Accuracy of the Scriptures Concerning Miracles and the Game of Telephone

[Thorolfr]

Better than your estimate 2,000 years later.

Just because someone lived hundreds or thousands of years before us, doesn’t mean that they had better access to information than we do about events that took place two or three hundred years earlier even though they lived closer in time to the events concerned.

I’ve been reading Mary Beard’s new book, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, and she points out that we probably know more about the history of Rome in say 500 BC or 800 BC than someone who was living in Rome in 40 BC. This is not only because of advances in the study of history, but also because we have access to information from archaeology. The accounts of the history of Rome centuries earlier by Roman historians in the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD are mostly mythological and not very reliable. So living closer in time to ancient events does not make someone a more reliable historian or mean that they always had access to better information than we do.

 

[mattp0625]

Just because someone lived hundreds or thousands of years before us, doesn’t mean that they had better access to information than we do about events that took place two or three hundred years earlier even though they lived closer in time to the events concerned.

I’ve been reading Mary Beard’s new book, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, and she points out that we probably know more about the history of Rome in say 500 BC or 800 BC than someone who was living in Rome in 40 BC. This is not only because of advances in the study of history, but also because we have access to information from archaeology. The accounts of the history of Rome centuries earlier by Roman historians in the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD are mostly mythological and not very reliable. So living closer in time to ancient events does not make someone a more reliable historian or mean that they always had access to better information than we do.

History through a Protestant lens is very questionable and rather new. They have to say their methods are more accurate.

 

[Thorolfr]

History through a Protestant lens is very questionable

So only history through a “Catholic lens” is reliable? No historian is totally free of preconceptions that come from his/her culture, upbringing, education, etc., but most good professional historians shouldn’t have a “Protestant lens” or a “Catholic lens”.

 

[mattp0625]

So only history through a “Catholic lens” is reliable? No historian is totally free of preconceptions that come from his/her culture, upbringing, education, etc., but most good professional historians shouldn’t have a “Protestant lens” or a “Catholic lens”.

It’s almost always fabricated to create legitimacy since the problem of Protestant origination by Luther in the 16th century is very real.

 

[An_Atheist]

It’s almost always fabricated to create legitimacy since the problem of Protestant origination by Luther in the 16th century is very real.

With all due respect, I cannot hold to the Roman Catholic view of early Christian history. According to unbiased observers back then (i.e., non-Christians who had no reason to care about defending a particular view of the early Christians’ organizational structure), there was no unity.

Celsus, from his True Discourse, circa 178 AD
“Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning. Being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects.”

Celsus knew much about the Christian religion. He had obtained some of the New Testament writings, and he wrote at length arguing against the finer points of the texts. And yet, he makes no mention of a universal bishop in Rome.

During the Roman persecution of Christians, which lasted for three centuries, not one pagan wrote of any “leader” of the Christians. A systematic persecution would have targeted him, no?

 

[mattp0625]

With all due respect, I cannot hold to the Roman Catholic view of early Christian history. According to unbiased observers back then (i.e., non-Christians who had no reason to care about defending a particular view of the early Christians’ organizational structure), there was no unity.

Celsus knew much about the Christian religion. He had obtained some of the New Testament writings, and he wrote at length arguing against the finer points of the texts. And yet, he makes no mention of a universal bishop in Rome.

During the Roman persecution of Christians, which lasted for three centuries, not one pagan wrote of any “leader” of the Christians. A systematic persecution would have targeted him, no?

Except the apostles of Christ appointed bishops as successors, and they appointed successors and so forth. It’s plainly documented.

Clement, Ignatius, Linus, Polycarp, etc.

 

[Abu]

An Atheist #108
Celsus knew much about the Christian religion. He had obtained some of the New Testament writings, and he wrote at length arguing against the finer points of the texts. And yet, he makes no mention of a universal bishop in Rome.

It was that same Celsus who conceived of the first “Passover Plot” theory to the effect that Jesus was still alive when put in the tomb and later escaped in a natural way. [The *Founding of Christendom, A History of Christendom, Dr Warren Carroll, p 392].

As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. of* A History of Christendom*), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

"Eusebius wrote in *The Chronicle *(*Ad An Dom *42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.”

As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online | Rumble & Carthy
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well the other Gospels have healing a lame man at a temple as the first miracle. If Matthew is an eyewitness as is claimed why not write the wedding miracle?

Huh?

Read John 1:35-51. Jesus had made precisely five disciples – Andrew and another former disciple of John the Baptist, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathaneal – before going to the wedding feast.

Turn the page to chapter 2 and voila, they are at the wedding feast at Cana.

Matthew would seem a reliable eye witness because he didn’t report about a wedding feast he didn’t attend nor about a miracle he didn’t witness. Why would we presume he should report about it if he wasn’t there?

