The written records as evidence

[themonkeyman]

Okay.

In my last thread I had atheists arguing left-right-and-centre that my evidence is not sufficient for the meagre "undisputed" claims. I want to focus on these "challenges" posed to me.

Jesus was a historical person. This is firmly established by having independent contemporary authors writing asymmetrical works. They were not bound together as "The New Testament" until some time in the second century. The first century writers did not all know about each other; although some certainly were familiar with some of the work of their contemporaries.

Now many atheists have reminded me that Luke's census of Quirinius cannot be independently verified unless it's the census of 6AD. This is an open point, it's a point that remains unsolved. But Luke offers far more certainty in the remainder of his works, and especially in Acts which ends in the present of the early church c. 61 AD. Even if Acts were to be written in 90 AD, all the events it talks about take place between the time of Jesus and c. 61 AD - we'll say about 30 years.

Nazareth. It has been partly excavated in 2009, and what archaeologists discovered was that it was a small town consisting of about 50 houses and populated by observant Jews, 4 miles from Sepphoris and linked via roads where it is theorized that Joseph and Jesus would have worked as carpenters/builders.

Pontius Pilate. In 1961 the "Pilate Stone", a block of of carved limestone was discovered, with an inscription naming Pontius Pilate. Josephus also names him.

Caiaphas. The high priest who condemned Jesus. Archaeologists discovered his ossuary in Jerusalem in 1990.

Crucifixion. Atheists long claimed there was no evidence for nails being used in crucifixion, prior to the Christian gospels. In 1968 a 1st century AD ossuary was discovered, inside a Jewish tomb, containing the remains of "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol". Jehohanan's right heel bone still had the crucifixion nail embedded in it.

The Merneptah Stele. Although I am talking about the NT chronology, this requires a mention. Discovered in 1896 in Egypt, it proves beyond doubt that Israelites were living in Canaan by the 13th century BC.

Many atheists still think that the ancient Jewish heritage doesn't really go back that far!

The Book of Daniel. Okay, it would take a whole new thread to discuss this properly, but suffice to say that the discovery of the Qumran scrolls put to bed for good and all the late authorship theory.

John the Baptist:

• Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

What you just read is not from the Bible, it is from Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2.

His account agrees with the gospels that John the Baptist: had crowds of Jews approach him, had followers dedicated to him, Herod puts him in prison and has him executed, and that John preached a message of virtue and righteousness for each other.

Without reading your drivel I will make 3 points to refute your big arguement

1) Matthew / Mark & Luke all used Mark as an original source.
2) Mark was written by a Friend of Pauls and Peters
3) Paul wrote the larger portion of the NT Books in his 'Own' version of Christianity which was also the source when Marks Gospel came around

So actually they all Deviate from a few main Characters
Paul / Peter / Paul's Writer

So saying that the collection of books is evidence is wrong as it was only really written by a handfull of people all of which knew eachother to some extent.

Unless you want to include the Gnostic Gospels but when people say they are bull shit it does show there is a sheer amount of made up stories that look real on the pre-face. So after realising that the Gnostic Gospels were completely fake its easy to see how a bible could come around.

---

And another thing. Generally God gives revelations to people known as 'Prophets' Why was there a large Gap between the last Prophesy and Jesus coming to earth?

Surely an Independent Prophet at the time could affirm or deny Jesus using the power of God. E.g. God is known for big show off events so why not make jesus look a little more God like?

[TheBeardedDude]

Do you believe in Harry Potter yet? Or do I need to pray to him to produce a patronous charm?

[Aractus]

Without reading your drivel I will make 3 points to refute your big arguement

Then you're trolling, and that's against the rules of this forum.

Read my post and respond intelligently.

Also - if you didn't read my post then how would you possibly know what my big argument is?

[Minimalist]

You post a pile of shit and insist we answer "intelligently?"

Fuck off.

[Aractus]

Min, all you ever do in any thread that you didn't originally start yourself is troll.

Forgive me if I don't care for your POV.

BTW. All I asked was that he read the post (which he didn't) before responding to it - how is that unreasonable?

[themonkeyman]

Min, all you ever do in any thread that you didn't originally start yourself is troll.

Forgive me if I don't care for your POV.

