Please take the time to read this entire post.
This thread is created for posts that:
1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.
2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.
Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].
Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:
1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;
2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.
The Evidence War
Moderator: Moderators
-
chrispalasz
- Scholar
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:22 am
- Location: Seoul, South Korea
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #161
I think there is a point to be made regarding what the New Testament writers were doing when they took the pen.
Greenlight wrote:
The first time I read this post I did not realize that Greenlight was assuming that the literary genre to which the New Testament belongs is "journalism" or "reporting". However, I had always been told that that was not the case. In fact, when I read the Gospels I don't think, for instance, " this is Mark reporting from Jerusalem". It doesn't read like a report or a documentary. "Gospel" is supposed to mean "Good News", which points not so much to a journalistic intention as to the objective of "making converts".
What, then, are the Gospels evidence of? They're evidence of the committment and missionary zeal of their writers. But they're not evidence of the story "as it happened" because they even describe events that no Jesus follower would have known. For instance, Jesus' trial. We are told by the Gospel writers that no Jesus followers were present, so how did these writers know what really happened? Did they rely on stories told by hostile witnesses who later converted? If so, why don't they give names? That would have helped a lot in their missionary efforts.
It seems to me that much of the Gospel narrative could have been embellished to make it more attractive to prospective converts. As a matter of fact, the different Gospels are aimed at different kinds of people (gentiles, Jews, etc). That's one reason maybe which explains differences in the accounts of certain facts. John's Gospel is very different from the rest, and might have been aimed at a Hellenized audience.
The Gospel evidence is valuable, but we must not forget they're not "reports". I doubt that a professional historian would regard them as conclusive evidence. As for faithful people not lying, it may be that they did not consider embellishments or innacuracies as lies, since they thought they served a "higher truth". The stories of the lives of saints are a good example of this: some were written a few years after the saint's death and by people of great faith, yet they contain implausible events, miracles of all sorts (including bringing the dead back to life) and all manner of exaggerations.
As for Jesus fulfilling Isaiah, I am not sure that the prophet was writing about a man. "The servant" is often used as a metaphor meaning Israel. The connection is thin, as I see it.
Greenlight wrote:
The New Testament writers were certainly biased, but their bias was towards honesty and truth, not deceit. Their intention was to accurately record and testify to the events that they had seen.
The first time I read this post I did not realize that Greenlight was assuming that the literary genre to which the New Testament belongs is "journalism" or "reporting". However, I had always been told that that was not the case. In fact, when I read the Gospels I don't think, for instance, " this is Mark reporting from Jerusalem". It doesn't read like a report or a documentary. "Gospel" is supposed to mean "Good News", which points not so much to a journalistic intention as to the objective of "making converts".
What, then, are the Gospels evidence of? They're evidence of the committment and missionary zeal of their writers. But they're not evidence of the story "as it happened" because they even describe events that no Jesus follower would have known. For instance, Jesus' trial. We are told by the Gospel writers that no Jesus followers were present, so how did these writers know what really happened? Did they rely on stories told by hostile witnesses who later converted? If so, why don't they give names? That would have helped a lot in their missionary efforts.
It seems to me that much of the Gospel narrative could have been embellished to make it more attractive to prospective converts. As a matter of fact, the different Gospels are aimed at different kinds of people (gentiles, Jews, etc). That's one reason maybe which explains differences in the accounts of certain facts. John's Gospel is very different from the rest, and might have been aimed at a Hellenized audience.
The Gospel evidence is valuable, but we must not forget they're not "reports". I doubt that a professional historian would regard them as conclusive evidence. As for faithful people not lying, it may be that they did not consider embellishments or innacuracies as lies, since they thought they served a "higher truth". The stories of the lives of saints are a good example of this: some were written a few years after the saint's death and by people of great faith, yet they contain implausible events, miracles of all sorts (including bringing the dead back to life) and all manner of exaggerations.
As for Jesus fulfilling Isaiah, I am not sure that the prophet was writing about a man. "The servant" is often used as a metaphor meaning Israel. The connection is thin, as I see it.
Post #162
While the gospels are not new stories and were written to emphize different points. That does not make them embellished or lies. That is an assumption or the part of the reader.
Secondly Peter was at the trial for part of it and we know that John was also there for part of the trial. Now the details that are not public knowledge of the trial would have been the note from Pilates wife. Why would that be necessary to tell where they got that information from. Secondly Luke admits he went to original sources to get his gospel but does not name the sources. As you point out these are not new reports.
But if they are lies then you have men saying that liars do not go to heaven while they are lying to you.
Secondly Peter was at the trial for part of it and we know that John was also there for part of the trial. Now the details that are not public knowledge of the trial would have been the note from Pilates wife. Why would that be necessary to tell where they got that information from. Secondly Luke admits he went to original sources to get his gospel but does not name the sources. As you point out these are not new reports.
