Merged: Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Give poor DOC a break. I mean, we all know he is no "Luke, the world's greatest historian"...

True. He probably didn't even know Sir Thomas Landry, Lord Tex Schramm, or His Grace Clint, the Duke of Murchison.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Are you sure about that?





You forgot to mention Alexander the Great.





But not the famous oral histories. Do they mention the zombies, DOC?





http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...152e2ee75d.gif

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos...pyrusOfAni.jpg
1250 BCE, DOC. Read it and weep.

Good to see the return of Ancient Egyptian public transport

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Agatha

There are times when it feels like DOC is a covert operative, sent here to make Christian apologists look incompetent.

All the may/might/could of [sic] been/perhaps type of weasel words detract from your argument, DOC, and make it seem as though you are making things up to try to get an unlikely story hold together in the face of adverse historical evidence.

I think we should appoint one of the regular posters to play the part of a covert operative to test your hypothesis.

[Rincewind]

DOC mentioned:

Matthew reports the Roman centurion at the cross said "Surely this is the Son of God" after experiencing the darkness and earthquake.

Surely that was John Wayne?

ETA - I think that's Saint John Wayne....

(just read another post from Saint Fast Eddie B...)

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Alexander the Great is another historical non-starter for DOC because "he has no known grave".


And if you really want some chuckles, ask him where Simon the Zealot is buried.

In case it's any help for you DOC, I posted this something like 300 years ago....


Here’s a summary of what I found on Wiki regarding the martyrdom of the apostles:

The original team:
Peter: early church tradition says he probably died by upside-down crucifixion in Rome, AD 64.

James, son of Zebedee: apparently beheaded in AD 44 (only recorded in Acts).

John, son of Zebedee: believed to have died of natural causes, aged about 94.

Andrew, Peter’s brother: said to have been crucified at Patras in Achaea.

Philip: According to legend, crucified upside-down in Hieropolis, AD 54. Another legend has him beheaded in the same city. The Catholic Church regards the accounts of his death as legendary - there’s no reputable source for his death.

Bartholomew: According to one account beheaded, but a more popular tradition has him flayed alive then crucified. Either at Derbend on the Caspian Sea or at Albanopolis in Armenia.

Matthew: Said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or Macedonia. However, both the Catholic & Orthodox Church traditions hold that he was martyred - apparently in AD 60 by a halberd.

Thomas: according to Syriac tradition, stoned then killed with a lance in Mylapore, Madras, AD 72.

James, son of Alphaeus: Tradition holds that he was beaten to death with a club after being stoned and crucified in Ostrakine, Lower Egypt.

Jude: according to Armenian tradition, crucified in Beirut, Lebanon in AD 65.

Simon the Zealot: from various traditions:
Crucified in Samaria, AD 74.
Sawn in half at Suanir, Persia.
Martyred at Weriosphora in Caucasian Iberia.
Died peacefully at Edessa.
Martyred in Caistor (in modern day Lincolnshire)
Also, killed in a Jewish revolt against the Romans.
Busy, busy, busy, huh?

Judas Iscariot: according to various accounts:
Committed suicide by hanging.
Fell down and burst open.
Stoned to death by the other eleven apostles.
After his body became grossly swollen, crushed by a chariot.

And off the substitutes’ bench:
Matthias: Crucified in Colchis, or stoned & beheaded in Jerusalem. Oh, he apparently also died of old age in Jerusalem.

So the key words, in virtually every case, are “according to tradition”.

According to these data, there’s no real EVIDENCE that any of the apostles were martyred - it could easily be fiction written for religious political purposes.

‘Kay?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

DOC mentioned:

Matthew reports the Roman centurion at the cross said "Surely this is the Son of God" after experiencing the darkness and earthquake.

Surely that was John Wayne?

ETA - I think that's Saint John Wayne....

(just read another post from Saint Fast Eddie B...)

The story goes that after the first take, he was asked to say the line with a bit more awe.

"Aw, surely this is the Son of God"

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

In 1963 there was no "Dallas Cowboys football stadium." They were playing in the Cotton Bowl then. They moved into Texas Stadium in 1971.

Making the crack all the more miraculous! Praise defense!!!

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

the story goes that after the first take, he was asked to say the line with a bit more awe.

"aw, surely this is the son of god, pilgrim"

ftfy

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by joobz

Making the crack all the more miraculous! Praise defense!!!

You're right! In my blindness, I hadn't thought of it that way, but now I SEE!!!11!11!1!11!!!

