Accuracy of the Scriptures Concerning Miracles and the Game of Telephone

[clem456]

Okay two things. First an event as big as the dead walking around, as told in Matthew, would have been noticed by ANYONE else and written down.

And you know this because…? Because ancient writers went to the Columbia school of journalism and recorded events 24-7 like CNN does?
How do you know it wasn’t written down and lost.
Maybe it was told but was not written down.
Maybe it was written down and the authorities squashed it to stop “The Way”.
Because you cannot fathom it, it cannot be. That’s what I hear you saying.

That is kind of a big thing. Second is that the Gospels are written with a bias.

I’m shocked that human beings have bias.
More important than observing bias is being able to discern authenticity and truth,

 

[Peter_Plato]

… the Gospels are written with a bias.

This argument has always bothered me…

As Los Angeles cold-case homicide detective J Warner Wallace points out, any eyewitness to an event will – after witnessing the event – come away from it with a definite perspective precisely because the event itself will have convinced them with some level of certainty about the truth of what they saw.

coldcasechristianity.com/2014/were-the-gospel-authors-biased/

This kind of after-the-fact point of view is not, in fact, bias - it is a certainty of sorts that comes from being in the privileged position of being an actual eye witness to event that others did not see. That privileged perspective is precisely what makes eyewitnesses valuable. They have access to information that everyone else lacks – which does not, by itself, make them biased.

Take Paul, for example. He was, in fact, biased against the followers of Christ and then witnessed some event which changed his life completely. At what point are we to consider him definitely “biased?” Would that be before, during or after all of his experiences? In the sense NM505StKate wishes to imply, it would only be after – which is precisely why she is mistaken on her view of bias.

Essentially, her view would mean that everyone, in the process of witnessing any event whatsoever, will only bring away from it “bias” of the kind she insists the Gospel writers have after their experience.

You are correct, Monicad, to be deeply bothered by such a facile argument.

Wallace, in his book, Cold Case Christianity gives an example of a woman who witnesses a bank robbery perpetrated by a former classmate of hers. When that classmate was in high school with her she had no strong thoughts about him, but thought he was a typical boy in her class. After witnessing him hold up a teller at gunpoint, she developed a new perspective about his character. Does that mean she is now “biased” against him because witnessing a robbery perpetrated by him has given her more and definite information about his character – i.e., that he is capable of robbing banks?

Should she be dismissed as a witness because now she is “biased” against him as the possible perpetrator of a bank robbery BECAUSE she now thinks he is capable of robbing banks?

Similarly, prior to following Jesus, his disciples knew nothing about him. After spending three years with him and witnessing his crucifixion and death, witnessing those events made them determined to tell his story as they witnessed it. Does that necessarily make them biased? No.

What it does is that it gives them insight and a perspective that all others do not and cannot have because they lack the insight and information that only the disciples could access. This insider or privileged information about Jesus does not, by itself, make them biased. It makes them more knowledgeable than those who do not possess that level of knowledge about him.

In order to make a case of bias, it would have to be proved that the disciples had reasons to fabricate or lie about events. That evidence just doesn’t exist, except in the imaginations of those who bring their own biases to bear against Christianity. Wallace makes that case in the video linked above.

 

[NM505StKate]

Peter_Plato:
I do believe that line was added in later, as in Josephus did not write it but someone else did.

 

[NM505StKate]

And you know this because…? Because ancient writers went to the Columbia school of journalism and recorded events 24-7 like CNN does?
How do you know it wasn’t written down and lost.
Maybe it was told but was not written down.
Maybe it was written down and the authorities squashed it to stop “The Way”.
Because you cannot fathom it, it cannot be. That’s what I hear you saying.

I’m shocked that human beings have bias.
More important than observing bias is being able to discern authenticity and truth,

So why didn’t the books of Mark, John, or Luke make any mention of it? With such a miracle occurring the other Gospels would have put it in.

You have to take the bias in account. You can’t just toss it out.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

So why didn’t the books of Mark, John, or Luke make any mention of it? With such a miracle occurring the other Gospels would have put it in.

You have to take the bias in account. You can’t just toss it out.

