they considered the four gospels (even with some alleged or possible contradictions) a greater representation of the life of Christ than one gospel with no possible contradictions.

If you are compiling a book on the life of George W. Bush you would get a greater more accurate picture of him if you included the recollections of his high school friend, his college friend, his mother, and his father then you could if you just included the recollections of his father, even if there was some discrepancies in their accounts.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
... I contend a possible reason for this is that they considered the four gospels (even with some alleged or possible contradictions) a greater representation of the life of Christ than one gospel with no possible contradictions.

....
Click to expand...


You are free to contend all you like, but serious scholars have written extensively on this, and most of them disagree with you. You are aware that each gospel had a different intended audience originally, yes?
 
TimCallahan said:
...As to Paul's 500 brethren to whom the risen Christ appeared, if you believe that Paul and Luke knew each other, why didn't Luke mention them?...
Click to expand...
Luke's gospel and the Book of Acts were written as a letter to a person (possibly a Roman official) Luke knew. There is always the possibility that Luke had already mentioned this to this person and thus he would have no need to repeat himself in any letter to him.

Also Luke's gospel timeline ended with the resurrection. The appearance to the 500 was likely after this timeline.

And the Book of Acts was about the Acts of the Apostles. We have no evidence that any of the 500 were apostles.
 
DOC said:
Luke's gospel and the Book of Acts were written as a letter to a person (possibly a Roman official) Luke knew. There is always the possibility that Luke had already mentioned this to this person and thus he would have no need to repeat himself in any letter to him.
Click to expand...

Two letters, actually. The possibility that he'd written this in another letter is a weak defense. Luke states that he's writing this letter to give Theophilus (a Greek name, BTW, likely meaning, "one who loves God" [theos = god + philos + love] making it likely that Theophilus was a Greek, not likely a Roman official) an orderly account of the life of Jesus. There's no indication that he has already written another letter to Theophilus.

DOC said:
Also Luke's gospel timeline ended with the resurrection. The appearance to the 500 was likely after this timeline.
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than your own opinion. It's eisgesis, not exigesis. Paul puts the 500 right after the 12. After that, Jesus appeared to James, then "all the apostles."

DOC said:
And the Book of Acts was about the Acts of the Apostles. We have no evidence that any of the 500 were apostles.
Click to expand...

Neither were those to whom the disciples spoke at Pentecost. Yet, they are mentioned in Acts. Again, this is a weak defense.
 
But just in case anyone is really interested in why the 4 gospels recognized as canon were selected, this is a decent book. Metzger tends to be a bit on the traditional side, in that he doesn't like to consider or promote some of the more "radical" notions, but his summary of the political pressures and reactions to the various early Christian sects does agree with the majority of the scholarship as to how the NT was shaped.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Canon-New-Testament-Significance/dp/0198269544
 
DOC said:
A concept is just that, a concept. The Council of Carthage (made up of many bishops), or probably any of the early popes could have invalidated the concept of 4 Gospels.
...argument from "authority" snipped...
Click to expand...
You are still ignorant of the fact that the Councils of Carthage (made up of many bishops) were a series of councils held over several centuries.
Councils of Carthage, also referred to as Synods of Carthage were church synods held during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries in the town of Carthage in Africa. The most important of these are described below.
Click to expand...
followed by a list from May 251 to 424.

This does not have much to do with the fairy tales in Matthew about an earthquake and a horde of zombies. These bishops (and popes) were just too superstitious (or stupid :rolleyes:) to understand that significant events like an earthquake and a horde of zombies need independent verification. So they should have read the other 3 gospels, noted that absence of an earthquake and zombies and thrown out Matthew!

In fact forget about the early bishops and popes - what does the modern inclusion of Matthew in the Bible tell you about the credibility of modern religious leaders?
Whet it tells me is that they are willing to believe in zombies just because they read about it in the fantasies of an uncertain author in a book based on myths, oral tradition (Old Testament) and cherrypicked texts written probably decades after the events, c70 (New Testament).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
...This does not have much to do with the fairy tales in Matthew about an earthquake and a horde of zombies. These bishops (and popes) were just too superstitious (or stupid :rolleyes:) to understand that significant events like an earthquake and a horde of zombies need independent verification. So they should have read the other 3 gospels, noted that absence of an earthquake and zombies and thrown out Matthew!
Click to expand...

The Early Christian Church about 1900 years ago was in a better position to know who wrote the gospels.

When an apostle of Christ writes something, it was logical for the early Church to believe it.

Some people believe Matthew the tax collector wrote it, some don't. This site says Matthew is the best guess:

http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/matthew.htm

Also, if you are going to make up an author, it doesn't make sense to assign a gospel to a "tax collector" (who probably were not liked by the public). Why not name someone like Peter as the author. Translation: Matthew wrote the gospel (attributed to him for 2000 years) in Hebrew and it was translated to Greek either by himself or someone else.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The Early Christian Church was in a better position to know who wrote the gospels.
Click to expand...


In what way? What records are you quoting when making this claim?


DOC said:
When an apostle of Christ writes something, it is logical for the early Church to believe it.
Click to expand...


Where is your evidence that these "apostles of Christ" existed? (with empahisis on the "Christ" part)


DOC said:
Some people believe Matthew the tax collector wrote it, some don't. This site says Matthew is the best guess:
Click to expand...


Guess? We've had years of your guesses in place of the promised evidence and they've all been either tragic or hilarious.


DOC said:
Also, if you are going to make up an author, it doesn't make sense to assign a gospel to a tax collector (who probably were not liked by the public).
Click to expand...


Doesn't make sense to whom? You?

There is no reality in which this would be a meaningful yardstick.


DOC said:
Why not name someone like Peter to have written the gospel.
Click to expand...


Lack of existence?


DOC said:
Translation: Matthew wrote the gospel (attributed to him for 2000 years) in Hebrew and it was translated to Greek either by himself or someone else.
Click to expand...


That's not a translation. It's just the umptieth example of you making crap up.

You have no evidence for any of this drivel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom