Historocity of Christ [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

USViking

06-17-2006, 03:34 AM

The philosopher David Hume expressed it thus:

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/hume-miracles.html

(from the link):

From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

sub_zer0

06-17-2006, 03:52 AM

Because for me divinity, being miraculous, requires
a higher standard of proof.

Faith is the belief in things unseen! Let your faith in Christ, and His resurrection be the evidence.

Why can you not trust Christ?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
The philosopher David Hume expressed it thus:

From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/hume-miracles.html

All this argument is based on, is testimony or narrative of this miracle?

What you are doing by letting David Hume speak for you is equating your belief with it. You are showing skepticism concerning the historicity and therefore authenticity of the Gospel narratives. You are not however questioning that the physical resurrection even happened. In other words you don't think the story that told it first (Gospels) can be trusted.

Why do you think that the physical resurrection put forth in the text of the Bible, specifically the NT, is not trustworthy?

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

USViking

06-17-2006, 04:09 AM

All this argument is based on, is testimony or narrative of this miracle?
I do not understand you here.

What you are doing by letting David Hume speak for you is equating your belief with it.
Hume says it a lot better than I could, so yes,
I let him speak for me here.

You are showing skepticism concerning the historicity and therefore authenticity of the Gospel narratives.
Yes.

You are not however questioning that the physical resurrection even happened.
I thought I was. Let me remove any ambiguity:
I do not believe the physical resurrection occurred.

In other words you don't think the story that told it first (Gospels) can be trusted.
Correct.

Why do you think that the physical resurrection put forth in the text of the Bible, specifically the NT, is not trustworthy?
Hume, again:

"That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood
would be more miraculous"

The falsehood of the Biblical testimony would not be
at all miraculous, hence it fails Hume's test, to which
I subscribe as a standard.

Dangerrmouse

06-17-2006, 07:37 AM

The word you seek is historicity. The philosopher you discuss is a giant of the Scottish Enlightenment whose ideas are central to the formation of the USA. He was an atheist. As for JC....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

"The historicity of Jesus (i.e., his existence as an actual historical figure), is accepted as a theological axiom by three world religions, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith, based on their respective scriptures. Nevertheless, there are no extant contemporaneous documents that make mention of Jesus. The earliest known sources are Christian writings - the New Testament - which, according to modern historians, were written several decades after he is said to have died. All three religions refer to him as the Messiah, although each has a different view of what role the Messiah played. Secular historians and followers of most other world religions (including Judaism) tend to regard him as an ordinary human, and some dispute whether he ever existed.

Many scholars see the Biblical narratives of Jesus' life as theological or mythologized accounts of a historical figure's life, aimed at winning new converts rather than at being a neutral historical record. The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life may be historical and which may be unhistorical is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians. Even accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life may have changed in subtle ways during re-tellings. Others may have been exaggerated on purpose, and some may even have been totally invented, possibly reinterpreted from older stories."

...

cpwill

06-17-2006, 11:48 AM

1. the accounts in the new testament are incredibly detailed and incredibly accurate; there are no less than 84 details in the second half of Acts alone that have been verified, ranging from local officials names, to regional slang, to roman military deployments, to correct lines of trade routes, to inscriptions on statues, to harbor depths.

2. the accounts in the new testament are unlikely to be something made up by the new testament authors; several times the authors give references, invite the reader to double-check them with easily available sources, and refer to events that would have been more than easily disproven by potential nay-sayers.

3. the accounts in the new testament are unlikely to be the product of embellishment of an otherwise true but less impressive story. this is for three reasons
A) if you were writing an embellishment to convince people to follow your religious claims, you wouldn't picture yourself as an ignorant, stupid, stubborn, faithless coward. in first century palestine you certainly wouldn't put women ahead of yourself.
B) of the disciples, only John managed to escape martyrdom(he was exiled to the isle of patmos), every other disciple was captured, tortured, and executed; when all they had to do to save themselves was recant. not one of them did few people are willing to suffer repeated beatings and arrests and eventually die so as to continue a practical joke which they know to be a lie. the conspiracy around nixon cracked like an egg, because one of them (james dean) broke in less than two weeks and turned states evidence under threat of plain old imprisonment; and those were people who believed they were doing the right thing. on the contrary; the writers of the new testament had every motivation to deny the events that they wrote about. you expect me to believe that in a conspiracy of people who believed they were doing the wrong thing, none of them cracked under far far worse?
and C) the early church engaged in several debates, both theological and practical; and yet, the gospel writers never had Jesus comment on any of them. how easy it would be (if you're embellishing anyway) to have the Ultimate Authority come down on your side. but in fact, far from actually doing this, the gospel authors almost go in the opposite direction, deliberately including difficult and embarrassing sayings of Jesus, things that are not only difficult to accept (thus hurting recruitment), but would weaken their authority within the church (after all; they'd have to be servants). had they been embellishing, the authors would have created a Jesus a bit more helpful to them.

4. the new testament documents simeoultaneously agree with each others' stories while differing on details of the accounts. had they differed in the same basic story; then obviously there were major parts that each was having to provide on his own, but had they contained no divergent details whatsoever it would have had to have been a collusion; something predetermined by a group prior to the writings. Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard Professor who wrote the standard study on what constitutes legal evidence actually declares that the four Gospels "would have been recieved in evidence in any court of justice without hesitation." if that's an appeal to an authority, it's an appeal to a dang good one who is a bit of what you might call an expert in these affairs.

5. The writings were eyewitness accounts, with the exception of Luke; who openly points out that he himself is not an eyewitness; but is rather a researcher who has gathered the evidence together.

6. Altogether, Jesus life and claims are recorded by 10 non-christian sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and (althought the account is twisted) the jewish Talmud. to bring this perhaps further into note: we only have 9 mentions of the ruling emperor, Tiberius Caesar, at that time.

julierep

06-17-2006, 12:46 PM

FlyingGuineapig

06-17-2006, 01:00 PM

Wow, Wikipedia is wrong. Maybe we shouldnt count on their evidence so much.
While Wikipedia can be wrong (especially if vandalized), I don't think they are in this case: "extant contemporaneous documents" means a document written during Jesus's actual lifetime (so, before 30-37AD, roughly).