BTW. All I asked was that he read the post (which he didn't) before responding to it - how is that unreasonable?

But in the words of Father Dougle Maguire - 'Hes right there ted'!
I did read your crap about half way through and realised your arguments go so weak I couldent be arsed finishing

[Aractus]

This is firmly established by having independent contemporary authors

There wasn't a single contemporary author. Everything about Jesus came at least a couple of decades after his death.

But that's still contemporary. And you aren't 100% correct, the earliest epistle (the epistle of James) came at least 1 decade after the death of Jesus.

The Epistle of James is another interesting case, it too can be reliably dated, in a sense, in that it is near certain that it was written prior than AD 49 (the Jerusalem conference). I suppose though, more importantly are the clear parallels between the Epistle and the words of James recorded in Acts 15. This brings the date to around c. 45 AD, which is just 1 decade after the death of Jesus.

writing asymmetrical works.

Maybe for the most part. The telling of the story evolves as you read the gospels in chronological order though.

No. That viewpoint isn't unique, some atheists have suggested that all the books of the New Testament read chronologically tell an "evolving story"; but then that's based on their assumptions that all the epistles of Peter are written before the Gospel of Mark, and other such assumptions. There's no way to make such broad assumptions. I do think that Matthew is written well before Luke and that John is written much later, but you know that many scholars believe that the synoptic problem is only solved when Luke and Matthew are written within 2 years of each other!

So, to take that viewpoint, you have to make many broad assumptions of the dates of the gospels, and indeed the epistles. Take John, for instance. The author was a Palestinian Jew (as was the author of Matthew), the author was an Apostle (an eye witness). Most importantly the author was the Apostle John, and every time he mentioned himself he uses the phrase "the disciple who Jesus loved". It is theorized he used this phrase because he was given this nickname by the other disciples or by Jesus, and not because he actually invented it for himself.

Most scholars date the gospel to c. 90-100 AD. P52 poses a problem for this date, because it dates palaeographically to c. 90-135 AD and a pre 2nd century date cannot be excluded. Its existence alone testifies to its widespread usage and copying at that time. Interestingly, John doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple/siege of Jerusalem and nor does he have the prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem! That throws a spanner in the works, meaning that most scholars exclude any possibility that it could have been written c. 70-80 AD for this reason alone. John still could have been the last canonical Gospel written, even if it was written in 62 AD.

So when was it written? We don't know, it's near impossible to reliably date John! As I said before, only certain writings can be reliably dated, and even then you usually only have an indicator saying "earlier than this point" - or in some people's view "later than this point". John has neither, and if it's written as late as 90 AD then you have to assume P52 dates to c. 135 AD. I will say this - John does know about the death of Peter this is made clear in John 21:18, so it is written after Peter's death. However we do not know reliably when Peter died, and although the 2nd century church fathers place the date around the mid 60's AD like Paul, an earlier death mid 50's is also entirely possible!

They certainly knew about each other. Markan Priority is a good theory with lots of explanatory power.

Most scholars think that Matthew didn't know about Luke and that Luke didn't know about Matthew. The Epistle of James is placed earliest, by most scholars, so obviously he didn't know about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's Epistles, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Revelation or Hebrews.

None of this remotely makes a difference. The reason being that the above is *necessary* for the NT to be true, but not *sufficient*. And you've also got the fact that it doesn't matter that historical places were used as a backdrop for what could potentially be a mostly fabricated story. Spiderman swings from building to building in New York. That doesn't make it any more plausible as a true story, although it would be *necessary* for him to be residing in a real place as opposed to fictional if it were to be a true story - naturally.

Don't edit quotes unless you make it obvious you've edited them, OK? That's the same courtesy I would extend to you.

[FallentoReason]

There wasn't a single contemporary author. Everything about Jesus came at least a couple of decades after his death.

But that's still contemporary. And you aren't 100% correct, the earliest epistle (the epistle of James) came at least 1 decade after the death of Jesus.

The Epistle of James is another interesting case, it too can be reliably dated, in a sense, in that it is near certain that it was written prior than AD 49 (the Jerusalem conference). I suppose though, more importantly are the clear parallels between the Epistle and the words of James recorded in Acts 15. This brings the date to around c. 45 AD, which is just 1 decade after the death of Jesus.

