Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Baruch]

FWIW, Jewishness is determined on the Mother's side. Not relevant, but whatever.

That is part of the heresy of the rabbis.  After so many Jewish women were raped by the Gentiles, we spit in the face of the Gentiles, by accepting our half-breed infants that resulted, and raised them as Jews, not as Romans.  It is common even in ethnic cleansing today, to rape all the women ... so as to destroy virgins, and to destroy the blood line of your victims.  Our Gentile ancestors did that to my Jewish ancestors too.

[leo]

FWIW, Jewishness is determined on the Mother's side. Not relevant, but whatever.

Jewishness is determined by the mother side but tribal affiliation is determined by the father side. caphiche ? A very important detail indeed.  Jesus doesn't have a human father according to the story. So saying Jesus descended from David is nonsense. This detail is enough to invalidate the Jesus Messiah claims. Tribal affiliation in Judaism  can't  be pass through adoption. The Matthew and Luke genealogies not only are nonsense , both contradict each other.

[trdsf]

Extraordinary claims require sufficient, compelling evidence. Nothing more. If you believe the gospel writers were telling the truth, then you accept their claims as reasonable. It's really just that simple.

And here's where your "evidence" all falls down.  You've pre-decided that you're going to believe the "evidence" rather than actually examine it.

You still have never addressed the fact (there's that word again, but unlike you I use it correctly) that the four gospels contradict each other on simple matters of observation.  They do not agree on the sequence of events of the nativity, of Jeshua bar-Joseph's ministry, of the events surrounding the crucifixion, and of the events after.  They cannot all be accurate.  Not physically possible.

That's not an opinion that they contradict, that's a direct observation.

You cannot call them evidence when they do not agree on events -- at a minimum, only one of them can be correct.  And you have no way of telling.  And if three are incorrect, there is no reason to suppose the fourth one isn't wrong too.  Unless, like you, you've pre-decided what the result is and are impervious to actual logic.

What evidence for the supernatural have you examined?

Funny thing is, there isn't that much evidence to begin with.  I have, however, worked with Zener cards with multiple subjects.  When I was a practicing Wiccan, I worked with Tarot cards.  I never did do astrology -- too much an astronomer to accept that as even plausible, even when I was a Wiccan.  I have attempted to document ghostly activity in graveyards.  So I have actually examined quite a bit.

Like your posts here, they're bullshit.

I'm done.  You have no interest in listening.  You refuse to answer direct questions.  You deliberately misrepresent the nature of evidence.  I shall be in other, worthwhile threads; have fun playing with yourself.

[Randy Carson]

Bald assertion. I think you're just trolling.

Have you read many books on Fatima and Lourdes?

And may I point out that the Church condemns more alleged apparitions that it approves?

[Randy Carson]

Somebody tell me why there's no artificial limbs in the pile of crutches at Lourdes?

This is a good question. Does that bother you somehow?

If some receives their hearing or sight or has cancer disappear, that's no big deal because they were probably faking all along, right?

If memory serves, there have been documented cases of organs that regenerated.

[Randy Carson]

Well, I have given the OP a quick review, and if there are no further objections to the idea that we do an accurate texts of the NT books, we'll move on.

Last call.

[SGOS]

Well, I have given the OP a quick review, and if there are no further objections to the idea that we do an accurate texts of the NT books, we'll move on.

Now we all agree that the New Testament is accurate.  We can move on to some of the more outlandish doctrines of Catholicism.

I'm hoping we can skip the virgin birth.  Everyone believes that, anyway.  Let's skip the rest of the boring stuff too.  I vote for exorcism.  That should be a lively topic. 

[Randy Carson]

Yep, the goat herders' campfire tales kinda got out of control.

If this is your belief, then what you're saying is that the apostles knew that their prank had gotten out of control, but rather than simply drop it, they continued preaching it without recanting until their deaths.

IOW, they were lying, they knew they were lying, and the whole thing was a conspiracy.

Is that your position?

[Blackleaf]

Cheap grace. Bonhoeffer.

But worded this way, the solution becomes even more obvious, because God's mercy does not give us the excuse to sin as we please, does it?

Sin on Friday night, confession on Saturday, mass on Sunday. Rinse. Repeat.

It doesn't work like that.

Oh, yes it does. Millions of American Christians do just that. It doesn't matter if it's the "correct" way of living. What matters is that it was an option, and one that many of Christians choose out of convenience.

Which did you choose? No. 2. Why? Because it was easier.

So, you have determined to sin either way. You're NOT going to give that up. So, you can either pretend to be forgiven (when you know you're not) or you can simply leave the Church to avoid being a hypocrite.

The latter would be more honest and therefore, probably easier in the long run.