But if they are lies then you have men saying that liars do not go to heaven while they are lying to you.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #163
samuelbb7 wrote:
1. Peter, according to the Gospels, was "out in the courtyard", "outside the door", "went out to the gateway", i.e., not really present at the trial. And he didn't hang around after a girl recognized him as one of Jesus disciples. He was too scared to stay.
2. John, "the disciple whom he loved", is mentioned at the crucifixion site by one of the Gospel writers, but no Gospel--that I am aware of--mentions him at the trial.
3. Embellishments would not necessarily have been seen as lies if the Gospels are not news reports but inspirational, convert-making literature. Also, don't forget none of the Gospels are signed, and none of the copies we have is the original version of any of them. Little changes were perhaps inevitable, and the Gospels do diverge on a few points, even if the first three are overall coincident.
4. I just thought that if the Gospel writers could have cited a few names of former Jesus persecutors who had converted after the resurrection, it would have been a definite plus.
5. I never said the Gospel writers were liars. Any mythologized events they might have included were certainly believed by them to be true. An honest person may honestly believe something to be true even if the facts are different from his own account. Witnesses under oath sometimes will claim to have seen things they didn't exactly "see". Was that what happened in the case of Jesus' disciples? No one knows for sure, that's why it's a matter of faith.
While the gospels are not new stories and were written to emphize different points. That does not make them embellished or lies. That is an assumption or the part of the reader.
Secondly Peter was at the trial for part of it and we know that John was also there for part of the trial. Now the details that are not public knowledge of the trial would have been the note from Pilates wife. Why would that be necessary to tell where they got that information from. Secondly Luke admits he went to original sources to get his gospel but does not name the sources.
1. Peter, according to the Gospels, was "out in the courtyard", "outside the door", "went out to the gateway", i.e., not really present at the trial. And he didn't hang around after a girl recognized him as one of Jesus disciples. He was too scared to stay.
2. John, "the disciple whom he loved", is mentioned at the crucifixion site by one of the Gospel writers, but no Gospel--that I am aware of--mentions him at the trial.
3. Embellishments would not necessarily have been seen as lies if the Gospels are not news reports but inspirational, convert-making literature. Also, don't forget none of the Gospels are signed, and none of the copies we have is the original version of any of them. Little changes were perhaps inevitable, and the Gospels do diverge on a few points, even if the first three are overall coincident.
4. I just thought that if the Gospel writers could have cited a few names of former Jesus persecutors who had converted after the resurrection, it would have been a definite plus.
5. I never said the Gospel writers were liars. Any mythologized events they might have included were certainly believed by them to be true. An honest person may honestly believe something to be true even if the facts are different from his own account. Witnesses under oath sometimes will claim to have seen things they didn't exactly "see". Was that what happened in the case of Jesus' disciples? No one knows for sure, that's why it's a matter of faith.
Post #164
Luke is signed and John lets us know who it is by inference.
Mark is from a nephew of Peter according to tradition. Matthew is written from a very jewish perspective much more then the other three.
70 WEEKS OF DANIEL
The Bible has in the middle of Daniel the time prophecy of the first coming of JESUS CHRIST and what would happen when he came. It reads:
The starting of the 70 weeks is dated from 457 B.C. when the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was given. You can read about it in Ezra 6:14 and chapter 7. It took forty-nine difficult years to rebuild Jerusalem as told in Ezra and Nehemiah. Seven weeks of years or one year for each day brings us to 434 B.C. That leaves us sixty-two weeks of years or 434 years. The two together or sixty-nine weeks of year is 483 years. When you take 483 and subtract 457 you get 26 A.D. the year of the baptism of JESUS CHRIST. Three and one half years-latter JESUS was crucified sealing the covenant with his blood. Then three and one half years after that is the approximate date of the killing of Stephen the first martyr of Christianity and the beginning of spreading the gospel to gentiles.
Mark is from a nephew of Peter according to tradition. Matthew is written from a very jewish perspective much more then the other three.
70 WEEKS OF DANIEL The Bible has in the middle of Daniel the time prophecy of the first coming of JESUS CHRIST and what would happen when he came. It reads:
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
The starting of the 70 weeks is dated from 457 B.C. when the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was given. You can read about it in Ezra 6:14 and chapter 7. It took forty-nine difficult years to rebuild Jerusalem as told in Ezra and Nehemiah. Seven weeks of years or one year for each day brings us to 434 B.C. That leaves us sixty-two weeks of years or 434 years. The two together or sixty-nine weeks of year is 483 years. When you take 483 and subtract 457 you get 26 A.D. the year of the baptism of JESUS CHRIST. Three and one half years-latter JESUS was crucified sealing the covenant with his blood. Then three and one half years after that is the approximate date of the killing of Stephen the first martyr of Christianity and the beginning of spreading the gospel to gentiles.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #165
samuelbb7:
Luke is signed?