I don't think you know what "contemporary" means.
x number of years later isn't contemporary.

Maybe for the most part. The telling of the story evolves as you read the gospels in chronological order though.

No. That viewpoint isn't unique, some atheists have suggested that all the books of the New Testament read chronologically tell an "evolving story"; but then that's based on their assumptions that all the epistles of Peter are written before the Gospel of Mark, and other such assumptions. There's no way to make such broad assumptions. I do think that Matthew is written well before Luke and that John is written much later, but you know that many scholars believe that the synoptic problem is only solved when Luke and Matthew are written within 2 years of each other!

I was only referring to the Gospels. It's evident that the story evolved. Have a look at John the Baptist and Jesus.

So, to take that viewpoint, you have to make many broad assumptions of the dates of the gospels, and indeed the epistles. Take John, for instance. The author was a Palestinian Jew (as was the author of Matthew), the author was an Apostle (an eye witness). Most importantly the author was the Apostle John, and every time he mentioned himself he uses the phrase "the disciple who Jesus loved". It is theorized he used this phrase because he was given this nickname by the other disciples or by Jesus, and not because he actually invented it for himself.

Not sure why this is relevant.

Most scholars date the gospel to c. 90-100 AD. P52 poses a problem for this date, because it dates palaeographically to c. 90-135 AD and a pre 2nd century date cannot be excluded. Its existence alone testifies to its widespread usage and copying at that time. Interestingly, John doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple/siege of Jerusalem and nor does he have the prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem! That throws a spanner in the works, meaning that most scholars exclude any possibility that it could have been written c. 70-80 AD for this reason alone. John still could have been the last canonical Gospel written, even if it was written in 62 AD.

Why would John not mentioning something throw a spanner in the works? That's an assumption on your behalf. Matthew is the only one that mentions zombie saints after Jesus' crucifixion, with none of the other gospel authors batting an eye about it. Clearly they wrote whatever they felt needed writing about. Albeit, it's a very suss exclusion of information, but I digress.

So when was it written? We don't know, it's near impossible to reliably date John! As I said before, only certain writings can be reliably dated, and even then you usually only have an indicator saying "earlier than this point" - or in some people's view "later than this point". John has neither, and if it's written as late as 90 AD then you have to assume P52 dates to c. 135 AD. I will say this - John does know about the death of Peter this is made clear in John 21:18, so it is written after Peter's death. However we do not know reliably when Peter died, and although the 2nd century church fathers place the date around the mid 60's AD like Paul, an earlier death mid 50's is also entirely possible!

With so much speculation, I guess we'll never know for sure.

They certainly knew about each other. Markan Priority is a good theory with lots of explanatory power.

Most scholars think that Matthew didn't know about Luke and that Luke didn't know about Matthew. The Epistle of James is placed earliest, by most scholars, so obviously he didn't know about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's Epistles, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Revelation or Hebrews.

Sorry, I should've clarified; Matthew and Luke knew about Mark ergo Markan Priority. On a side note, it's rather odd how "Matthew" - a supposed witness - needs to rely on "Mark" who wasn't a witness for his account. Surely "Matthew's" experience is more trustworthy than a second-hand account?

None of this remotely makes a difference. The reason being that the above is *necessary* for the NT to be true, but not *sufficient*. And you've also got the fact that it doesn't matter that historical places were used as a backdrop for what could potentially be a mostly fabricated story. Spiderman swings from building to building in New York. That doesn't make it any more plausible as a true story, although it would be *necessary* for him to be residing in a real place as opposed to fictional if it were to be a true story - naturally.

Don't edit quotes unless you make it obvious you've edited them, OK? That's the same courtesy I would extend to you.

?

No idea what I've done wrong. Consequently, consider my point still valid and your failure to address my point noted.

[Aractus]

I don't think you know what "contemporary" means.
x number of years later isn't contemporary.

Nonsense. If an associate of Michael Jackson wrote a biography of him it'd be a contemporary account.

I was only referring to the Gospels. It's evident that the story evolved. Have a look at John the Baptist and Jesus.

Well then you're admitting that you're making assumptions about which order they were actually written in. If Luke and Matthew are truely unaware of each other's gospel then they could have been written in either order, and John could have been written any time!