It's official. You're an idiot. According to you, because I choose option 2, it MUST be the easier one! Why, because I did it! Simple. And why do you choose to be a Christian? Well, by your logic, people must always do what's easier, so you're a Christian by convenience. Oh...

Apparently, it's easier in the long run to be ostracized by your family, to lose your support system of fellow believers, and to give up what has been the most important thing to you for years than it is to live with cognitive dissonance. Yeah, sure. Goodbye.

[Randy Carson]

Are you this dishonest in real life or only when hiding behind a pseudonym?

I do not use a pseudonym because I am not ashamed of what I write. I have nothing to hide.

Still don't care to address Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem and Nazareth at the same time?

So, you're dropping the "where was Jesus born?" bit. Good. Now, Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth, but the ancestral home of Joseph's tribe, Judah, was Bethlehem, the city of David. So, in order to register for the census, Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, and this is where Jesus was born. After their escape to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous plot, Matthew records:

Matthew 2:19-23
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”

21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

This is why Jesus is known as "Jesus of Nazareth".

Luke tells us:

Luke 2
2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Joseph left Nazareth WITH Mary and went to Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary were both from Nazareth.

Now, please show me from scripture why you believe that Joseph and Mary were living in Nazareth and Bethlehem at the same time?

Or fleeing to Egypt while simultaneously returning home to Nazareth with a stop over in Jerusalem?

One gospel records the flight to Egypt and ends that period by noting that the Holy Family went to live in Nazareth. Another omits the flight to Egypt (this is called compression), and simply places Jesus in Nazareth. This is not a contradiction. People skip over details in the stories they tell every day. They say, "To make a long story short...", and they skip over parts of the story that are less important to the ending.

*sigh* Why didn't you put that verse in context, he asked knowingly?

Happy to oblige.

Luke 2:21-24, 39
21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

Luke's sequence: Nazareth > Bethlehem (birth) > Jerusalem (presentation) > Nazareth (Luke omits the flight to Egypt.)

Matthew's sequence: Nazareth > Bethlehem (birth) > Egypt > Nazareth (Matthew omits the presentation in Jerusalem.)

So, in context, there is no contradiction. Of course, if you disagree, then please quote the passages in context which you think are relevant.

People objected to Jesus being the Messiah because he was from Galilee not Bethlehem, an objection which John does not refute.

Where is Nazareth (he asks knowingly)?

Matthew 2:21-23
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.

Luke 2:39
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

Nazareth is in Galilee.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. Finally, Jesus moved to Capernaum, and scripture refers to this as his "hometown".

Matthew 4:12
13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum

Leaving where? Nazareth.

I thought you were going to pose a contradiction from the NT?

Hope this helps.

[widdershins]

Irenaeus wrote the passage I gave you around AD 180. Who was Irenaeus? Well, he was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John the Apostle.

1. John
2. Polycarp
3. Irenaeus

Now, here's an analogy:

1. Your Grandfather
2. Your Dad
3. You

Your dad says, "Listen carefully, widdershins, because I want to tell you something very important that I learned from your grandfather." Would you REALLY have such a hard time believing what your dad told you? Would you assume that your Grandfather was mistaken, that he lied or that your dad simply misunderstood the message?

Now, off the top of my head let me name a few presidents:

Obama
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Reagan
Carter
Nixon (resigned in second term)
Johnson
Kennedy (assassinated in 1963 in Dallas)
Eisenhower
Truman
Roosevelt (four terms, died in office)
Hoover (at the start of the depression)

Now, those are all I can name in order, because beyond this, I haven't made any effort to memorize the list. But I can name others in no particular order:

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln, and that's about it without more time and effort. 19 out of 44. FROM MEMORY.

Are you seriously doubting the ability of Irenaeus or Augustine to correctly identify the Bishops of Rome - especially if they took the time to refer to books and letters they might have had on hand?

SERIOUSLY?

I'm seriously doubting your interpretation of what "history" teaches us, which you have given very good reason to do.

[Randy Carson]

And here's where your "evidence" all falls down.  You've pre-decided that you're going to believe the "evidence" rather than actually examine it.

How do you know this is what I have done? How do you know that J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel, former atheists, did this? You don't.

And how do I know that you have not "pre-decided" that the evidence must be explained away because you have "pre-decided" that miracles don't happen.

You still have never addressed the fact (there's that word again, but unlike you I use it correctly) that the four gospels contradict each other on simple matters of observation.  They do not agree on the sequence of events of the nativity, of Jeshua bar-Joseph's ministry, of the events surrounding the crucifixion, and of the events after.  They cannot all be accurate.  Not physically possible.

That's not an opinion that they contradict, that's a direct observation.

As I just demonstrated in another thread to another atheist who challenged me on the sequence of events recorded a the nativity, there is no contradiction in the accounts.