Matthew doesn’t even write himself into his own Gospel until the ninth chapter. Now obviously a biographical account of Jesus wouldn’t be complete without a beginning – a filling in of the details. But surely, that would depend upon who Matthew was relying upon to provide those missing details to him before writing.

Since there were only, as far as we know, Jesus, five of his early disciples and his mother, Mary, at the wedding feast. Perhaps Matthew’s version depends in great part upon who he talked to to fill in those details.

Now Mark doesn’t mention the wedding feast, either. We would have expected that he would have BECAUSE Mark got his version from Peter. Peter likely would have made mention of it because he was likely there. Perhaps Peter imbibed a bit too much wine and didn’t remember the details of what happened because of his state. You never know. All of which means that people are people, we recall what is important to us and forget or don’t take in what isn’t.

That is why eyewitness reports are notoriously dissimilar and why police detectives begin to get suspicious when eyewitness reports are too much alike. They begin to suspect collusion at that point.

Would you be happy with four identical Gospels having all the details exactly the same? No, you’d be making the opposite case – that there was collusion.

I would submit that the four Gospels strike a perfect balance of dissimilarity and agreement on key details – a clear sign of authenticity. The fact that these disparate accounts exist and provide us with the challenge of reconciling the accounts is precisely why they are to be trusted as good eyewitness accounts.

Have you heard of J. Warner Wallace?

He is a cold case detective from Los Angeles who uses his experience and skill with the treatment of evidence to demonstrate why the Gospels are very good examples of eye witness testimony. You may want to look up some of his work – and read it.

This is a good starting point…

youtu.be/rgzdFPe-Ye8?list=PLoRmSUN95aduvhlkjezfP76FIUwrbRaUz

 

[Peter_Plato]

During the Roman persecution of Christians, which lasted for three centuries, not one pagan wrote of any “leader” of the Christians. A systematic persecution would have targeted him, no?

Look up Ιγνάτιος ὁ Θεοφόρος.

That would be Ignatius of Antioch. Emperor Trajan had him marched to Rome and fed to the beasts. He wrote seven epistles to different churches on the way. A “leader” of the Church, bishop in fact, who was targeted.

Also Clement of Rome, writing in the late first century, in his letter to the Corinthians as Bishop and fourth Pope of Rome. Martyred, also by order of Trajan.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

The authority structure was detailed from the very beginning.

Educate yourself. The body of works from early Christian “leaders” is very impressive, actually.

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[NM505StKate]

Going to plug a great YouTube series here that goes into detail about the early church.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyt7uycifrvRD6j6D_uVwnMpYqzd_UhmX

An awesome list that goes in good detail about the early history. I highly recommend it. Clarky is a former Catholic and also a good friend.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Going to plug a great YouTube series here that goes into detail about the early church.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyt7uycifrvRD6j6D_uVwnMpYqzd_UhmX

An awesome list that goes in good detail about the early history. I highly recommend it. Clarky is a former Catholic and also a good friend.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Clarky is the An Atheist who suddenly appeared on these forums a few days ago and has now, just as suddenly, had himself banned and is using you to promote his YouTube series. Would that suspicion be correct?

 

[NM505StKate]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Clarky is the An Atheist who suddenly appeared on these forums a few days ago and has now, just as suddenly, had himself banned and is using you to promote his YouTube series. Would that suspicion be correct?

Nope. I don’t know An Atheist. I like Clarky but I don’t think he even knows of these forums.

 

[NM505StKate]

NM505StKate this point has been brought up to you before and you have not addressed it. What degree of similarity in the Gospels would be satisfactory to you? If all four Gospels mentioned the stories of Lazarus, for example, would that be a step in the right direction?

As Peter Plato so wonderfully pointed out, when police detectives investigate eyewitnesses there are always different versions, even from innocent people with no agenda! It is when people tell the exact same word-for-word version that police get suspicious. Same with historians, that is why, many historians believe there is enough variations in the Gospels to believe they have authenticity and didn’t copy each other.

Again I would like to ask you, what would be satisfactory to you, what degree of uniformity would you need to see in the Gospels in order to believe they are telling the same story?

Details like genealogy being the same, same with first miracle, date of birth would also be nice.

 

[mattp0625]

Details like genealogy being the same, same with first miracle, date of birth would also be nice.

The first miracle of Jesus, at the wedding at Cana, appears once in the gospel (John 2). There’s nothing to be inconsistent with.

The genealogy also appears once (Matthew 1).

They don’t give a year of birth. Luke 2 says it was the days of Ceasar Augustus. I’m also going to guess that while Jesus was alive, they didn’t have years denoted BC and AD.

 

[NM505StKate]

The first miracle of Jesus, at wedding at Cana, appears once in the gospel (John).