Now, cpwill mentions several sources "Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and (althought the account is twisted) the jewish Talmud", not to mention the Gospels themselves.

However, the earliest Gospels are dated back to around 60-70 AD (Mark & Matthew), with John being around 90 AD (IIRC). None are believed to have been penned by the original Apostles, although it's probably fair to believe they are based on oral teachings by them. The Acts of the Apostles is written around 80AD, so it's not quite contemporaneous either.

I don't think cpwill is claiming that those sources are contemporaneous. If he is, I'd be curious to see his sources (I think a lot of historians would be even more interested :) ). Now, that doesn't mean they're not good sources. Just not contemporaneous.

julierep

06-17-2006, 01:03 PM

While Wikipedia can be wrong (especially if vandalized), I don't think they are in this case: "extant contemporaneous documents" means a document written during Jesus's actual lifetime (so, before 30-37AD, roughly).

Now, cpwill mentions several sources "Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and (althought the account is twisted) the jewish Talmud", not to mention the Gospels themselves.

However, the earliest Gospels are dated back to around 60-70 AD (Mark & Matthew), with John being around 90 AD (IIRC). None are believed to have been penned by the original Apostles, although it's probably fair to believe they are based on oral teachings by them. The Acts of the Apostles is written around 80AD, so it's not quite contemporaneous either.

I don't think cpwill is claiming that those sources are contemporaneous. If he is, I'd be curious to see his sources (I think a lot of historians would be even more interested :) ). Now, that doesn't mean they're not good sources. Just not contemporaneous.

Gotcha. Guess I should have looked up the exact meaning of the word contemporaneous. :sorry:

Dangerrmouse

06-17-2006, 01:34 PM

So wikipedia is right, after all.

julierep

06-17-2006, 01:41 PM

So wikipedia is right, after all.

Maybe. I'd have to do further research on it.

sub_zer0

06-17-2006, 05:14 PM

While Wikipedia can be wrong (especially if vandalized), I don't think they are in this case: "extant contemporaneous documents" means a document written during Jesus's actual lifetime (so, before 30-37AD, roughly).

No need for it, what we know about Christ is written about in the NT. The difference is I trust those writings and you do not, thus needing outside sources or contemporary sources to back up what was said in the NT.

Why don't you trust what the NT says about Jesus Christ?

Now, cpwill mentions several sources "Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and (althought the account is twisted) the jewish Talmud", not to mention the Gospels themselves.

However, the earliest Gospels are dated back to around 60-70 AD (Mark & Matthew), with John being around 90 AD (IIRC). None are believed to have been penned by the original Apostles, although it's probably fair to believe they are based on oral teachings by them. The Acts of the Apostles is written around 80AD, so it's not quite contemporaneous either.

I am sorry but all NT were written by apostles. There are good reasons for maintaining the traditional ascriptions of Gospel authorship. Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name. If the names were unanimous during the second-century it is a good indication of earlier attribution.

FlyingGuineapig, if in fact, as you say, the earliest Gospels were written around 60-100 AD, why is there no mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple around 70 AD?

I don't think cpwill is claiming that those sources are contemporaneous. If he is, I'd be curious to see his sources (I think a lot of historians would be even more interested :) ). Now, that doesn't mean they're not good sources. Just not contemporaneous.

Contemporary has to do with the same period of time. Most definately the NT could be considered contemporary writings on Jesus Christ!

FlyingGuineapig

06-17-2006, 10:23 PM

No need for it, what we know about Christ is written about in the NT. The difference is I trust those writings and you do not, thus needing outside sources or contemporary sources to back up what was said in the NT.

Why don't you trust what the NT says about Jesus Christ?

Where have I ever said I didn't trust the NT? What I'm saying is that the gospels are not written at the same time (the meaning of "contemporaneous").

I am sorry but all NT were written by apostles. There are good reasons for maintaining the traditional ascriptions of Gospel authorship. Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name. If the names were unanimous during the second-century it is a good indication of earlier attribution.

FlyingGuineapig, if in fact, as you say, the earliest Gospels were written around 60-100 AD, why is there no mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple around 70 AD?

When Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple, which He will rebuild in three days, isn't He really referring to His body and the resurrection? So if they writing about the physical Jewish Temple (which does get destroyed but not rebuilt in three days) is kind of missing the point.

Contemporary has to do with the same period of time. Most definately the NT could be considered contemporary writings on Jesus Christ!
Look, kid, if you want to pull your usual "I'm going to refuse to accept standard dictionary terms/historical data/scientific facts because I think they're going to conflict with the Bible", knock yourself out. You just make yourself look foolish.

sub_zer0

06-17-2006, 10:34 PM

Where have I ever said I didn't trust the NT? What I'm saying is that the gospels are not written at the same time (the meaning of "contemporaneous").

What I am saying, is that they were and, if you trusted them you would also consider that they are, with or without the evidence we have. The Gospels can certainly be considered contemporaneous and I see no reason to not think they should be.

Perhaps you would like to shed some light on your clouded point, like why you think the Gospels are not contemporaneous.

When Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple, which He will rebuild in three days, isn't He really referring to His body and the resurrection? So if they writing about the physical Jewish Temple (which does get destroyed but not rebuilt in three days) is kind of missing the point.

Where are you reading this in the Bible? What chapter, verse?

Do you have anything that substanitially refutes the fact, as far as internal Scripture evidence, that the Gospels were written before 70 AD?

Look, kid, if you want to pull your usual "I'm going to refuse to accept standard dictionary terms/historical data/scientific facts because I think they're going to conflict with the Bible", knock yourself out. You just make yourself look foolish.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: con·tem·po·ra·ne·ous
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin contemporaneus, from com- + tempor-, tempus time
: existing, occurring, or originating during the same time

The word "contemporaneous" simply means the same period of time. I guess it depends on how you define period of time. As far as historical data and scientific facts, nothing I have said contradicts that in regards to the dates of the Gospels. They are contemporaneous and nothing that you have said should be taken seriously when considering that fact.