What edition of the Bible are you using? It's certainly not signed in any of the Bibles I own. Please tell me where to look for the signature. What "inference" points to the authorship of John? You are correct about the oldest Gospel: it is attributed to Mark by tradition. The same is true of the rest: the names of the authors are traditional, not historical. Unfortunately we cannot be certain that the names are correct.
As for the prophecy in Daniel, the language is rather vague. Who is "the prince"? And "the people of the prince" who will destroy the city? What "flood" is he talking about? I don't see any explicit references to Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. Also, what are "weeks of years"? Where did you find that concept? It is not at all clear to me that your interpretation is the one intended by the writer.
[/quote]
Luke is signed?
What edition of the Bible are you using? It's certainly not signed in any of the Bibles I own. Please tell me where to look for the signature. What "inference" points to the authorship of John? You are correct about the oldest Gospel: it is attributed to Mark by tradition. The same is true of the rest: the names of the authors are traditional, not historical. Unfortunately we cannot be certain that the names are correct.As for the prophecy in Daniel, the language is rather vague. Who is "the prince"? And "the people of the prince" who will destroy the city? What "flood" is he talking about? I don't see any explicit references to Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. Also, what are "weeks of years"? Where did you find that concept? It is not at all clear to me that your interpretation is the one intended by the writer.
[/quote]
-
SpinyNorman
- Student
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:25 pm
- Location: The Great State of Delaware
New Here
Post #166Hi all!
I am new to this board and have enjoyed reading the MANY posts on this thread.
I have one little point I didn't see. If it has been covered, please forgive.
I keep seeing all this about the so called ABUNDANCE of biblical errors. The original autogrpahs of the bible were without error. THe slight varitions shown through textual criticism are NEVER located in any part of doctrine or theology. Look it up. Those who want to use this weak argument that supposedly disproves the entire bible, that choice is certainly yours. But all my reading in textual criticism leads me to the conclusion that I can 100% trust the words in the bible.
That's it.
I am new to this board and have enjoyed reading the MANY posts on this thread.
I have one little point I didn't see. If it has been covered, please forgive.
I keep seeing all this about the so called ABUNDANCE of biblical errors. The original autogrpahs of the bible were without error. THe slight varitions shown through textual criticism are NEVER located in any part of doctrine or theology. Look it up. Those who want to use this weak argument that supposedly disproves the entire bible, that choice is certainly yours. But all my reading in textual criticism leads me to the conclusion that I can 100% trust the words in the bible.
That's it.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #167
I for one am eager to read SpinyNorman's autographed original manuscripts. They would save us a lot of work! Good job, SpinyNorman!
-
SpinyNorman
- Student
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:25 pm
- Location: The Great State of Delaware
Post #168
When did I say they were autographed?
You can't debate this issue if you are ignorant of the vocabulary.
Stop and think carefully before you attack. By autograph, all I meant was the original document penned by the writer's hand. Any mindful person seeking SERIOUS debate would know that. ANyone who has read even the tiniest bit on this issue KNOWS that these documents no longer exist. Please, if you are to respond, make it lucid.
I do not mean to come off as sounding arrogant, but anyone serious minded person would know what I was talking about. I would be interested in MEANINGFUL dialogue.
I have often found this to be a problem when discussing these matters with those who try to disprove the Bible. When SOME people have no knowledge they resort to mockery. I thought this thread was for meaningful debate.
You can't debate this issue if you are ignorant of the vocabulary.
Stop and think carefully before you attack. By autograph, all I meant was the original document penned by the writer's hand. Any mindful person seeking SERIOUS debate would know that. ANyone who has read even the tiniest bit on this issue KNOWS that these documents no longer exist. Please, if you are to respond, make it lucid.
I do not mean to come off as sounding arrogant, but anyone serious minded person would know what I was talking about. I would be interested in MEANINGFUL dialogue.
I have often found this to be a problem when discussing these matters with those who try to disprove the Bible. When SOME people have no knowledge they resort to mockery. I thought this thread was for meaningful debate.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
My apologies to SpinyNorman
Post #169I'm sorry, SpinyNorman. Your emoticons misled me into thinking you were just kidding. Also, your nickname suggested a Monty Python routine, so I guess I totally misinterpreted your post. I'll behave better in the future. 
-
SpinyNorman
- Student
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:25 pm
- Location: The Great State of Delaware
Post #170
Dilettante,
Kudos on recognizing the Monty Python reference!!! Not many do.
One of the things that makes communication difficult on a message board is the lack of hearing the emotion in a voice.
Perhaps I misread your post seeing it as mocking when it wasn't.
No harm no foul
I was merely sharing what I have studied as far as the reliability of the original text.
What's your favorite Monty Python skit?
Kudos on recognizing the Monty Python reference!!! Not many do.
One of the things that makes communication difficult on a message board is the lack of hearing the emotion in a voice.
Perhaps I misread your post seeing it as mocking when it wasn't.
No harm no foul
I was merely sharing what I have studied as far as the reliability of the original text.
What's your favorite Monty Python skit?