They wrote facts of what they saw. How is that bias?

 

[NM505StKate]

They wrote facts of what they saw. How is that bias?

There is plenty of evidence that the Gospels were written a good 35+ years after the events were supposed to happen. They are NOT eyewitness accounts.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

There is plenty of evidence that the Gospels were written a good 35+ years after the events were supposed to happen. They are NOT eyewitness accounts.

And as Abu has shown, there is plenty of evidence that at most two of them were. In John’s gospel, "An eyewitness has testified, AND HIS TESTIMONY IS TRUE." Emphasis mine.

If you are Catholic why can’t you understand the innerancy of Scripture?

 

[NM505StKate]

And as Abu has shown, there is plenty of evidence that at most two of them were. In John’s gospel, "An eyewitness has testified, AND HIS TESTIMONY IS TRUE." Emphasis mine.

If you are Catholic why can’t you understand the innerancy of Scripture?

By whose account is his testimony true? Heck doesn’t that show that the author is taking a second hand account and it can be erred to? Which two were shows to be written close to the events described in them?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

By whose account is his testimony true? Heck doesn’t that show that the author is taking a second hand account and it can be erred to? Which two were shows to be written close to the events described in them?

Or maybe the Holy Spirit inspired,them to write different events.

So why is Scriptural inerrancy so hard for you to understand?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is plenty of evidence that the Gospels were written a good 35+ years after the events were supposed to happen. They are NOT eyewitness accounts.

The evidence isn’t that good because even though the accounts may have been finalized and released publicly 35+ years after the fact, that doesn’t entail that a great deal wasn’t written down in private written form from the get go. Your “evidence” doesn’t get you as far as you think it does.

Second, two of the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses – Matthew and John. The other two were written under the auspices of those who were - Mark under Peter and Luke under Paul. The evidence is also that Paul was writing possibly within 10-15 years after the crucifixion.

By the way, John was likely the last Gospel written and yet was still by a living eye witness, which means there is no reason to think that the earlier Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Peter’s secretary) were not eye witness accounts.

Luke specifically disclaims being himself an eye witness but purports to writing a well-researched account FROM eye witnesses.

What you need to do is read those who have put together a solid defence of the Gospels - N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Gary Habermas, Peter J. Williams and Mike Licona among others.

Your “arguments," so far have been non-existent and mere assertions, at best.

 

[NM505StKate]

There is plenty of evidence that they were written earlier but I will let that slide for now. Even if your timeline is true it is a blink of an eye by historian’s standards, and people who could rebut the story were still alive.

Let’s make believe this were modern day shall we? A group of rag tag men from a small town in the United States gather together. They are largely uneducated, working as waiters, laborers, one is a former tax cheat. They follow a leader and he is dragged out into the streets and killed. Rather than disperse, his followers gather together in fear for their lives because they are publically HATED but instead of deciding to disperse, for some reason they decide why not make up a really weird and wild story that their former leader rose from the dead, that others did too, there was an earthquake and other fun things. Then just to add something extra freaky, they decided to try and recruit extra people to their cool religion by telling them they had to eat his body and drink his blood, great idea huh? None of them make a single dime off of the story by the way either, they only suffer prison, torture, pain and death.

You see, the motivation that the Apostles and other Disciples would have had, would have been motivation to keep quiet and write NOTHING. They personally gained nothing. Look at your life now, if you knew you were going to lose your job, your house, your reputation, everything you probably wouldn’t do something, especially if you knew it was a huge lie, I know I wouldn’t! So…either all of these men and women were collectively crazy or something actually happened in First Century Palestine.

Please site the evidence. The majority were also illiterate so how did they write especially in a language that was not their own?

 

[NM505StKate]

Or maybe the Holy Spirit inspired,them to write different events.

So why is Scriptural inerrancy so hard for you to understand?

Because there are many contradictions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do believe that line was added in later, as in Josephus did not write it but someone else did.

What you “believe” is neither here or there until you provide some compelling reasons why your belief ought to prevail over anyone else’s.

Are you a Josephus scholar or merely have an opinion based upon what you would prefer to have been the case - i.e., from your own biases?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because there are many contradictions.

