PDA

View Full Version : How does one know if...



kadafi
02-21-2005, 08:26 AM
Jesus preached the same message that is allegedly stated in the Gospels.

Can Christians provide explictly evidence with authentic unbroken chain of transmission that these four "disciples" were actually the real companions of Jesus. I mean, if they what they wrote down was inspired, then it would be easy to provide evidence with authentic chain of unbroken transmissions that it was preserved perfectly. (since their God's Words)

I mean, if they can't, then isn't it obvious that they're relyin' on blind faith and myths.

Sinner
02-24-2005, 11:34 AM
Take the Gospel of John. It states that it was written by "the disciple Jesus loved" We know that the "the disciple Jesus loved" sat next to Jesus during the Last Supper.

John13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

From the other Gospels, we can infer this disciple was John. Most of the Apostles had disciples of their own. We only know a few, by name only. In John's case however, a disciple named Polycarp left writings behind. It is very likely that Ignatius, the third Bishop of Antioch, who was appointed to that position by the Apostle Peter, was a friend of John's as well as being his contemporary. Both the writings of Polycarp and Ingatuis confirm basic Christian belief about Jesus. Polycarp was burned alive for his faith that Jesus was the Saviour. He could of easily escaped this cruel death by rejecting what he believed to be true, but he didn't

"Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;" Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

It is very rare that someone will suffer a death by torture, for something they know to be false. We also know from Polycarp that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel which now bears his name.

Sinner
02-24-2005, 01:13 PM
I would like to point out Luke at this time. The man was a traveling friend of Pauls and a physician. He states in the opening chapter of his Gospel, that his account of the life of Christ, was based on eyewitness testimonies, which were carefully researched. Lukes accuracy as a historian is unmatched.

"One of the greatest archaeologists is the late Sir William Ramsay. He studied under the famous liberal German historical schools in the mid-nineteenth century. Known for its scholarship, this school taught that the New Testament was not a historical document. With this premise, Ramsay investigated biblical claims as he searched through Asia Minor. What he discovered caused him to reverse his initial view. He wrote:

I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.{6}

Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence as well as correct titles to government officials in various areas: Thessalonica, politarchs; Ephesus, temple wardens; Cyprus, procouncil; and Malta, the first man of the island.

In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene." Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40–36 B.C. However an inscription dating to be in the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14–37 A.D., was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" near Damascus. This matches well with Luke's account.

In Acts 18:12-17, Paul was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaea. Once again archaeology confirms this account. At Delphi an inscription of a letter from Emperor Claudius was discovered. In it he states, "Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ."{7} Historians date the inscription to 52 A.D. which corresponds to the time of the apostle's stay in 51.

In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer. Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 A.D. The designation of treasurer describes the work of a Corinthian aedile.

In Acts 28:7, Luke gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the title, "first man of the island." Scholars questioned this strange title and deemed it unhistorical. Inscriptions have recently been discovered on the island that indeed gives Plubius the title of "first man."

"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error."{8} A. N. Sherwin-White states, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."{9} "

http://www.probe.org/docs/arch-nt.html

Far more recently, using Lukes account of a shipwreck Paul endured, researchers have found the last remains of a first century Roman ship off Malta. A book has been about this discovery but this article provides much of the story -

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/413/

If Luke can get minor little details of Pauls travels perfectly without error, how much more should we trust his account of the life of Jesus, which is the MAJOR focus of his writing?

kadafi
02-24-2005, 10:31 PM
Take the Gospel of John. It states that it was written by "the disciple Jesus loved" We know that the "the disciple Jesus loved" sat next to Jesus during the Last Supper.

John13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

From the other Gospels, we can infer this disciple was John. Most of the Apostles had disciples of their own. We only know a few, by name only. In John's case however, a disciple named Polycarp left writings behind. It is very likely that Ignatius, the third Bishop of Antioch, who was appointed to that position by the Apostle Peter, was a friend of John's as well as being his contemporary. Both the writings of Polycarp and Ingatuis confirm basic Christian belief about Jesus. Polycarp was burned alive for his faith that Jesus was the Saviour. He could of easily escaped this cruel death by rejecting what he believed to be true, but he didn't

"Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;" Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

It is very rare that someone will suffer a death by torture, for something they know to be false. We also know from Polycarp that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel which now bears his name. You haven't answered the question but cited verses of the NT in order to "prove" Bible's authencity.

Polycarp is a oft-cited personage in order to prove that Polycarp was the "disciple" of "John".

Prof. Kingsley Barrett (Christian scholar) says:
“The earlier evidence is however much less satisfactory. Polycarp himself in his extant epistle makes no claim to personal contact with the apostle, and does not refer to the Gospel (though he does quote 1 John). Iraneus’s statement about Papias, which is similar to that about Polycarp, is almost certainly incorrect. Ignatius of Antioch, writing c. AD 112 to the Church at Ephesus, makes no allusion to John, though emphasizes Paul’s contacts with Ephesus. In fact there is no early evidence to connect John with Ephesus or with the writing of a Gospel”.

Furthermore, he never made the mention of the word "Gospel". He only gives a few sayings of Jesus that are similar to some also found in Matthew and elsewhere in the NT. However, the date of his letter is not certain.



I would like to point out Luke at this time. The man was a traveling friend of Pauls and a physician. He states in the opening chapter of his Gospel, that his account of the life of Christ, was based on eyewitness testimonies, which were carefully researched. Lukes accuracy as a historian is unmatched. Ah, the oft-cited apologetic argument that because Luke was classified as a "first rate historian" then the Bible is divinely "inspired". And then they cite the so-called evidence of the skeptic, Ramsay.

This is again a fallacious argument. Just because Luke was right in A, B and C doesn't indicate that D,E,F are also right.

If Luke had traveled with Paul, as stated in the book of Acts, then it wouldn't be unusual if he familiarised himself with the places they visited. Furthermore, Christian record testifies that these so-called gospels were written generations after Jesus. This leaves me with the question, what was Jesus then preaching in his lifetime? Why is there no evidence for Luke's other claims?


"The book of Acts claimed 26 different miracles between the ascension of Jesus in 1:6-11 and the apostle Paul's survival of the bite of a venomous serpent in 28:3-6. These miracles were as extraordinary as the claims that Peter struck two people dead (5:1-11) and resurrected Dorcus (9:39-42) and that Paul struck a sorcerer blind (13:4-12) and raised Eutychus from the dead (20:7-11), yet not one scrap of extrabiblical evidence has ever been found to corroborate Luke's claims that all of these events happened. Some of them allegedly happened in the presence of witnesses that sometimes numbered several thousand, as in the case of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 in the presence of "devout Jews" from "every nation under heaven"(v:5) to whom Peter said that Jesus of Nazareth had been approved of God to them by "mighty works and signs which God did by him in [their] midst" even as they themselves knew (2: 22), yet despite the alleged openness of many of these extraordinary events that filled the works of Luke, not one of them has ever been confirmed by unbiased, disinterested contemporary records."