Matthew omits the presentation in the Temple, but includes the Flight to Egypt. Luke records the Presentation but omits the Flight to Egypt. So, is this a contradiction? No, it is a difference. And it is reasonable to conclude that both events occurred. They are not mutually exclusive.

I could demonstrate the same for the resurrection accounts. There are no contradictions only differences that can be reconciled. If you think differently, give me your favorite example from the NT, and I'll be happy to take a look.

You cannot call them evidence when they do not agree on events -- at a minimum, only one of them can be correct.  And you have no way of telling.  And if three are incorrect, there is no reason to suppose the fourth one isn't wrong too.  Unless, like you, you've pre-decided what the result is and are impervious to actual logic.

This is not only illogical, but it is not the practice of our court system. Differences are not only expected but important in eyewitness testimony. Why? The absence of differences suggests that the witnesses colluded or rehearsed their stories.

Some atheists claim that the Catholic Church eliminated all the gospels that didn't agree with the approved message and that the four gospels are really just one version of the story and thus it cannot be believed. Others, like you, claim that because there are differences - incorrectly called contradictions - it cannot be believed.

Well, which is it? Are differences a good thing or a bad thing? You atheists can't have it both ways.

J. Warner Wallace discusses this in depth here:

Why We Should Expect Witnesses to Disagree
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/why-we-should-expect-witnesses-to-disagree/

I'm done.  You have no interest in listening.  You refuse to answer direct questions.  You deliberately misrepresent the nature of evidence.  I shall be in other, worthwhile threads; have fun playing with yourself.

As shown above, I listened carefully to your objection. I answered your direct questions. I have given you definitions of evidence from an expert who works with evidence professionally in the California law enforcement and judicial system. There are two major types of evidence: Direct and Indirect. There is a lot of indirect evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

What's REALLY happening is that you're frustrated that I'm not folding like other Christians who have come to the forum in the past.

You cannot withstand MY arguments and refutations of yours because you have pre-decided what you believe about God without being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You're just taking your bat and ball and going home.

See ya!

[widdershins]

I don't need to explain it away, I can explain it.

God Said To Make Them

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18â€"20).

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18â€"19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17â€"18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
 
The Religious Uses of Images

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8â€"9).

One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.

Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.

Do Catholics Worship Statues?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp

Explain it, explain it away, there is no difference.  You did only what I already said you could easily do.

You simply misunderstand the passage.

Matthew 6:7-8:  Vain Repetition

Many non-Catholics believe that praying the rosary violates Jesus’ teaching about “vain repetition” found in His Sermon on the Mount:

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8)

Immediately after saying this, He went on to teach the crowd the following prayer:

Matthew 6:9-13
This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'”

Jesus didn't say, "You might want to say something like the following"...he said, "When you pray, say" and He gave us precise words that we should pray daily for our daily bread, and these words have been repeated for 2,000 years. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.

Matthew 26:43-44
43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

Jesus prayed a third time saying the same things he had said previously. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.

Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."

The creatures keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - day and night. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.

Again, you're only doing what I already said you could do.  I didn't actually expect you to do it.  I don't expect you to defend your faith, as I know full well you can )at least well enough to keep you complacent).  Catholics comprise both some of the smartest (you are one of these) and dumbest (I once had a pregnant, unmarried, teenage girl tell me that she got pregnant because, being Catholic, she was unable to use birth control.  The fact that she was also, by those same rules, unable to have sex in the first place eluded her) of the religious people I've known.

Now, don't go getting a big head.  I don't think you're particularly smart as a person (smart people tend to accept even facts which do not agree with them as not doing so makes one "intentionally ignorant"), but smart for a Christian, anyway.  I've known a few actual intelligent, thoughtful religious people...at least until it comes to religion.

[Randy Carson]

Now we all agree that the New Testament is accurate.  We can move on to some of the more outlandish doctrines of Catholicism.

If you wish to discuss a doctrine of Catholicism, start a thread. I'll be there.

[Randy Carson]

Oh, yes it does. Millions of American Christians do just that. It doesn't matter if it's the "correct" way of living. What matters is that it was an option, and one that many of Christians choose out of convenience.

It's official. You're an idiot. According to you, because I choose option 2, it MUST be the easier one! Why, because I did it! Simple. And why do you choose to be a Christian? Well, by your logic, people must always do what's easier, so you're a Christian by convenience. Oh...

Apparently, it's easier in the long run to be ostracized by your family, to lose your support system of fellow believers, and to give up what has been the most important thing to you for years than it is to live with cognitive dissonance. Yeah, sure. Goodbye.

Another quitter. Well, just remember to keep telling yourself that you won this exchange.