• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The testimony of the NT writers

leroy

Well-Known Member
Others have and I am not repeating their work for you.

Others have claimed that homer pass the test, but nobody has made a case.


I see that you are not a student of the Bible. But you have to be aware of the ten year difference between Luke's Nativity and that of Matthew. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. Matthew has Jesus born some time before Herod died. Some have argued for up to two years before Herod died. Luke has the time of Jesus birth at the time of the Census of Quirinius. That was in 6 CE. When Herod was king Judea was not even part of the Roman Empire. It was a client kingdom. There would have been no census and there is a good history of where Quirinius was and when. We know when he became governor of Syria. We know when he took over Judea and why. And actually that was just part of Herod's realm. it was split up. Nazareth, where Luke has them start from, was part of Galilee at that time. It was not under Roman rule yet. That story fails on so many levels.

How do you know that? (in red)

But in response to your question, if the author made a mistake you simply drop that specific part, you don’t drop the whole source.

All ancient historians make mistakes. And we don’t drop their work just because they made a mistake.





And then there is the "empty tomb" there probably never was a tomb. This was supposedly a Roman crucifixion. If that was the case they would need a much better reason than given in the Bible to take the body down. An important part of the punishment was the desecration of the body be leaving it up for days on end. That was what made crucifixion such a powerful punishment. Though Jesus the man probably was crucified that was probably the end of the story.

That has been refuted multiple times, we know that at least sometimes crucified people where buried , we know this because we have found their bodies.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I know of only one.

well we have 6 sources for the emty tomb


1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation, and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb.

2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.”

3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel.

4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all.

5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty.

6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts 13. So what corresponds to the second line “and he was buried”? It is Jesus’ burial in the tomb. And what corresponds to the third line “and he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”? It is the story of the discovery of the empty tomb! Confirmation that the third line of the formula summarizes the empty tomb account is found in the phrase “on the third day.” Why on the third day? Why not the seventh? The most plausible answer is that it was on the third day after his crucifixion that the women found Jesus’ tomb empty, and so the resurrection naturally came to be dated on that day. The third day motif is thus a time indicator for the discovery of the empty tomb.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That's rich.
Let me know when you can read and respond to my posts in their entirety.
I challenge you to quote a single point that I havent adress……………….can you do that? nooooooooooo,

Stop making ridiculous excuses and admit that you were wrong
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Others have claimed that homer pass the test, but nobody has made a case.

You may believe that. Others do not.

How do you know that? (in red)

But in response to your question, if the author made a mistake you simply drop that specific part, you don’t drop the whole source.

All ancient historians make mistakes. And we don’t drop their work just because they made a mistake.

The Romans kept good records of their censuses. And of course one of the sources for this is a historian that Christians regularly quote. Josephus was one of those that noted when Quirinius became governor of Syrai.

But no matter what the census could not have occurred while Herod was king. Once again, he was not part of thee Roman Empire



That has been refuted multiple times, we know that at least sometimes crucified people where buried , we know this because we have found their bodies.

No. It has not been. This error of yours has been explained to you in the past. "Crucified" does not necessarily mean that the Romans did it. Like most conquered nations the Hebrews adopted some of the methods of their conquerors. The Hebrews crucified as well. But they would have obeyed Jewish laws. The Romans would all have had a good laugh.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The Romans kept good records of their censuses. And of course one of the sources for this is a historian that Christians regularly quote. Josephus was one of those that noted when Quirinius became governor of Syrai.

Ok so we have Luke and Josephus contradicting each other…………. Why are you assuming that Josephus was correct and Luke was wrong?

But as I said (and you keep ignoring) my claim is that most of the verifiable claims in the gospels are true,………… not that ALLLLLLL of them is true




No. It has not been. This error of yours has been explained to you in the past. "Crucified" does not necessarily mean that the Romans did it. Like most conquered nations the Hebrews adopted some of the methods of their conquerors. The Hebrews crucified as well. But they would have obeyed Jewish laws. The Romans would all have had a good laugh.
And I provided evidence of man that was crucified by the romans, whose body was then buried.

Implying that at least sometimes the romans made exceptions

https://www.history.com/news/jesus-christ-death-crucifixion-archaeology
Heel Bone From Italy Is Only Second Example of Crucifixion Ever Found
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You said "independent". That is one source. Those are not independent.
They didn’t copied form each other nor from a common source, that is what I mean by independent. (but call them however you whant)


Do you have the same thing for the Trojan horse?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok so we have Luke and Josephus contradicting each other…………. Why are you assuming that Josephus was correct and Luke was wrong?