[Moss]

Simon seems to have had a tight respawn timer. One wonders if so many different martyrdoms left him suffering from PTSD.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Moss

Simon seems to have had a tight respawn timer. One wonders if so many different martyrdoms left him suffering from PTSD.

Simon as a quest mob? Now it all makes sense!

[TimCallahan]

DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" to be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added):

Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died].

So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind:

1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering.

2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it.

If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing.

So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts?

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC: I'm still waiting for a response to this post.

And I'm still waiting for a response.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Originally Posted by DOC

The odd thing about all of this is that it would be absolute suicide for any serious Christian writer to write about the ripped temple veil (or the raised saints) if isn't wasn't true. It would be like a writer writing in the Dallas paper 40 years after Kennedy got shot that the Dallas Cowboys football stadium's main entrance developed a 20 ft crack over it (when Kennedy got shot), and then nobody in Dallas deny or question the newspaper article.

In 1963 there was no "Dallas Cowboys football stadium." They were playing in the Cotton Bowl then. They moved into Texas Stadium in 1971.

There was no empty tomb, no zombie apocalypse, no earthquake and no solar eclipse in Jerusalem in 33 CE either.

Who would have thought that one of DOC's twisted analogies could be so wrong as to go fiull circle and get back to being valid?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

1250 BCE, DOC. Read it and weep.

Good to see the return of Ancient Egyptian public transport

Very few people realise that the Papyrus of Ani is actually a blog about a day trip to the Upper Land.

Well spotted!

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" to be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added):

Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died].

So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind:

1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering.

2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it.

If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing.

So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts?



And I'm still waiting for a response.

There's a third option. Paul had REALLY packed on the pounds and Luke just thought it was 500 people.

[Akhenaten]

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Very few people realise that the Papyrus of Ani is actually a blog about a day trip to the Upper Land.

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Anubus.jpg

Well spotted!

How could I have forgotten the Anubus!

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by DOC

Remember Luke has been called a great historian and great historians don’t just report on anything they hear about.

DOC, what sources did Luke use when he wrote his gospel?

[Amazer]

Originally Posted by Mojo

DOC, what sources did Luke use when he wrote his gospel?

Weren't the gospel writers "inspired" by God and thus have no need for sources?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by DOC

Odd there are no known accounts of writers of the time saying, "hey this stuff (the torn temple veil and the raised saints) never happened, what the hell are you talking about Matthew?"

Odd that no one pointed out to Matthew the simple fact that he seemed to be lying because these momentous events were not written of by the authors of the other Gospels!
Odd that no one pointed out to Matthew the simple fact that he was lying because these momentous events were not reported by any one else except for Matthew's unknown sources (which given the fairytale nature of his additions to the other Gospels sound like voices in his head)!
The probability is theat Matthew (or more likely the scribes that copied the gospel many times over the years) added these events to fit thir religious beliefs not any historical facts. Earthquakes are associated with great events so a scribe added it. A holy one rose (Jesus) so a scribe added lots more holy ones rising. Eclipses are associated with great events so a cribe added one (and in their ignorance about eclipses made it physically impossible).
The torn curtain is a scribe trying to make Christianity more important It symbolizes God leaving the Temple. This implies that God abandons the Jews in favor of Christians.

DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the curtain, darkness, earthquake and christ/saintly/holy one/zombie horde?
First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include the curtain on 10 August 2012.
Those ~20,000 people include

• scribes,
• people with money to pay scribes,
• merchants who communicated with merchants in other cities,
• temple officials (who probably were literate) and
• Roman officials who had to report to their superiors what happened in the city.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC: Since, in the matter of the resurrected dead of Matthew appearing to "many," you have construed, "Many" to be as few as eight, let's deal with another alleged Resurrection event, in which the number is far more precise (1 Cor. 15:6, bracketed material added):

Then he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. died].

So, what happened to the 500+ brethren in the gospels? This is a stunning bit of evidence for the historical reality of the Resurrection. It's not something you would leave out. This would be particularly true of Luke, if, as conservative Christians assert, he was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys. Yet, none of the gospels mention the 500+ brethren who saw the resurrected Jesus at one time. Two reasons immediately come to mind:

1) The gospels, including Luke, make no mention of Paul's 500+ brethren because they never heard of them. The 500+ were added by a later editor and are, in fact, a forgery. If one examines 1 Cor. 15:5 - 8, one will find signs of tampering.