FlyingGuineapig

06-17-2006, 10:56 PM

Perhaps you would like to shed some light on your clouded point, like why you think the Gospels are not contemporaneous.

As far as historical data and scientific facts, nothing I have said contradicts that in regards to the dates of the Gospels. They are contemporaneous and nothing that you have said should be taken seriously when considering that fact.

As I said earlier, the Gospels are historically dated to having been written in 60-90 AD, and not by the original apostles.

Now, maybe the question is, when do you think Jesus died? If you think it's around 60-90 AD, I can see why you're confused.

There have been hundreds (if not thousands) of Biblican scholars and historians involved in discussions on the dates. Thanks to the DaVinci Code and the Gospel of Judas, there's a ton of historical books and documentaries on this stuff floating around these days - you can't turn on the TV without seeing it. I won't claim I take all of it as gospel truth (pun intended), but these the info is out there and readily attainable.

Where are you reading this in the Bible? What chapter, verse?

Mark 14:57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

sub_zer0

06-17-2006, 11:11 PM

As I said earlier, the Gospels are historically dated to having been written in 60-90 AD, and not by the original apostles.

As I said, they were before 70 AD because there was no mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

Now, maybe the question is, when do you think Jesus died? If you think it's around 60-90 AD, I can see why you're confused.

You are confused, because I don't.

There have been hundreds (if not thousands) of Biblican scholars and historians involved in discussions on the dates. Thanks to the DaVinci Code and the Gospel of Judas, there's a ton of historical books and documentaries on this stuff floating around these days - you can't turn on the TV without seeing it. I won't claim I take all of it as gospel truth (pun intended), but these the info is out there and readily attainable.

Well I guess if the History channel says it, it is gospel truth (pun intendted). DaVinci Code is a direct insult to my faith and so is the manuscript of Judas, it is no Gospel.

Mark 14:57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

You are taking this directly out of context.

56For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. 57Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, 58"We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'" 59Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent.

These are the accusers of Jesus here speaking fals testimony about Him. For you to take their word when it blatently states in verse 59, "Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent", is rather revealing.

The writer of Mark is stating that they were lying about this, Jesus either never said that or they are twisting His words just as you are to make Jesus not what He said He was!

FlyingGuineapig

06-17-2006, 11:21 PM

You are taking this directly out of context.

These are the accusers of Jesus here speaking fals testimony about Him. For you to take their word when it blatently states in verse 59, "Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent", is rather revealing.

The writer of Mark is stating that they were lying about this, Jesus either never said that or they are twisting His words just as you are to make Jesus not what He said He was!
You're even more incoherent than usual.

sub_zer0

06-17-2006, 11:31 PM

You're even more incoherent than usual.

Do you have anything to add that can be constructively debated or are you just gonna take underhanded shots at me some more?

I do not see what you don't understand here. The text says that the accusers of Jesus said in verse 58, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

So these accusers of Jesus are using false testimony, that is things made up, lies to make Jesus look like a blasphemer so they could kill Him.

The shocking thing is, even after Mark has said in verse 59 that, "Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent", you still to choose to believe it and claim I am incoherent.

FlyingGuineapig

06-18-2006, 01:25 AM

Do you have anything to add that can be constructively debated or are you just gonna take underhanded shots at me some more?

I do not see what you don't understand here. The text says that the accusers of Jesus said in verse 58, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

So these accusers of Jesus are using false testimony, that is things made up, lies to make Jesus look like a blasphemer so they could kill Him.

The shocking thing is, even after Mark has said in verse 59 that, "Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent", you still to choose to believe it and claim I am incoherent.
Yep, you're incoherent. Take a look at John 2:19.

Let's see it in context
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

When the accusers in Mark (and Matthew, as well) are testifying against Jesus, we don't know what exactly they say against Jesus. It's not quoted, other than it involves the destruction of the temple and it's false. Now, what is said in John 2:19 is true. So, in Mark, they're taking what Jesus said (probably what's in John 2:19) and twisting it - but we don't know how since it's not recorded.

Cedars

06-18-2006, 01:43 AM

...When Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple, which He will rebuild in three days, isn't He really referring to His body and the resurrection? So if they writing about the physical Jewish Temple (which does get destroyed but not rebuilt in three days) is kind of missing the point...

...I do not see what you don't understand here. The text says that the accusers of Jesus said in verse 58, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"

So these accusers of Jesus are using false testimony, that is things made up, lies to make Jesus look like a blasphemer so they could kill Him...
John 2

*18Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

*19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

*20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

*21But he spake of the temple of his body.

*22When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Cedars

06-18-2006, 01:56 AM

Oops, sorry. Didn't refresh. I see FGp is ahead of me!

sub_zer0

06-18-2006, 03:56 AM

Yep, you're incoherent. Take a look at John 2:19.

Let's see it in context
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

When the accusers in Mark (and Matthew, as well) are testifying against Jesus, we don't know what exactly they say against Jesus. It's not quoted, other than it involves the destruction of the temple and it's false. Now, what is said in John 2:19 is true. So, in Mark, they're taking what Jesus said (probably what's in John 2:19) and twisting it - but we don't know how since it's not recorded.

Indeed, you are probably right. But what is your point in relating this to the historocity of Christ, specifically the Gospels and dates?

Meek Heir

06-18-2006, 05:08 AM

Indeed, you are probably right. But what is your point in relating this to the historocity of Christ, specifically the Gospels and dates?

I think the main point is that assuming it was written in 100 AD why would they mention a temple in 70 AD? They were talking about Jesus. If I wrote a book about WWI I would not mention Hitler's rise to power in Germany.

lawman

06-18-2006, 07:04 AM

As I said, they [the Gospels] were before 70 AD because there was no mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple.
Not so. Even Mark (uncontroversially accepted as the earliest of the Gospels) is generally understood to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore to postdate 70 CE, as a result of the opening passages of Chapter 12:

1. And He began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard...
6. "He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying, `They will respect my son.'
7. "But those vine-growers said to one another, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!'
8. "They took him, and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.
9. "What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others."
(The passage is understood by theologians as an allegorical assertion that God ordained the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as punishment for its faithless inhabitants. To have been comprehensible as such, it obviously must have been written after those events.)