Why would John not mentioning something throw a spanner in the works? That's an assumption on your behalf. Matthew is the only one that mentions zombie saints after Jesus' crucifixion, with none of the other gospel authors batting an eye about it. Clearly they wrote whatever they felt needed writing about. Albeit, it's a very suss exclusion of information, but I digress.

I'm not sure why you're drifting so far off the point of this thread? We're talking about evidence, not nitpicking on small details which I don't expect you to accept. For instance, all the gospels - including John - tell us the name of the person who retrieved Jesus' body and then had it placed in his own tomb, that person being Joseph of Arimathea. That is one such example of clear consistency.

With so much speculation, I guess we'll never know for sure.

But you're wrong - we do know some things for sure. For instance, we know it's written after Peter's death, and we know that it's written by the Apostle John.

Sorry, I should've clarified; Matthew and Luke knew about Mark ergo Markan Priority. On a side note, it's rather odd how "Matthew" - a supposed witness - needs to rely on "Mark" who wasn't a witness for his account. Surely "Matthew's" experience is more trustworthy than a second-hand account?

Not really, it is true that you wouldn't instinctively think that an Apostle would use a written source by somebody else as their basis, however that argument is by no means a rock-solid argument for or against the authorship of the gospel. But, alas, it's not so important that we know who the author of "Matthew" is, as the author himself never claims to be Matthew so the point is relatively moot.

[FallentoReason]

I don't think you know what "contemporary" means.
x number of years later isn't contemporary.

Nonsense. If an associate of Michael Jackson wrote a biography of him it'd be a contemporary account.

Ok, clearly we're both talking about different things. What I mean to say is that none of the literature on Jesus was written while he was alive. Call that what you will, but that's all I was pointing out.

I was only referring to the Gospels. It's evident that the story evolved. Have a look at John the Baptist and Jesus.

Well then you're admitting that you're making assumptions about which order they were actually written in. If Luke and Matthew are truely unaware of each other's gospel then they could have been written in either order, and John could have been written any time!

I think it's a safe assumption to say the order is Mark -> Matthew/Luke -> John. Mark is the crudest of them all while John seems to be the most polished.

Why would John not mentioning something throw a spanner in the works? That's an assumption on your behalf. Matthew is the only one that mentions zombie saints after Jesus' crucifixion, with none of the other gospel authors batting an eye about it. Clearly they wrote whatever they felt needed writing about. Albeit, it's a very suss exclusion of information, but I digress.

I'm not sure why you're drifting so far off the point of this thread? We're talking about evidence, not nitpicking on small details which I don't expect you to accept. For instance, all the gospels - including John - tell us the name of the person who retrieved Jesus' body and then had it placed in his own tomb, that person being Joseph of Arimathea. That is one such example of clear consistency.

My apologies. I do have to admit I'm not sure where we're heading in our discussion. I'm just answering you a sentence for a sentence.

Ok, that's an example of consistency. *shrugs* it would be rather silly of me to assert that the Gospels have 0% consistency. I'm not going to that extreme.

With so much speculation, I guess we'll never know for sure.

But you're wrong - we do know some things for sure. For instance, we know it's written after Peter's death, and we know that it's written by the Apostle John.

If you say it could be dated anywhere between 50AD and 90AD, then I'd say there's a lot of goddamn speculation going on!

Sorry, I should've clarified; Matthew and Luke knew about Mark ergo Markan Priority. On a side note, it's rather odd how "Matthew" - a supposed witness - needs to rely on "Mark" who wasn't a witness for his account. Surely "Matthew's" experience is more trustworthy than a second-hand account?

Not really, it is true that you wouldn't instinctively think that an Apostle would use a written source by somebody else as their basis, however that argument is by no means a rock-solid argument for or against the authorship of the gospel. But, alas, it's not so important that we know who the author of "Matthew" is, as the author himself never claims to be Matthew so the point is relatively moot.

I think it's a damn good argument. The author's intent: to write an account of the events that have unfolded. Naturally, what would be your approach? To retell what you've experienced? But of course. Thus, if "Matthew" has had to rely on a second-hand document, then what's that telling you? That he didn't have any experiences to share? Almost certainly. Then why even entertain the idea he was a witness? Do away with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was indeed written by the Apostle Matthew.