But as I said (and you keep ignoring) my claim is that most of the verifiable claims in the gospels are true,………… not that ALLLLLLL of them is true





And I provided evidence of man that was crucified by the romans, whose body was then buried.

Implying that at least sometimes the romans made exceptions

https://www.history.com/news/jesus-christ-death-crucifixion-archaeology
Heel Bone From Italy Is Only Second Example of Crucifixion Ever Found
If you want an answer quit using strawman arguments.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
They didn’t copied form each other nor from a common source, that is what I mean by independent. (but call them however you whant)


Do you have the same thing for the Trojan horse?
What makes you think that they did not copy from each other? You really really need to study the Bible more.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
More excuses for avoiding an answer


If I made a straw man, why don’t you simply correct me and explain how I misrepresented your view?
You made a false assumption. If you don't know do not ask leading questions. If you do know, you need to be able to defend your questions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
like in most of the cases, the scholary sources are in the bibliography

Yes, it was not an outright apologist. But she still got a few things wrong. First off it does not help the Jesus story much. An actual scholar did take this bit of news on and showed how it does not help what happened in the case of Jesus. Would you be interested in reading it?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I challenge you to quote a single point that I havent adress……………….can you do that? nooooooooooo,

Stop making ridiculous excuses and admit that you were wrong
Dude, I've pointed out about a thousand times now how you take one sentence out of the entire post to respond to, while ignoring the bulk of the post.
That's why you keep missing the point, most likely.

The point, again, is that your standards for what you consider good evidence are abysmally low. As you keep demonstrating. We'd have to believe all kinds of fantastical claims, if we used your standards. Stop pretending you're doing what historians do.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Yes, it was not an outright apologist. But she still got a few things wrong. First off it does not help the Jesus story much. An actual scholar did take this bit of news on and showed how it does not help what happened in the case of Jesus. Would you be interested in reading it?
Would you be interested in reading it

Yes if an actual scholar (or anyone else) has evidence that this sources are not independent (they copied from each other) I am interested in reading it.

If your sources doesn't deal with this particular issue then I will dismiss it as irrelevant (but I would still reas it)
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Dude, I've pointed out about a thousand times now how you take one sentence out of the entire post to respond to, while ignoring the bulk of the post.
That's why you keep missing the point, most likely.

The point, again, is that your standards for what you consider good evidence are abysmally low. As you keep demonstrating. We'd have to believe all kinds of fantastical claims, if we used your standards. Stop pretending you're doing what historians do.

Well what standards do you suggest ?

You havent

1 give an example of a fantastical claim that fits my standards standard

2 provide a better standard for determing that source is reliable


And

You are still strawmaning my possition , I didn't say that you should belive everything that meets that standard



while ignoring the bulk of the post
..

If I am having the courtesy of repeating the claims that you haven't address , why cant you the same courtesy?

I am pretty confident that I have addressed all your comments, but if you think there is a point that I haven't agrees feel free to quote it and I will adress it.

.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes if an actual scholar (or anyone else) has evidence that this sources are not independent (they copied from each other) I am interested in reading it.

If your sources doesn't deal with this particular issue then I will dismiss it as irrelevant (but I would still reas it)

But your standard is a false one. You said "independent". One can be dependent without copying. You keep using poor arguments. And both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke copied quite heavily from Mark. John appeared to be aware of Mark as well. Lastly when a sources are picked to meet a certain story line they are no longer independent. You might be able to claim that the Gospel of Peter is independent. But you cannot make the same claim for anything that went through the process to be picked for the Bible.

You have only one source.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
But your standard is a false one. You said "independent". One can be dependent without copying. You keep using poor arguments. And both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke copied quite heavily from Mark. John appeared to be aware of Mark as well. Lastly when a sources are picked to meet a certain story line they are no longer independent. You might be able to claim that the Gospel of Peter is independent. But you cannot make the same claim for anything that went through the process to be picked for the Bible.

You have only one source.
1 Again with independent I mean that they didn’t copied from each other, if your understanding of the word “independent” is different then we simply have a semantic disagreement (which is irrelevant)

2 the burial story is corroborated and the empty tomb are corroborated by multiple independent sources (weather if Mathew copied from Mark in other events is relevant because we are not discussing these other events)

3 I accept independent sources are a good and strong line of evidence that corroborates the truth of a historical event. If you have different standards please share them and explain why your standards are better than mine.
 
Top