FlyingGuineapig

06-18-2006, 02:30 PM

Personally, while I don't mind arguing about when the Gospels were written (history of the Roman empire around 200 BC to 400 AD has always interested me - wish I had time to study it more), I'm not sure it really matters to faith.

Back in 1st century AD, there were no printing presses, so the writen word was much less effective at reaching a large number of people compared to preaching. So the Apostles spent their time preaching to the masses. What they wrote down were letters to their brethern seperated by distance (a case where writting is more effective), but those letters would have been intended for reading outloud rather than a historical record. I'd guess (and this is just a guess) that the Gospels would have been written down as those who lived at the time of Christ were being martyred, and their followers didn't want to lose those oral records.

Now, from a purely historical perspective, it's not as tidy as finding extensive written records as a government might leave behind. But just because we don't have Jesus's personal diary, or Mary Mag. having jotted down "Went to the tomb and it was empty" in her own handwriting doesn't dilute from the message.

If anything, the speed and sincerity at which the Good News spread (for which their is historical confirmation) indicates something rather miraculous occurred.

Cedars

06-18-2006, 03:30 PM

burntgorilla

06-18-2006, 03:52 PM

sub_zer0

06-18-2006, 04:45 PM

sub_zer0

06-18-2006, 05:01 PM

Not so. Even Mark (uncontroversially accepted as the earliest of the Gospels) is generally understood to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore to postdate 70 CE, as a result of the opening passages of Chapter 12:

The passage is understood by theologians as an allegorical assertion that God ordained the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as punishment for its faithless inhabitants. To have been comprehensible as such, it obviously must have been written after those events.

This has nothing to do with the Jewish Temple and everything to do with Christ. I think you left out some much needed context, especially verses 2-6 and 10-12:

1And He began to speak to them in parables: "A man PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT, AND DUG A VAT UNDER THE WINE PRESS AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. 2"At the harvest time he sent a slave to the vine-growers, in order to receive some of the produce of the vineyard from the vine-growers. 3"They took him, and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4"Again he sent them another slave, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. 5"And he sent another, and that one they killed; and so with many others, beating some and killing others. 6"He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 7"But those vine-growers said to one another, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!' 8"They took him, and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. 9"What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others. 10"Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; 11THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?" 12And they were seeking to seize Him, and yet they feared the people, for they understood that He spoke the parable against them And so they left Him and went away.

Jesus Christ uses parables. It is referring to how during the OT times God sent people, prophets and they were mistreated. The ones they were sent to did not receive them as they were supposed to (2-5).

Now, verse 6 speaks about Jesus Christ, it speaks of one more to be sent, the Son. Also saying that the people, "will respect my son", Jesus being representative of the kingdom of God was slain, because some thought that, that is what was needed to gain inheritance to His kingdom. Sadly all they needed to do was "respect" His Son. Because of that, "He will come and destroy the vineyard to others".

I see no connection to the Jewish Temple. If anything it is speaking about Christ and His place in the church as, "chief corner stone".

burntgorilla

06-18-2006, 06:43 PM

No, I believe what the NT says.

What makes the NT so special?

lawman

06-18-2006, 10:56 PM

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 01:09 AM

SubZero-

Look, I'm not making this up on my own, I'm just pointing out a widely accepted interpretation of scripture that offers one reason (among many) to understand that the Gospels were set down in writing after 70 CE. In the parable as presented it's fairly easy to understand that Jesus is referring to himself as the beloved son, and later as the cornerstone... but also to Jerusalem, focal point of establishment Judaism, as "the vineyard." Prior to 70 CE, no Gospel writer would have chosen to include the parable as presented: the allegory would have no meaning. One would be left asking, "wait -- the vineyard hasn't been repossessed! Jesus doesn't come off looking so good here." After 70 CE, the meaning would be clear to any Jewish reader, and thus the parable becomes one the writer would have reason to include.

I am not making up on my own either that the Gospels could of quite easily been written before 70 AD. I think is a bit far-fetched as there is no clear indication it is speaking of the Jewish Temple, maybe Jerusalem but not the temple. Even if it was speaking of Jerusalem it is not proof of them speaking about the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

The meaning of this parable is that the "vine growers" are the Jews, the people sent are prophets, the Son is Jesus. Plenty of meaning, and if they think that Jesus was to "rpossess the vineyard" at that time they clearly were not following His teachings.

As I noted, though, this is hardly the only evidence. It's really not at all controversial to say that all four of the Biblical Gospels were written after 70 CE.

It also isn't controversial that they were done before 70 AD because there is no mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

Another piece of evidence, more circumstantial then textual but still persuasive, is that the Pauline epistles -- known to have been written as early at the 50s -- make virtually no mention of any "biographical details" about Jesus, even when such would be thematically appropriate... suggesting that those stories were not yet in wide circulation in the deveoping Christian faith community until a later date.

So because the Pauline epistles do not include "biographical details" about Jesus makes their date no different.

And I could go on. Books have been written about this. Suffice it to say that if you're arguing for earlier authorship dates at this point, you're arguing against an overwhelming scholarly consensus, and therefore the burden of proof rests on you.

I am still waiting for this scholarly evidence about the fact that since none of the NT mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple they were written before 70 AD.

lawman

06-19-2006, 02:05 AM

It also isn't controversial that they were done before 70 AD because there is no mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple...
You don't seem clear on what "not controversial" means. It means that there's a perspective that's widely accepted by scholars (the one that I'm describing -- that Mark was the first of the synoptic Gospels, written sometime after 70 CE; that Matthew and Luke were both based partially upon Mark; and that John was written yet later, from different sources). As a corrolary, it means that the position you're taking is controversial, and is not widely accepted. (You seem to be arguing for the traditional Augustinian hypothesis, unless I've misread you -- that Matthew was written first, then Mark and Luke, all before 70 CE -- a view which held sway for a long time, but which is now considered obsolete on the basis of closer textual and historical analysis.)

