Claims about the NT

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~andy~,

Thank you for your comments.

There are extra-biblical accounts of Jesus, which demonstrate His life and death by crucifixion, as well as some other interesting things such as people calling Him Christ, mention of His resurrection...

Roman Historian Tacitus (AD 116)

and

Josephus (1st century AD Historian)

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher

Perhaps you didn't see this:

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius was born between 69- and 75 CE, decades after the last alleged sighting of Jesus Christ. He wrote biographies of many Ceasars. However, we know that he was not a primary witness of any of the events he wrote about prior to his birth. At best, he was rehashing secondary (or more) stories. He is not a contemporaneous (at the same time) source that confirms the existence of Jesus Christ.

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56

[Guest shiloh357]

We have autograph fragments from primary (but not disinterested sources) for Alex. We do not have this for Jesus.

Irrelevant. "Disinterested" does not automatically mean "more accurate."

Besides, the gospels have more information than just about Jesus. They were authored by at least two or three of his disciples and include a great deal of information that is frankly not very flattering pertaining to them. It is unlikely that if they were trying to exaggerate, that they would frame themselves in an embarassing light.

Not only that but the gospels particularly, the gospel of Mark contain intimate details that a person trying to write a forgery would not have been privy too. Details that only an eyewitness to the events would have known. The character of the gospels indicate that they contain infomormation from first hand sources, not an errant scribe.

However, if you discover that a later copy of Plato's Republic had a specific story in it, and then found an earlier copy of the same without that specific story, what would be your conclusions as to which version is the authentic one?

Earlier does not mean more accurate. The fact that an "earlier" manuscript has or does not have a certain piece of information does not really matter. You dont really understand how manuscripture evidence works do you?

Your points miss the mark. We do not have entire manuscripts that date to within 25 years of the alleged events described in the gospels. The best we have to to that date are fragments of papyri.

That is not what I said, UF. I said that we have manuscripts that date to within 25-50 years of the writings of the apostles.

The most complete versions of any gospel comes much later at around 100 years later (P66). The near complete NT gospels come even later than that with Codex Sinaiticus (~350 CE).

The most complete manuscripts are later, which is to be expected. But none of the earlier manuscripts contradict the later manuscripts showing the accuracy of their transmission.

I care not for Ceasar, or other historical figures.

Well of course you don't. You cannot find a way to use them in one of your silly comparisons. But that is beside the point. You are using the same lame oft-rehashed arguments that every other atheist has used on this ad infininum for the last six years. The problem is that you demand a level of manusript evidence that is not required for any other ancient document.

The point I am making is that there are many well known ancient pieces of literature that are considered "classic" in their genre that would not stand up to the standard you are erecting for the NT.

It shows the obvious problem with your position. It goes back to making unrealistc demands of the evidence that you know cannot be produced and then pretending that since such requests cannnot be provided you have achieved some triumph in your campaign against the gospels. It also evident that you know next to nothing about manuscript evidence and how it is handled and the process scholars use to determine its integrity.

You are really outside your skill set, in this dicussion. Maybe you should just go back to talking about spaghetti monsters. That seems to be what you are best at.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hello? Way to be rude thanks. How do you know Luke's gospel is based on the interviews? Does he include the interviews? What did the people say about their experience?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

(Luk 1:1-4)

Luke states that his writings are based on eyewitnesses "from the beginning." Meaning from the beginning of Jesus' life to the end of His ministry.

Oh and by the way, first-hand witnesses are people who witness the original event (not the people involved in the event). Maybe learn your definitions first before you make others out to be idiots.

That is not true. When the disciples were with Jesus in the boat on the Seal of Galilee during a storm that was about to sink the boat, Jesus stood up and calmed the storm. The disciples were involved and were witnesses. The same would apply to all of those present at the feeding of the 5,000. Witnesses in this context would include those who were healed and those who saw the healings. All would be witnesses to Jesus' power. And you cannot get more first-hand than those who were the actual recipients of the miracles. "Witness" has a broader application than you realize, evidently.

[kross]

Hello? Way to be rude thanks. How do you know Luke's gospel is based on the interviews? Does he include the interviews? What did the people say about their experience?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

(Luk 1:1-4)

Luke states that his writings are based on eyewitnesses "from the beginning." Meaning from the beginning of Jesus' life to the end of His ministry.