2) Paul actually did make the claim of the 500+, but Luke and the others did not consider the account reputable and ignored it.

If the first possibility is true, then the accounts of the Resurrection were open to tampering and may not have had anything to do with what actually happened. If the second is rue, then gospel writers felt free to alter accounts and to excise material they felt was either questionable or embarrassing.

So, DOC, other than the lame old excuse that some gospels writers included one thing and others included another, what's your explanation for why the gospel writers (especially Luke) excluded the 500+ brethren of 1 Corinthians 15 from heir resurrection accounts?

Originally Posted by TimCallahan
DOC: I'm still waiting for a response to this post.

And I'm still waiting for a response.

I'm not going away, DOC. So, what happened to the 500+ brethren from 1 Corinthians 15 who saw the risen Christ at one time? Why don't any of the gospels mention them?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Mojo

DOC, what sources did Luke use when he wrote his gospel?

Most likely one was Paul (since we know Luke had traveled with Paul) and Paul met with Jesus' right hand man, Peter, and other apostles for 2 weeks. Even Ehrman mentions this meeting between Peter and Paul in his book "Did Jesus Exist".

[DOC]

Originally Posted by welshdean

Liar. More deceit from you DOC? Have you no shame?...


[Metzger adds:"In addition to Greek Manuscripts we also have translations of the Gospels into other languages at a relatively early time – into Latin Syriac and Coptic… a little later Armenian and Gothic. And a lot of others –Georgian, Ethiopic, a great variety…” Underscoring this are some impressive numbers of surviving New Testament manuscripts:
Greek Manuscripts – 5,664
Latin Vulgate – 8,000 to 10,000
Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian – 8,000
In total there are a whopping 24,000 manuscripts!
That is impressive - 24,000 manuscript copies! With such a wealth of evidence, surely the New Testament is the best preserved of any ancient writings…Well, as Doherty makes very plain, perhaps our confidence would be on more solid footing if all these copies didn’t come hundreds of years after the texts were originally written. For instance, Strobel’s and Metzger’s joy over the 2,856 Greek minuscule text manuscripts surviving today seems much less remarkable when you read further and learn that all these were written in the 9th century or later.In fact all of these 24,000 intact copies are younger (by hundreds of years!) than our oldest complete Bibles, the Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus, and these two watershed tomes only date back to around the year 300 or later. Which gives literally hundreds of years for scribes to play with the texts as they liked, let alone for mistakes to creep in. So who cares if we have twenty-four thousand – or even 24 million - of these Johnny-come-lately copies of copies of copies? We do not have even a single copy of any New Testament text from the time that really matters, the formative period of Christianity – the early phase when we would expect to find the greatest number of changes in developing religious ideas....

Your first sentence is a ridiculous. I'll get to this probably by Thursday or sooner when I get the time. And I've already showed in Part one that the New Testament we have today is a very accurate representation due to the fact that we can cross check with thousands of manuscripts.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by Mojo

DOC, what sources did Luke use when he wrote his gospel?

Most likely one was Paul (since we know Luke had traveled with Paul) . . .

We know this how?

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . and Paul met with Jesus' right hand man, Peter, and other apostles for 2 weeks.

And the evidence for this is?

Originally Posted by DOC

Even Ehrman mentions this meeting between Peter and Paul in his book "Did Jesus Exist".

And his evidence for this claim is?


So you're saying that The World's Greatest Historian's™ gospel is nothing more than hearsay, passed on by someone who never met the alleged Jesus and was nowhere near the place where the alleged events of the story took place during the time they were alleged to have occurred.

Yeah, seems legit.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Your first sentence is a ridiculous. I'll get to this probably by Thursday or sooner when I get the time.

Do you reckon you'll have learned to quote properly by then?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

<snip>

Last edited by DOC; Today at 08:02 PM.

Four minutes after someone else quoted your post.

Can't help yourself, can you DOC?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Your first sentence is a ridiculous. I'll get to this probably by Thursday or sooner when I get the time. And I've already showed in Part one that the New Testament we have today is a very accurate representation due to the fact that we can cross check with thousands of manuscripts.

Then why is it going to take you until Thursday to recycle the same drivel that you posted in February 2011?

Here, let me help you out.

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by pizzadeliveryninja

DOC, how many of the 5000 NT manuscripts you refer to date back to pre-Constantine times? How many were produced under the conditions you are describing in this post?