So because the Pauline epistles do not include "biographical details" about Jesus makes their date no different.
Again, you miss the point. If the synoptics had been written at the "traditional" dates (as early as 45-60 CE), then an evangelist like Paul would have had access to the information from those stories, and would have had occasion to include some of it in his various epistles. There are certainly cases where words or events ascribed to Jesus himself would have greatly strengthened Paul's arguments. That he didn't make use of such suggests that he was unaware of them, because the stories weren't circulating yet.

I am still waiting for this scholarly evidence about the fact that since none of the NT mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple they were written before 70 AD.
And once again, you miss the point -- in this case about "burden of proof." When you're aguing against the prevailing view (as you are), you don't get to wait around for your opponents to justify themselves -- historically speaking, they've already done that and succeeded at it. On the contrary, you have to make the case as to why your view should unseat the modern consensus.

Just 'cause I'm a softie, though, I'll throw in another oft-noted bit of evidence... the very next chapter of Mark, which also references the destruction of the temple, this time without the fuzziness of allegory:
1. As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"
2. And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."
Now, why would the author of Mark attribute such a provocative statement to Jesus if he was writing at a date before one could point to the razed temple and say "see, he was right"?

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 03:09 AM

You don't seem clear on what "not controversial" means. It means that there's a perspective that's widely accepted by scholars (the one that I'm describing -- that Mark was the first of the synoptic Gospels, written sometime after 70 CE; that Matthew and Luke were both based partially upon Mark; and that John was written yet later, from different sources). As a corrolary, it means that the position you're taking is controversial, and is not widely accepted. (You seem to be arguing for the traditional Augustinian hypothesis, unless I've misread you -- that Matthew was written first, then Mark and Luke, all before 70 CE -- a view which held sway for a long time, but which is now considered obsolete on the basis of closer textual and historical analysis.)

I still se no evidence of another way of taking it.

Again, you miss the point. If the synoptics had been written at the "traditional" dates (as early as 45-60 CE), then an evangelist like Paul would have had access to the information from those stories, and would have had occasion to include some of it in his various epistles. There are certainly cases where words or events ascribed to Jesus himself would have greatly strengthened Paul's arguments. That he didn't make use of such suggests that he was unaware of them, because the stories weren't circulating yet.

You could read into it that way, but still no strong reason to support anything other than the Gospels were written before 70 AD. You are trying to read your reasoning in with what Paul should of wrote. The fact is he wrote what was needed and you saying he should of done something doesn't make the later date of writing any different.

And once again, you miss the point -- in this case about "burden of proof." When you're aguing against the prevailing view (as you are), you don't get to wait around for your opponents to justify themselves -- historically speaking, they've already done that and succeeded at it. On the contrary, you have to make the case as to why your view should unseat the modern consensus.

You do say that the burden of proof is on me, yet when I brought this proof to you before you gladly challenged it with some of your own evidence. Not enough to convince me, my point hasn't changed but apparently now I need to give the evidence again.

Ok, fair enough, here is my case. The NT, specifically the Gospels if you will were written before 70 AD because there is no indication of anything having to do with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.

Just 'cause I'm a softie, though, I'll throw in another oft-noted bit of evidence... the very next chapter of Mark, which also references the destruction of the temple, this time without the fuzziness of allegory:

Now, why would the author of Mark attribute such a provocative statement to Jesus if he was writing at a date before one could point to the razed temple and say "see, he was right"?

Which verses are you specifically referring to?

lawman

06-19-2006, 04:31 AM

Which verses are you specifically referring to?
The ones I quoted in my post, about six inches above your question: Mark 13:1-2. If that's not an explicit reference to the events of 70 CE, I don't know what is.

But you still seem to be missing my larger point: that scholars have amassed and analyzed substantial evidence that the Gospels were written and disseminated after the destruction of the Temple. (The only remaining serious dispute among the experts is how long after.) I'm just offering up a couple of the more easily understood examples. So far, your counter-argument doesn't seem to be anything more than insisting "well, they could have been written earlier."

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 04:37 AM

The ones I quoted in my post, about six inches above your question: Mark 13:1-2. If that's not an explicit reference to the events of 70 CE, I don't know what is.

But you still seem to be missing my larger point: that scholars have amassed and analyzed substantial evidence that the Gospels were written and disseminated after the destruction of the Temple. (The only remaining serious dispute among the experts is how long after.) I'm just offering up a couple of the more easily understood examples. So far, your counter-argument doesn't seem to be anything more than insisting "well, they could have been written earlier."

No it isn't just could of been, they were because they do not mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple. You reference to Mark 13 is actually more evidence for my side.

1As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.

The verses are a predictive prophecy by Jesus Christ about the Jewish temple. This is in question by you because you think He is speaking during a time after the temple's destruction, however the context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed.

Is there any internal scriptural evidence to contradict the view that the NT was written before 70 AD?

Meek Heir

06-19-2006, 04:54 AM

No it isn't just could of been, they were because they do not mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple. You reference to Mark 13 is actually more evidence for my side.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would the story of Jesus mention something that happened after his death and had nothing to do with him?

The verses are a predictive prophecy by Jesus Christ about the Jewish temple. This is in question by you because you think He is speaking of a time after the temple is destroyed, however the context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed.

No, we know that he would be speaking before said event. But we know that the Gospels did not include every word said by Christ. The assumption here is that they put these things in there because they were things Jesus said that came true, thus proving him right and being good resources for conversion.

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 04:57 AM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would the story of Jesus mention something that happened after his death and had nothing to do with him?

There are many things that Jesus says will happen after His death, the predictive prophecy of the temple being destroyed is one of them. Are you saying the Jewish temple has nothing to do with Jesus?

No, we know that he would be speaking before said event. But we know that the Gospels did not include every word said by Christ. The assumption here is that they put these things in there because they were things Jesus said that came true, thus proving him right and being good resources for conversion.

