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

[Akhenaten]

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).

But they had what they thought was a better plan. They'd put their own priests in charge of "educating" their flocks, ensure that the scriptures remained in a language that nobody but said priests could understand and thereby prevent the common folk from ever knowing about the contradictions.

Unfortunately for them, people managed to learn how to read, write and think critically about the source materials and the jig was up.

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.

Garbage. They've been trying to plaster over the ever-widening gaps in the plot ever since the first parishioner said "Hey, just a second . . ."

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.

My contention is that they thought four roughly similar stories would be more convincing for the plebs than just the one. What they didn't count on was people learning to think for themselves.

Same thing that proselytisers like yourself are still doing.

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.

This is irrelevant. None of this happened in the case of your alleged Jesus.

 

[Akhenaten]

Luke's gospel and the Book of Acts were written as a letter to a person (possibly a Roman official) Luke knew.

On what evidentiary basis are you proposing this possibility?

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.

On what evidentiary basis are you proposing this possibility?

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

On what evidentiary basis are you proposing this likelihood?

And the Book of Acts was about the Acts of the Apostles. We have no evidence that any of the 500 were apostles.

We have no evidence that they even existed.


This entire post is nothing but your own (uneducated) guesses.

 

[Akhenaten]

That is just a list with no explanation.

Like your oft-presented and unexplained list of Christian martys, you mean?

Can you give 2 links of any scholars that talk about why the Catholic Church chose to keep 4 Gospels as their official canon?

Will you be explaining how the process for the establishment of Catholic canon serves as evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth and why the existence of that canon gives more validity to claims for the truthiness of the bible than does the existence of Islamic and Hindu canon in respect of the Quran or the Vedas?

 

[Reality Check]

I knew that but one of those Councils of Carthage chose an official church cannon, the others dealt with other issues.

You do not know this because none of Councils of Carthage chose an official church canon (this did not happen until 692 AD).
The records of the 397 council have a canon listed from the minutes of a local synod, the Council of Hippo in 393.

While this is the first record of a formal decision regarding the books of the NT canon, it still was a local Synod, and needed to be accepted by the entire Church, which did happen in time. It was not until 692 AD that the Sees of Constantinople and Antioch adopted all of the canons of Carthage within the second canon of what is known by those Sees as the Quinisext Council of Trullo.

 

[Akhenaten]

What is your source that most of them disagree with me?

. . . and the forest will echo with laughter.

I'd like to see you produce a source that anyone, ever, in the history of your time here has agreed with you. And I don't mean a link to someone who has at some stage said the same thing as you, but a link to someone saying "I agree with DOC" or words to that effect.

 

[Reality Check]

DOC, Why did 20,000 people ignore the earthquake and zombie hordes

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

No they were not. All they had is the same information that we have, i.e. the texts.
We are in a better position because we have studied thoes texts for over 1900 years and have corrected their errors, e.g. about the order of writing of the gospels.

What remains is the superstition of the early and modern Christian Church obvious in their belief in an earthquake and zombie hordes that only one person wrote about when a city of 20,000 people did not report them.

DOC,
Why did 20,000 people ignore the earthquake and zombie hordes that Matthew reported?

 

[joobz]

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.

And that is how we know the bible is true. Because stuff made up is always logical.

 

[DOC]

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

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

So I assume you don't believe there was more valuable written information (such as Q), and also more Oral tradition evidence---which a rabbi I quoted in part 1 said was more important than written information---available 100 years after Christ than is available now, 1900 years later.

If so I would disagree because I believe common sense says there was much better information of all sorts available 1900 years ago than is available today.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

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

So I assume you don't believe there was more valuable written information (such as Q), and also more Oral tradition evidence---which a rabbi I quoted in part 1 said was more important than written information---available 100 years after Christ than is available now, 1900 years later.

You can assume whatever you like, DOC.

I asked you what source you used to make a determination that the Early Christian Church was in a better position than we are to know who wrote the gospels.

Your answer appears to be "I made it up."

Colour me unsurprised.

If so I would disagree because I believe common sense says there was much better information of all sorts available 1900 years ago than is available today.

What you believe to be common sense has no bearing on this or any other discussion.

The above drivel is a classic example of why this is the case.

 

[joobz]

If so I would disagree because I believe common sense says there was much better information of all sorts available 1900 years ago than is available today.

I believe common sense tells me that people don't rise from the dead. This is based upon 200+years of modern medicine and documentation. I also believe people 2000 years ago knew little of human physiology and medicine and were often quite mistaken in their assessment of someones health status.

 

[TimCallahan]

Since Luke has already eliminated himself as an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, perhaps we could look to Mark, especially because he was supposed, in some traditions, to be Peter's secretary. However, Mark seems to think that Jewish women could divorce their husbands, which isn't true. Also, his geography is faulty (Mk. 7:31):

Then he [Jesus] retuned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis.

Since the Decapolis, a federation of ten cities, lay to the south, and a bit to the east, of the Sea of Galilee, and south of Tyre; one would not go through Sidon, which is north of Tyre to get to the Decapolis. Also, were he going to the Sea of Galilee, from a point north of it, Jesus wouldn't go through the Decapolis to get there, since the Decapolis was south of the Sea of Galilee. In any case, there wasn't a road from Sidon to the Decapolis. So, even if Jesus were taking some round-about route, he still couldn't have gone that way. Obviously, Mark wasn't traveling with the disciples as Peter's secretary, taking everything down as an eyewitness.

 

[DOC]

Since Luke has already eliminated himself as an eyewitness to the life of Jesus...

Which verse?

 

[DrDave]

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?

Which verse?

Forgotten already?

 

[pakeha]

...Can you give 2 links of any scholars that talk about why the Catholic Church chose to keep 4 Gospels as their official canon?

Is this a serious question, DOC?

 

[DOC]

Can you give 2 links of any scholars that talk about why the Catholic Church chose to keep 4 Gospels as their official canon?

Is this a serious question, DOC?

Yes, and somebody just gave me a book title, but no quotes from the book.

 

[Akhenaten]

Since Luke has already eliminated himself as an eyewitness to the life of Jesus...

Which verse?

How many times do you need to be told that your fantasy of the gospels being eye witness accounts is laughable? Are you really going to pretend that despite the falsity of this belief having been pointed out to you over and over during the four years that this thread has been going you're still not clear about it?

Tragic.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, and somebody just gave me a book title, but no quotes from the book.

Never mind. Just pretend that you read it like you did with Ehrman's book.

In any case . . .

Will you be explaining how the process for the establishment of Catholic canon serves as evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth and why the existence of that canon gives more validity to claims for the truthiness of the bible than does the existence of Islamic and Hindu canon in respect of the Quran or the Vedas?

 

[pakeha]

Yes, and somebody just gave me a book title, but no quotes from the book.

Well, DOC, it rather looks as though you missed our discussion about Irenaeus over the last several posts.
It started here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8454987&postcount=2099

 

[DrDave]

DOC - do you actually read the thread?

 

[joobz]

DOC - do you actually read the thread?

he hasn't even read the bible fully.
Why would you expect him to have read the thread?