Oh and by the way, first-hand witnesses are people who witness the original event (not the people involved in the event). Maybe learn your definitions first before you make others out to be idiots.

That is not true. When the disciples were with Jesus in the boat on the Seal of Galilee during a storm that was about to sink the boat, Jesus stood up and calmed the storm. The disciples were involved and were witnesses. The same would apply to all of those present at the feeding of the 5,000. Witnesses in this context would include those who were healed and those who saw the healings. All would be witnesses to Jesus' power. And you cannot get more first-hand than those who were the actual recipients of the miracles. "Witness" has a broader application than you realize, evidently.

Lukes gospel also states that the acts were done "amoungst us" meaning that he may have been around the miracles and seen some of the miracles for himself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Who is credible is not up to you nor me, but to avoid further sillness, the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of all credible scholars and historians do not doubt that Jesus existed, the very few that do are on the fringe.

Precisely. For every one "historian" that says Jesus was a myth, there are hundreds more who accept Him as historical. The weight of evidence favors the historicity of Jesus.

[Guest shiloh357]

Lukes gospel also states that the acts were done "amoungst us" meaning that he may have been around the miracles and seen some of the miracles for himself.

Good point. In order to interview eyewitnesses, Luke would have to have been a contempary with them and Jesus.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

Irrelevant. "Disinterested" does not automatically mean "more accurate." Besides, the gospels have more information than just about Jesus. They were authored by at least two or three of his disciples and include a great deal of information that is frankly not very flattering pertaining to them. It is unlikely that if they were trying to exaggerate, that they would frame themselves in an embarassing light.

Wrong. Disinterested automatically means a more objective perspective than from the "inside". Whether or not it is likely that any specific author will exaggerate claims, that is not for us to know. What we do know, however, is that interested parties bring agendas which can be a motivation to exaggerate claims. What we do know is that it is less likely for disinterested parties to exaggerate claims.

Earlier does not mean more accurate. The fact that an "earlier" manuscript has or does not have a certain piece of information does not really matter. You dont really understand how manuscripture evidence works do you?

Do not play games with me. I did not say earlier was more accurate. I provided the example to see if you would question the autheticity of the original Plato's Republic, if presented with similar discrepancies as in the NT. Nice way to dodge.

That is not what I said, UF. I said that we have manuscripts that date to within 25-50 years of the writings of the apostles.

Who cares how long an apostle lives? The more relevant time period is from the alleged events described to the writings of it.

The most complete manuscripts are later, which is to be expected. But none of the earlier manuscripts contradict the later manuscripts showing the accuracy of their transmission.

Wrong again. As Professor Ehrman's example already shows, the accuracy is in question given that the pericope adulterae does exist in the later manuscripts but not in the earlier.

The point I am making is that there are many well known ancient pieces of literature that are considered "classic" in their genre that would not stand up to the standard you are erecting for the NT.

If any ancient literature considered a "classic" claims that people resurrect from the dead, or that water turns into wine, or that humans walk on water without aid of technology, or wolves that cross-dress in women's clothes, I would question it. I would demand a higher level of evidence to support such claims. However if such "classic" literature claims nothing more than what the author thinks should be the proper way of running a government, the evidence threshold would not be so high.

You are really outside your skill set, in this dicussion. Maybe you should just go back to talking about spaghetti monsters. That seems to be what you are best at.

You are free to believe what you will, and insult me as you please. I will note this observation of your fine example of christian behavior.

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

Go look at post #101

Sorry about my mistake. You did indeed provide me with your opinion in post 101. Thanks once again for that.

Who is credible is not up to you nor me, but to avoid further sillness, the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of all credible scholars and historians do not doubt that Jesus existed, the very few that do are on the fringe.

The argument ad popularum is a fallacy. The VAST, VAST, MAJORITY of all credible people at one time believed the earth was flat.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

Wrong. Disinterested automatically means a more objective perspective than from the "inside".

Again, that does not automatcially translate to something more accurate.

Whether or not it is likely that any specific author will exaggerate claims, that is not for us to know. What we do know, however, is that interested parties bring agendas which can be a motivation to exaggerate claims.

It depends on the relationship of the interested party. Frankly, that is more of a suspiscion and less of something "we know."

What we do know is that it is less likely for disinterested parties to exaggerate claims.