LOL. They wanted Him to look good, that is why it is there, sure Meek. Indeed, Jesus was speaking before the event of the destruction of the temple, my point exactly. Point still stands that the NT was written before 70 AD.

lawman

06-19-2006, 05:27 AM

No it isn't just could of been, they were because they do not mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple. You reference to Mark 13 is actually more evidence for my side...
The verses are a predictive prophecy by Jesus Christ about the Jewish temple. This is in question by you because you think He is speaking during a time after the temple's destruction, however the context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed.
No, think this through. I understand that the setting of the scene (Jesus speaking a prophecy to a follower) predates the Temple's destruction -- that's obvious. Let's even be generous and assume for the sake of argument that the scene and quotation are genuine, that Jesus uttered the prophecy as quoted (never mind the disturbing implications for free will of the very notion of accurate prophecy), and that it was accurately passed down to the author of Mark. The fact remains that Mark is a fairly short Gospel, and obviously could not and does not contain everything done or said by its subject. The author had to make decisions about what to include. Why then would he choose to include a prophecy which, at the time of his writing, had not been fulfilled? That would only cast doubt on the credibility of the speaker (Jesus). It stands to reason that Mark was writing at a time after a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple could be understood by its readers to be accurate.

Is there any internal scriptural evidence to contradict the view that the NT was written before 70 AD?
Well, of course, the NT isn't a single document. Some parts (e.g., Pauline epistles, which have a very different character from the Gospels) can indeed be dated earlier.

But as for evidence pertaining to the Gospels themselves -- beyond what I've already given you? Yes, lots. How about Luke's own references to the attack on Jerusalem, in Luke 21:20? How about references and allusions throughout the Gospels to persecution of Christians qua Christians, which (notwithstanding the isolated abuses from Nero after the fire) didn't become widespread policy throughout the empire until around the reign of Domitian (89-96 CE)? How about the fact that the Gospels' authors commit numerous geographical and/or historical errors about Palestine (e.g., citing Pilate as a Procurator rather than a Prefect, his actual title), which writers with firsthand knowledge of the period and the region (i.e., pre-expulsion) would not have done? How about the increasing hesitancy throughout the Gospels as to when the end times and second coming would arrive? (Even Mark only has Jesus promise, in 9:1, that "there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God," and the later Gospels are even more deliberately vague about how long the wait might be.) How about the simple logic of the fact that followers in the first generation after the death of an historical Jesus, who fully expected the end of the world to be imminent, wouldn't have taken the trouble to write Gospels for posterity in the first place?

And I could go on at length. (As I said: books have been written...) But if you don't accept what I've already offered, and apparently reject the simple fact of a scholarly consensus on this (honest, I'm not making it up!), then I'm just not sure what you're looking for.

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 05:44 AM

No, think this through. I understand that the setting of the scene (Jesus speaking a prophecy to a follower) predates the Temple's destruction -- that's obvious. Let's even be generous and assume for the sake of argument that the scene and quotation are genuine, that Jesus uttered the prophecy as quoted (never mind the disturbing implications for free will of the very notion of accurate prophecy), and that it was accurately passed down to the author of Mark. The fact remains that Mark is a fairly short Gospel, and obviously could not and does not contain everything done or said by its subject. The author had to make decisions about what to include. Why then would he choose to include a prophecy which, at the time of his writing, had not been fulfilled? That would only cast doubt on the credibility of the speaker (Jesus). It stands to reason that Mark was writing at a time after a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple could be understood by its readers to be accurate.

You say yourself it predates the temples destruction. It did not need to be passed down to anybody, Mark was an apostle to Jesus, He spoke with Him, these are first-hand accounts.

Mark chose to include this predictive prophecy by Jesus, being that it wasn't fulfilled yet as this statement predates the temples destruction, not to cast doubt on Jesus but does the opposite as His prophecy was ultimately fulfilled.

I would rather believe that Mark was written before 70 AD, you have given no other indication that any other view should be held.

Well, of course, the NT isn't a single document. Some parts (e.g., Pauline epistles, which have a very different character from the Gospels) can indeed be dated earlier.

They can be, but doesn't mean they are. I still hold to the fact that since there is no mention of the Jewish temples destruction, all of the NT (Pauline epistles and all) could of easily been done before 70 AD.

But as for evidence pertaining to the Gospels themselves -- beyond what I've already given you? Yes, lots. How about Luke's own references to the attack on Jerusalem, in Luke 21:20? How about references and allusions throughout the Gospels to persecution of Christians qua Christians, which (notwithstanding the isolated abuses from Nero after the fire) didn't become widespread policy throughout the empire until around the reign of Domitian (89-96 CE)? How about the fact that the Gospels' authors commit numerous geographical and/or historical errors about Palestine (e.g., citing Pilate as a Procurator rather than a Prefect, his actual title), which writers with firsthand knowledge of the period and the region (i.e., pre-expulsion) would not have done? How about the increasing hesitancy throughout the Gospels as to when the end times and second coming would arrive? (Even Mark only has Jesus promise, in 9:1, that "some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God," and the later Gospels are even more deliberately vague about how long the wait might be.) How about the simple logic of the fact that followers in the first generation after the death of an historical Jesus, who fully expected the end of the world to be imminent, wouldn't have taken the trouble to write Gospels for posterity in the first place?

Luke 21:20 again is a predictive prophecy and is not even speaking about the destruction of the Jewish temple.

Actually Jesus was persecuted, so the fact that there are references to Christian persecution is nothing to big.

Your third point about alleged geographical/historical errors has no bearing on whether or not the NT should be dated before or after 70 AD.

Fourth and fifth, about the end-times, Jesus is clear on this and again has no bearing as to whether or not the NT was written before or after 70 AD.

Let me ask the question again so you know what I am looking for. Is there any internal scriptural evidence to contradict the view that the entire NT was completed before 70 AD?

lawman

06-19-2006, 05:53 AM

It casts no doubt on Jesus, because if it was said before the temples destruction, the temple was destroyed and Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled.
Except of course, as I and others have tried to explain, no writer (or reader) before 70 CE could possibly have known that. Hence, to them, it would indeed have cast doubt.

I am still waiting for some scholarly proof!
I've offered it, and you've rejected it in favor of what you "would rather believe." What sort of "proof," pray tell, would you actually find persuasive?

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 05:56 AM

Except of course, as I and others have tried to explain, no writer (or reader) before 70 CE could possibly have known that. Hence, to them, it would indeed have cast doubt.

Jesus the Son of God couldn't of known that the Jewish temple would be destroyed in 70 AD? Mark fully trusted in what Jesus was saying as He wrote it, it then came trrue in 70 AD, casting no doubt but releiving it.