It would be logical to assume there were at least several thousand manuscripts circulating around before Constantine because the church was so well established in the year of the Council of Nicea during the reign of Constantine that about 300 bishops from around the world (of that time) attended the Council. So you have to figure there are at least 300 manuscripts (just for the bishops alone) and who knows how many more were available to each area each bishop was in charge of.

The information that there were 300 bishops from around the world was taken from this website:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...andt/nicea.htm

Following is some more informantion, related to the above, from the article:

CRITIQUE OF THE DAVINCI CODE,
a book by Dan Brown
- Galatians 1:6-9
By Rod Hemphill


For the several centuries prior to the Council of Nicea, there definitely existed a canon of sacred scriptures in the general consensus of the Christian community, even though this canon had not been formally declared to be so...

There is solid evidence that the four traditional gospels and the letters of Paul were circulated together in book form in the early second century...

The interval between the original documents of the NT and the first known copies of them is less than 100 years, far closer to the originals than that of any other ancient writings...

There are so many extra-Biblical quotations from 2nd and 3rd century writers that the N T could virtually be reconstructed from them alone, so that the content of the Gospels is not dependent on the Biblical MSS alone."... {MSS means manuscripts}

{Not in article} The above sentence basically means there was so much writing about the passages in the known Gospels of the time that you could destroy all the copies of the 4 Gospels and still be able to reconstruct almost the entire Gospels just from what other non-biblical writers wrote about those passages in other writings.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28462/Crit...Da-Vinci-Code-

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by DOC

Most likely one was Paul (since we know Luke had traveled with Paul) and Paul met with Jesus' right hand man, Peter, and other apostles for 2 weeks. Even Ehrman mentions this meeting between Peter and Paul in his book "Did Jesus Exist".

You say that "great historians don’t just report on anything they hear about", and yet, according to you, this is exactly what Luke did.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by DOC

Your first sentence is a ridiculous. I'll get to this probably by Thursday or sooner when I get the time.

You got to "ridiculous" years ago. You're now somewhere West of "ludicrous" and still accelerating.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by welshdean

Liar. More deceit from you DOC? Have you no shame?...

{From Welshdean's source Metzger}

"We do not have even a single copy of any New Testament text from the time that really matters, the formative period of Christianity – the early phase when we would expect to find the greatest number of changes in developing religious ideas"...

Not having originals is very much the norm for ancient writings. But they are not even necessary for the following reason:

From the article "New Testament"

"Even if there were no manuscripts available, the New Testament could be reconstructed almost in its entirety from the writings of the early church fathers. They quoted from it so prolifically that nearly every verse is accounted for. This also helps establish which New Testament books were considered scripture by the earliest Christians.

(Geisler, Greenlee)

http://www.defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testament.htm

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

Your first sentence is a ridiculous. I'll get to this probably by Thursday or sooner when I get the time. And I've already showed in Part one that the New Testament we have today is a very accurate representation due to the fact that we can cross check with thousands of manuscripts.

Your second and third sentences are rediculous.

You have yet to "get to" topics. Outside of admitting that the bible could be wrong, you haven't explained the resurrected saints.


You haven't shown that the new testament is a very accurate representation of any early manuscript. In fact we have evidence that the current version of the bible contains known forgeries.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

Not having originals is very much the norm for ancient writings. But they are not even necessary for the following reason:

From the article "New Testament"

"Even if there were no manuscripts available, the New Testament could be reconstructed almost in its entirety from the writings of the early church fathers. They quoted from it so prolifically that nearly every verse is accounted for. This also helps establish which New Testament books were considered scripture by the earliest Christians.

(Geisler, Greenlee)

http://www.defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testament.htm

Well, that is likely how the gospels were made to begin with. An assemblage of commonly thought sayings of Jesus. Much like the game of whispers, we can only infer what the original message may have been, if there was such a thing. There may have been competing original sayings right at the onset. That would explain the drastically different tones found in the gospels.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by welshdean

Liar. More deceit from you DOC? Have you no shame?...

{From Welshdean's source Metzger}

I don't know what's worse, your inability to comprehend what you read or your ready willingness to butcher other peoples's quotes on the basis of that incomprehension, but the combination of doing both is a notable feature of your posting history.

Welshdean's source was most certainly not Metzger, but David Fitzgerald, the author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All who was pointing out, in the post that you hacked to bits, what a cloth-ears Metzger was for crowing about these thousands of manuscripts.