And as I pointed out, we do not have a case of exaggerated claims where the life of Jesus is concerned. If anything the internal textual evidence says just opposite of exaggeration.

Do not play games with me. I did not say earlier was more accurate. I provided the example to see if you would question the autheticity of the original Plato's Republic, if presented with similar discrepancies as in the NT. Nice way to dodge.

I didn't dodge anything. I just answered your question based on your demonstratd lack of understanding of how mansucript evidence is handled.

I am not going to answer a "what if" question. We could speculate endlessly over any number possible scenarios. I am not interested in hypotheticals, but in the evidence and the manuscriptrs that we have. And the truth is that you are apply a standard to the NT that scholars and historians do not apply to other ancient manuscripts which again, highlights your lack of expertise/knowledge in this area, and you risk making yourself look more and more foolish the longer you persist along this line.

Who cares how long an apostle lives? The more relevant time period is from the alleged events described to the writings of it.

Which makes my point. In other ancient manuscripts, there is a range of 850-1,600 years removed from the time the authors acutally penned their writings to the earliest known copy. Yet there are only 25-50 years removed from the original NT manuscripts penned by the apostles earliest known copies.

Just in case you miss the point, if the argument is that the NT documents have a sigfincant margin for error due to the length of time between the originals and the copies, it must be admitted that other ancient writings would have to be far less reliable due to an 850-1,600 year time span between the authors of those documents and their copies.

The fact is, when you compare apples to apples, the sheer volume of texts and the short margin for error, makes the NT far less likely to be rife with inaccuracies due to tampering or errant scribes than any other ancient document we know of.

Wrong again. As Professor Ehrman's example already shows, the accuracy is in question given that the pericope adulterae does exist in the later manuscripts but not in the earlier.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Professor Ehrman is not the last word on the issue. There are many other Scholars who are as competent if not more competent than he has and have shown that this provides no problem to text and is probably authentic despite not being in some earlier manuscripts. I could waste a lot of bandwidth debating this issue with you, but you don't understand the nature of manuscriopt research so it would be pointless.

If any ancient literature considered a "classic" claims that people resurrect from the dead, or that water turns into wine, or that humans walk on water without aid of technology, or wolves that cross-dress in women's clothes, I would question it. I would demand a higher level of evidence to support such claims. However if such "classic" literature claims nothing more than what the author thinks should be the proper way of running a government, the evidence threshold would not be so high.

Except I am talking about the standard you are erecting for historicity, not the specific claims being made in the documents. The claims are irrelevant if historcity cannot be established first. The problem is that you are erecting standards for determining historicity that exceed the standards applied by scholars which again, shows that you don't understand how manuscript integrity is determined AND it shows that you are trying to erect a standard that you know cannot be reached in order to remove the need to actually deal with the historicity of the NT.

QUOTE

You are really outside your skill set, in this dicussion. Maybe you should just go back to talking about spaghetti monsters. That seems to be what you are best at.

You are free to believe what you will, and insult me as you please. I will note this observation of your fine example of christian behavior.

Just being honest with you, UF. You really don't know what you are talking about and it shows. You are outside your skill set and when your arguments are reduced to making silly comparisons between Jesus and spaghetti monsters, it shows. Like I said, I was embarrassed for you. So far, you have provided no real challenge to the NT or its claims.

You really havent provided anything new, at least nothing I have not heard before. Your arguments are the same warmed over stew we have had thrown at us time and time again. They fell flat back then, and they will fall flat now. No one to date, has ever provided a substantive, intelligent refutation of the claims of Jesus, and you do not appear to be able to do so either.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

Who is credible is not up to you nor me, but to avoid further sillness, the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of all credible scholars and historians do not doubt that Jesus existed, the very few that do are on the fringe.

The argument ad popularum is a fallacy. The VAST, VAST, MAJORITY of all credible people at one time believed the earth was flat.

Invalid comparison.

You cannot compare science which is always in a state of flux with historical fact which is generally far more static. Details may change over the years, the more learn, but history overall, generally remains static.

The historical community generally accepts that historicity of Jesus. There is no getting around that fact. It is only a relative small number of people in the historical comunity that has an agenda to disprove Jesus' existence. While it is true that the majority of historians might reject Jesus' claims, they are able to accept the fact that Jesus was a real person.