The difference is, I believe that Jesus could of known that, that is why I date them early. You date them later because if you don't then Jesus was prophetically correct.

I've offered it, and you've rejected it in favor of what you "would rather believe." What sort of "proof," pray tell, would you actually find persuasive?

It isn't what I would rather believe, it is what makes sense. Since nowhere in the NT does it mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD except in predictive prophecy in regards that it will happen soon, the NT was written before 70 AD.

lawman

06-19-2006, 07:27 AM

In other words, you weren't asking sincerely: there is apparently no scholarly "evidence" or "proof" that would get you to change your mind.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. You should understand, however, that when you reject all the usual standards of evidence and analysis, others are quite unlikely to find your beliefs at all persuasive.

Your opening question for this thread, therefore -- whether the Biblical account(s) of the resurrection "live up to being viewed as having any historical data" -- winds up being meaningless to you. You obviously accept the Gospels (and an outdated "traditional" interpretation thereof, no less) as self-validating, and have no actual interest in "historical data" that may cast them in a different light.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised. I am, however, curious as to what you hoped to accomplish with this thread, going into it with such an attitude.

burntgorilla

06-19-2006, 09:25 AM

What makes the NT so special?

Any chance of an answer, sub?

Dangerrmouse

06-19-2006, 11:12 AM

It isn't what I would rather believe, it is what makes sense.

JC "predicted" the return of himself and his kingdom within the lifetime of his disciples. Didn't happen. That makes sense.

Meek Heir

06-19-2006, 11:25 AM

It isn't what I would rather believe, it is what makes sense. Since nowhere in the NT does it mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD except in predictive prophecy in regards that it will happen soon, the NT was written before 70 AD.

Assuming the Gospels were written in 100 AD, were do you think they would have wrote that in?

neo of the mind

06-19-2006, 11:32 AM

JC "predicted" the return of himself and his kingdom within the lifetime of his disciples. Didn't happen. That makes sense.

My understanding was that if specific conditions were met, then this would have occured, but they didn't. For the sake of argument and to understand where you are coming from, what specific spripure are you referring to? Knowing this I could discuss the context with you and perhaps show you scripturally why there is no contradiction.

Meek Heir

06-19-2006, 11:35 AM

There are many things that Jesus says will happen after His death, the predictive prophecy of the temple being destroyed is one of them. Are you saying the Jewish temple has nothing to do with Jesus?

And where do you think they would have wrote that in? But in the future "I might be missing something" is usually a good clue that someone is unsure of something.

LOL. They wanted Him to look good, that is why it is there, sure Meek. Indeed, Jesus was speaking before the event of the destruction of the temple, my point exactly. Point still stands that the NT was written before 70 AD.

I was explaining the basis for the assertion that these statements gave evidence that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. People might take you more seriously if you weren't so willfully ignorant of what other people are saying.

cpwill

06-19-2006, 01:00 PM

In other words, you weren't asking sincerely: there is apparently no scholarly "evidence" or "proof" that would get you to change your mind.

no more than i could provide you with "evidence" or "proof" that your mother does not really exist and get you to believe.

lawman

06-19-2006, 01:56 PM

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 04:49 PM

In other words, you weren't asking sincerely: there is apparently no scholarly "evidence" or "proof" that would get you to change your mind.

I have seen no evidence that should make me change my view.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. You should understand, however, that when you reject all the usual standards of evidence and analysis, others are quite unlikely to find your beliefs at all persuasive.

I have seen no substantial evidence to change my reasoning.

Your opening question for this thread, therefore -- whether the Biblical account(s) of the resurrection "live up to being viewed as having any historical data" -- winds up being meaningless to you. You obviously accept the Gospels (and an outdated "traditional" interpretation thereof, no less) as self-validating, and have no actual interest in "historical data" that may cast them in a different light.

My question was indeed about the resurrection, which is why I am trying to figure out what bearing that the dating of the Gospels has on that.

Indeed I do accept the NT for what it says and my historical data in saying that they were written before 70 AD is the historical fact they do NOT mention the destruction of the Jewish temple.

And where do you think they would have wrote that in? But in the future "I might be missing something" is usually a good clue that someone is unsure of something.

No, it was before the temples destruction, that is what makes it a predictive prophecy.

I was explaining the basis for the assertion that these statements gave evidence that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. People might take you more seriously if you weren't so willfully ignorant of what other people are saying.

I am not ignorant, saying that they wanted Him to look good is hardly worth noting as historical evidence to date the Gospels any later than 70 AD.

Assuming the Gospels were written in 100 AD, were do you think they would have wrote that in?

Obviously assuming a later date would prove your point, but I am assuming that they were written before 70 AD.

Meek Heir

06-19-2006, 05:19 PM

Indeed I do accept the NT for what it says and my historical data in saying that they were written before 70 AD is the historical fact they do NOT mention the destruction of the Jewish temple.

Obviously assuming a later date would prove your point, but I am assuming that they were written before 70 AD.

This is the kind of willful ignorance I am talking about. If you think that it would have mentioned the Jewish temple if it were written after 70 AD then what do you think it would have said?

Do I need to put in the word hypothetically to get you to understand something that is actually quite simple? Or is it just that you have absolutely no answer to the question and so you feign misunderstanding?

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 05:22 PM

This is the kind of willful ignorance I am talking about. If you think that it would have mentioned the Jewish temple if it were written after 70 AD then what do you think it would have said?

Probably that it was destroyed by the Roman empire or something along those lines. But it doesn't so it wasn't and they were written before 70 AD.

Do I need to put in the word hypothetically to get you to understand something that is actually quite simple? Or is it just that you have absolutely no answer to the question and so you feign misunderstanding?

Hypotheticals don't work when trying to use historical data within the NT to say something about it. I am saying as FACT, since they do not say anything about the destruction of the temple, they were written before 70 AD.

Do you have any internal scripture evidence to say otherwise?

JoeR

06-19-2006, 05:43 PM

Why couldn't it just have been written after the destruction? You assume that someone couldn't have written it just to make it seem like a prediction had come true.

