Hostage to fear

[Randy Carson]

Of course they would. But that IS the kind of miracle that Jesus performed, but despite that, you're walking away from Him. Why?

So God thought it relevant to reveal his truths in the form of miracles at one time, but not anymore?  

No, lots of times. Surely you've read the OT, also?

And as a what? former Catholic now? you've read the lives of the saints. Lots of miracles there.

You won't get very far with me along this line of reasoning.

We don't deserve this sort of proof because we've lived beyond the one generation of believers that were supposed to see the fulfillment of Christian prophecy in the first have of the 1st century?  If you're going to tell me that you believe that prophecy was fulfilled when the Jewish temple was destroyed... you will admit you're, at least in part, a preterist.  You very seriously don't want to go down the road of preterism, especially when it comes to your doctrine of hell.

Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:2
2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

But to answer your question directly... because he gave me secondary sources as a proof, which isn't proof of any kind.

I see. An interesting opinion.

But multiple eyewitnesses attested to the fact that it actually happened.

And who were they?  The anonymous authors of the gospels?  The ones whose names had to be written in the margins so that their authority could take seed, when they didn't write them in the first place?  Oh... holy tradition says "Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark".  Where's the evidence?

Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

Full story here. I'm using the "hide" feature because I have already posted this in my thread entitled, "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". Just click on the "Show Content" button to see the evidence.

---

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools” which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?

Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.”

Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.”

Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.

“[Authorship of the gospels] is a very important question. It’s something that the Church has held consistently since the beginning is that the gospels are of apostolic origin which means that they were written either by apostles or by apostolic men – meaning men who were closely associated with them – and that’s the basis on which we have a firm confidence that the gospels really do reliably tell us who Jesus Christ was, and what he did and what he taught.”

Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? Or why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true?

The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels” that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.

Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

Papias (d. ca. AD 100)

Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and was a disciple of  Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Of Matthew, Papias writes:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4)

Origen (AD 185-254)

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language." (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4)

From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.

---

Now, if the disciples simply made up the story to win converts, why were they willing to die for something they knew was not true? When a gun was put to their heads, why didn't at least one of them say, "Okay, enough. I admit it...we made the whole thing up."
Lots of people are willing to die for what they believe in, but no one dies for what they know to be false. The disciples knew the resurrection was true, and they were willing to die for what they knew.

Negative ghost rider, the pattern is full.  You cannot appeal to that argument when so many Manichaeans (your church called them heretics) were willing to die for their beliefs also.  Let's turn up the "time" on this argument of yours and come to present day... fundamental Islamic suicide bombers.  They get credit too?  Your argument is ... fundamentally flawed.  /sigh/  Dude.  Stop.  I'd ask "can't you see it"... but I was you when I was in my infancy of understanding about the world around us.

Nope. You missed it, and your examples prove that you missed it.

Manichaeans died for their beliefs. Lots of people do that even today as you point out.

The disciples did not die for beliefs. The didn't believe. They KNEW.

They were in a position to know whether the whole resurrection thing was a hoax, correct?

Sitting around one night after the crucifixion...having a little too much wine...then Peter says, "Hey, guys, what if we were to simply tell everyone that we saw Jesus....?"

See where I'm going with this, yet, Spacetime?

If the disciples simply made up the resurrection out of thin air, then in their heart of hearts they knew it was all bull. Now comes crunch time. Sword to the neck for some. Death by stoning for others. Not one of them admitted the lie. They died for what they knew to be true. They were willing to die rather than deny what they had seen with their own eyes.

People don't die for something that they know is a lie.

I disagree. I think God has told us why. Through the scriptures, through Sacred Tradition*** and through the Church.

BOOM!  And there it goes.  I was wondering when it would happen, but didn't suppose it would be this early.  Sacred tradition verses holy tradition.  Look it up.

I did. A long time ago. Did you? I'll do it for you:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

But several people in this forum have specifically expressed the resentment that they would feel if they knew God was watching them all the time. Christopher Hitchens was very clear about this.

But you're talking to me... and I'm not several people.  Thanks for noticing.

Just pointing out that lots of people including your new best friends here in the forum have admitted that even if God were to show up, they would not serve Him. Now, that's an intelligent position to take.

Sort of a field manual or textbook of some sort? Yeah, that might have been helpful.

Might have been helpful?  Are you so far disconnected from your own species that you fail to see the certainty that a field guide from your omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god would have done a better job of saving humanity?  Either you've never left your own country or you've done so on a mission from god with 10 very watchful and suspicious members of your church.

Dude, give me a break. Sure, God COULD have just put us all in some condominium somewhere in the future with lots of air conditioning and an all you can eat buffet. But then we'd all be robots with no free will. What would be the point?

Sorry, the rest of this is nonsense.