The genealogy appears once (Matthew 1).

They don’t give a year of birth. Luke 2 says it was the days of Ceasar Augustus. I’m also going to guess that while Jesus was alive, they didn’t have years denoted BC and AD.

But the other three Gospels have the first miracle as something else. They make no mention of the wedded. If Matthew is an eyewitness surely he would have been at the wedding and wrote down the first miracle.

The genealogy is also in Luke but is different.

But there is a difference in time. Say Jesus was born around the time of Herod that is a good 7+ years before the census took place.

 

[mattp0625]

But the other three Gospels have the first miracle as something else. They make no mention of the wedded. If Matthew is an eyewitness surely he would have been at the wedding and wrote down the first miracle.

The genealogy is also in Luke but is different.

But there is a difference in time. Say Jesus was born around the time of Herod that is a good 7+ years before the census took place.

Ok yes Luke, pretty good given that there is no printing press or Internet, or even wide spread literacy

Just because Matthew doesn’t list Cana doesn’t mean he thinks it didn’t come first or indicate that he was even there.

Nitpicking minor details from 2,000 years ago? What’s your real intent? You want to preserve your lifestyle or your politics? There’s a definite agenda.

 

[NM505StKate]

It has been pointed out that there are already many degrees of similarity. Same teaching of miracles, teaching of crucifixion, rising from the dead, the last supper, miracle of the feeding of the five thousand. Pardon me, but saying that three more matching details "would be nice" for you isn’t clear to me. If those three details matched would that be sufficient for you? What would be good enough for you? I am asking because I don’t think anything would be good enough even if the Gospels matched 90%. I am unclear if you are on a journey seeking something or if you are arguing with us. I wish you the best either way.

I don’t want 90%, Look from my research Mark was probably written first as it tell of Jesus as a holy man and healer. It probably is the most historic of all the Gospels. Matthew and Luke are next with Q somewhere along the way. Most scholars date the Gospels well after the events happened. Matthew and Luke copied much of Mark and edited their works for their audience. That is why in Matthew Judas felt remorse while in Acts he didn’t, different audience. Again from my research only two things seem to be certain to historians, there was someone named Jesus and he was executed by Pilot. The rest is iffy as there are contradictions.

 

[NM505StKate]

Ok yes Luke, pretty good given that there is no printing press or Internet, or even wide spread literacy

Just because Matthew doesn’t list Cana doesn’t mean he thinks it didn’t come first or indicate that he was even there.

Nitpicking minor details from 2,000 years ago? What’s your real intent? You want to preserve your lifestyle ? There’s a definite agenda.

These are questions that are asked. Given Luke is purposed to be a physician and wanted to have the facts as straight as possible shouldn’t the two genealogies match up?

Still as a first miracle Matthew, if it was an eyewitness, would put it down other than healing a man at a temple. Granted the healing is a bit more inspiring that changing liquid, imo, it is still something to make note of.

It is the “minor details” that bring doubt.

 

[mattp0625]

These are questions that are asked. Given Luke is purposed to be a physician and wanted to have the facts as straight as possible shouldn’t the two genealogies match up?

Still as a first miracle Matthew, if it was an eyewitness, would put it down other than healing a man at a temple. Granted the healing is a bit more inspiring that changing liquid, imo, it is still something to make note of.

It is the “minor details” that bring doubt.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees

 

[Peter_Plato]

But the other three Gospels have the first miracle as something else. They make no mention of the wedded. If Matthew is an eyewitness surely he would have been at the wedding and wrote down the first miracle.

The genealogy is also in Luke but is different.

But there is a difference in time. Say Jesus was born around the time of Herod that is a good 7+ years before the census took place.

I have answered both of these issues. The Matthew one in post 111, the census one previous to that.

What I gave are plausible reasons for why the Gospel writers said what they did. You didn’t answer either one in anything like a satisfactory way but yet you continue to bring up these points as if they have no possible answer. That is not being reasonable. In my estimation, it is having an irrational fixation that no amount of dialogue will ever dispel because it is an act of will rather than a thoughtful position open to plausible alternatives.

Basically, you have made up your mind about reality and refuse to consider any possibilities other than the ones you have decided as an act of will will be true for you. You are free to “think” that way, but let’s not call it being fair-minded or reasonable or even consistently skeptical. It isn’t. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is being skeptical only with regard to the things you have already decided by your act of will that you won’t accept. You impose a kind of absolute skepticism on those ideas, but on the ideas you have accepted, you won’t permit your “hardened” skepticism to come within a mile of those. Protect those at all costs. The term “hardened skeptic” is correct but only consistently applied with bias to those ideas you won’t accept, but not to your own thinking – i.e., to consider that your current beliefs might, in fact, be the errant ones and why.