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by welshdean

[Quoting Fitzgerald]

"We do not have even a single copy of any New Testament text from the time that really matters, the formative period of Christianity – the early phase when we would expect to find the greatest number of changes in developing religious ideas"...

Not having originals is very much the norm for ancient writings. But they are not even necessary for the following reason:

From the article "New Testament"

"Even if there were no manuscripts available, the New Testament could be reconstructed almost in its entirety from the writings of the early church fathers. They quoted from it so prolifically that nearly every verse is accounted for. This also helps establish which New Testament books were considered scripture by the earliest Christians.

(Geisler, Greenlee)

Geisler?




No wonder you hacked all the relevant parts out of welshdean's post, including this:

Quote:

This inflated count of manuscripts is a cheap trick apologists play on the flock. A true count would ignore the later copies as irrelevant and only take into account the root manuscripts. How many do we have of those? There are only around 720 root texts for the NT and most of those are medieval. Also, a large number of these 720 texts are not even complete books, much less complete Bibles, and a considerable number are not in the original language, but are translations into Latin, Georgic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, etc. Of all these, only about 14 or so date prior to 200 C.E., and these are mostly mere scraps. Many of these fragments have fewer than twenty words, and in fact some don't have more than a few complete words at all, only pieces of words that scholars have to reconstruct through educated guesswork.

Or is that the bit you're going to deal with by Thursday?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Mojo

You got to "ridiculous" years ago. You're now somewhere West of "ludicrous" and still accelerating.

Gone to plaid I think.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

Not having originals is very much the norm for ancient writings. But they are not even necessary for the following reason:

From the article "New Testament"

"Even if there were no manuscripts available, the New Testament could be reconstructed almost in its entirety from the writings of the early church fathers. They quoted from it so prolifically that nearly every verse is accounted for. This also helps establish which New Testament books were considered scripture by the earliest Christians.

(Geisler, Greenlee)

http://www.defendingyourfaith.org/New%20Testament.htm

Oh, this one again. No, it couldn't, or at least you have not shown that it could. You never did answer the questions last time around, did you?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Oh, this one again. No, it couldn't, or at least you have not shown that it could. You never did answer the questions last time around, did you?

based upon posting pattern, DOC doesn't understand the difference between Logically demonstrating (showing) something and posting nonsense.

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

I'm not going away, DOC. So, what happened to the 500+ brethren from 1 Corinthians 15 who saw the risen Christ at one time? Why don't any of the gospels mention them?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. If more than 500 people saw the risen Christ at one time, as 1 Cor. 15:6 says, how is it that none of the gospels record this event? The explanation that some witnesses reported some things and other s reported other things, all of which happened, simply doesn't hold up. This stunning demonstration of the Resurrection is not something you would leave out because you were concentrating on other stuff.

Of course, the same can be said about all the other gospels and Matthew. Did they all just happen to leave out the earthquake, the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies being torn in two from top to bottom and dead people getting out of their tombs and walking about in the city of Jerusalem, that Matthew reports? BTW, what happened to these resurrected dead? Did the just make a show of rising from the dead and then go quietly back to their tombs, or did they continue living? If they did the latter, we would expect some history about them or even from some of them about the event.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by DOC

And I've already showed in Part one that the New Testament we have today is a very accurate representation due to the fact that we can cross check with thousands of manuscripts.

You missed the point: Any one who can think knows that the New Testament we have today is a very inaccurate representation due to the fact that we can cross check with no contemporary manuscripts because they do not exist!

DOC, Why did ~20,000 people in Jerusalem ignore the curtain, darkness, earthquake and christ/saintly/holy one/zombie horde?
First asked on 17 July 2012, amended to include the curtain on 10 August 2012.


The fact that 3 of the gospel writers did not report the mindblowing (zombie horde!) events the Matthew reported shows that the New Testament authors were very inaccurate.

The fact that oral traditions, fantasies and even lies were written down decades after the event and then often inaccurately copied by scribes for centuries to produce "thousands of manuscripts" is just further evidence that the current NT is not accurate.

[Fast Eddie B]

Remember, DOC has stated that he will not respond to any post that refers to zombies.

Right, DOC?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Remember, DOC has stated that he will not respond to any post that refers to zombies.

Right, DOC?

DOC does seem to have a phobia about the word zombie !
What do we have evidence of?
These people rose form graves. Zombies rise from graves!
These people walked around. Zombies walk around!

All that we know about those people fits these aspects of zombies. Thus we can call them zombies.