Name one that is an actual contradiction and not merely a case where different accounts are difficult to reconcile.

You need to understand that a “contradiction" means logically impossible for both alternatives to be true at the same time.

 

[NM505StKate]

The evidence isn’t that good because even though the accounts may have been finalized and released publicly 35+ years after the fact, that doesn’t entail that a great deal wasn’t written down in private written form from the get go. Your “evidence” doesn’t get you as far as you think it does.

Who wrote it down?

Second, two of the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses – Matthew and John. The other two were written under the auspices of those who were - Mark under Peter and Luke under Paul. The evidence is also that Paul was writing possibly within 10-15 years after the crucifixion.

Proof please they were written by these two authors. The epistles may have be written close to the events BUT they make no mention of the events.

By the way, John was likely the last Gospel written and yet was still by a living eye witness, which means there is no reason to think that the earlier Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Peter’s secretary) were not eye witness accounts.

Luke specifically disclaims being himself an eye witness but purports to writing a well-researched account FROM eye witnesses.

Yet they have such wide accounts of the events. Which was the first miracle? How many Passovers did Jesus celebrate? Why was Lazarus not reported anywhere other than John?

What you need to do is read those who have put together a solid defence of the Gospels - N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Gary Habermas, Peter J. Williams and Mike Licona among others.

Your “arguments," so far have been non-existent and mere assertions, at best.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please site the evidence. The majority were also illiterate so how did they write especially in a language that was not their own?

Matthew, for one, was a tax collector who very likely had to read and write in Aramaic, Greek and possibly Latin to keep accurate records.

Luke was a physician - he had to be fluent in Greek to become one given the nature of his training.

Mark was likely a scribe and functioned as Peter’s secretary.

John had plenty of time to learn to read and write – he died after AD 90.

Archeological findings are showing that Hebrew children likely learned to read and write - and in fact had to. Even Jesus was literate given that he read from the scrolls at several synagogues.

I suspect that you are attempting to make a case more on your impressions (and biases) than on actual evidence.

 

[NM505StKate]

What you “believe” is neither here or there until you provide some compelling reasons why your belief ought to prevail over anyone else’s.

Are you a Josephus scholar or merely have an opinion based upon what you would prefer to have been the case - i.e., from your own biases?

All I can offer is this website.

freethoughtnation.com/does-josephus-prove-a-historical-jesus/

 

[NM505StKate]

Name one that is an actual contradiction and not merely a case where different accounts are difficult to reconcile.

You need to understand that a “contradiction" means logically impossible for both alternatives to be true at the same time.

When was Jesus born? The time of Herod or the time of the census?

 

[NM505StKate]

Matthew, for one, was a tax collector who very likely had to read and write in Aramaic, Greek and possibly Latin to keep accurate records.

Luke was a physician - he had to be fluent in Greek to become one given the nature of his training.

Mark was likely a scribe and functioned as Peter’s secretary.

John had plenty of time to learn to read and write – he died after AD 90.

Archeological findings are showing that Hebrew children likely learned to read and write - and in fact had to. Even Jesus was literate given that he read from the scrolls at several synagogues.

I suspect that you are attempting to make a case more on your impressions (and biases) than on actual evidence.

I honestly never heard that Luke was a physician, same with Mark.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why was Lazarus not reported anywhere other than John?

There is lots I can say about your questions but I am busy today.

Read Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

He makes a very strong case for dating the Gospels based upon who is or is not named in each narrative. Lazarus and his sisters were not named because they would have been subject to prosecution prior to very near the end of the first century. Recall that Mary anointed Jesus’ feet in John – symbolic of her recognition of him as the Messiah and king, a punishable offence in the early days of the Church, which is why the earlier Gospels don’t identify her.

Another example is the fact that only John names the high priest’s servant Malchus as the one struck by Peter at the arrest of Jesus. Having given that level of detail in the early decades of the Church would have placed Peter in jeopardy of being identified as the perpetrator of the attack.

Bauckham runs through a litany of other examples.

And then there is the whole question of undesigned coincidences…

apologetics315.com/2013/11/undesigned-coincidences-series-by-tim.html