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 05:46 PM

Why couldn't it just have been written after the destruction? You assume that someone couldn't have written it just to make it seem like a prediction had come true.

This isn't an assumption, it is implied based off of the fact that they do not mention the destruction of the temple. And you assume that someone could have written it just to make it seem like it came true.

JoeR

06-19-2006, 05:48 PM

And you assume that someone could have written it just to make it seem like it came true.

You deny that this is a possibility?

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 05:52 PM

You deny that this is a possibility?

Yep. Because I trust in the power of Christ to do prophecy and have it come true.

It seems to me you deny that possibility so that they can be dated later.

burntgorilla

06-19-2006, 06:20 PM

I guess not then, sub. At least julierep tried to pretend.

Soc.Dem.

06-19-2006, 06:47 PM

I am saying as FACT, since they do not say anything about the destruction of the temple, they were written before 70 AD.

I hope you are aware that the majority of Biblical Scholars do not agre with you on that.

sub_zer0

06-19-2006, 07:48 PM

I guess not then, sub. At least julierep tried to pretend.

So is there any evidence you would like to present that you feel should reverse my thinking?

Why would I pretend when it isn't so? I choose to live in reality. Reality being that since nowhere in the NT does it mention the destruction of the Jewish temple, the NT was written before 70 AD.

I hope you are aware that the majority of Biblical Scholars do not agre with you on that.

And the evidence that goes against the NT written before 70 AD, is what then?

Meek Heir

06-19-2006, 09:33 PM

Probably that it was destroyed by the Roman empire or something along those lines. But it doesn't so it wasn't and they were written before 70 AD.

Okay, now where would it say that?

Hypotheticals don't work when trying to use historical data within the NT to say something about it. I am saying as FACT, since they do not say anything about the destruction of the temple, they were written before 70 AD.

Hypotheticals are used to analyze possibilities. I can understand how that kind of concept would confuse you. Let me try to explain. Possibilities are things which may or may not be true, this is so because unlike you, we do not have omniscense. So we use hypotheticals as part of our rudimentary logic to attempt to determine truth.

Do you have any internal scripture evidence to say otherwise?

Time for another one of those things that you don't understand. There are other forms of evidence besides things written in the Bible. We like to compare those things written in the Bible to those other forms of evidence outside of it in order to determine the truth of certain claims. (Other times we just ignore the Bible all together, like when trying to find out some ones hair color.)

neo of the mind

06-19-2006, 10:33 PM

Original topic:

Does Jesus Christ's resurrection status as Biblical Christianity claims, live up to being viewed as having any historical data? Why or why not?

Josephus:

The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3, in the translation of William Whiston:

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

In 1971, professor Shlomo Pines published a translation of a different version of the Testimonium, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius, a 10th century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. Agapius appears to be quoting from memory, for even Josephus' title is an approximation:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

lawman

06-19-2006, 11:01 PM

neo-

The Josephus passage you quote (known as the "Testimonium Flavianum') is not reliable as evidence, owing to considerable controversy over its legitimacy. While Flavius Josephus was a contemporary (c. 37-100 CE), the oldest surviving manuscript of this passage dates only to the 9th century, and the oldest quotation of it in another work is in the works of the evangelist Eusebius, writing c. 324.

Josephus himself was not a Christian, so there's little doubt among scholars that at least some of the passage in question was a later Christian interpolation into the lost original text of the Antiquities. The serious dispute is how much was interpolated: is it only the reference to Jesus' status as "the Christ" and his resurrection, or is the entire passage inauthentic? The Christian author Origen, writing about 240, not only confirms that Josephus was not a believer but also says that he wrote "nothing of the wonderful deeds" that Jesus did.

The "Testimonium" is also questionable because of textual continuity (the larger passage flows smoothly with the Jesus bit removed) and vocabulary usage, among other issues. It's a complicated debate, but the closest thing to a scholarly consensus seems to be that Josephus probably did mention an historical Jesus (albeit without firsthand knowledge), but probably didn't mention the resurrection.

Moreover, the Antiquities itself only dates to c. 93 CE... so (ironically) one side-effect of arguments (like subZero's above) for earlier Gospels is that fewer other works can be treated as independent authentication for the Gospel stories. The earlier the Gospels were circulating, the more likely that other early writers discussing the origins of the growing Christian movement would have used them as a source.

Patriot

06-20-2006, 01:03 AM

No, because there are no accounts corroborating
those of his partisans.

No, because there are no accounts corroborating
those of his partisans.

Yeah, there is corroboration.

Joseph Smith History 1:
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/16#16

D&C 76:
22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76

The Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi:
Jesus Christ did show himself unto the people of Nephi, as the multitude were gathered together in the land Bountiful, and did minister unto them; and on this wise did he show himself unto them. Comprising chapters 11 to 26 inclusive.
http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/11

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 02:08 AM

Hypotheticals are used to analyze possibilities. I can understand how that kind of concept would confuse you. Let me try to explain. Possibilities are things which may or may not be true, this is so because unlike you, we do not have omniscense. So we use hypotheticals as part of our rudimentary logic to attempt to determine truth.

Why take into account a possibility that is not needed? My reasoning is a hypothetical and it works.

Meek Heir

06-20-2006, 02:39 AM

Why take into account a possibility that is not needed? My reasoning is a hypothetical and it works.

One possibility: Gospels written before 70 AD, another: Gospels written after 70 AD. Since I can pick up a Bible containing the New Testament (ignoring "do we exist?" philosphy) We know one of these is true.

You say that if it was the second they would mention temple x. I asked what they would say, you responded "Probably that it was destroyed by the Roman empire or something along those lines."

Now I am asking where would they have put that in the Gospels?

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 02:40 AM

One possibility: Gospels written before 70 AD, another: Gospels written after 70 AD. Since I can pick up a Bible containing the New Testament (ignoring "do we exist?" philosphy) We know one of these is true.

You say that if it was the second they would mention temple x. I asked what they would say, you responded "Probably that it was destroyed by the Roman empire or something along those lines."

Now I am asking where would they have put that in the Gospels?

I have no idea.

burntgorilla

06-20-2006, 12:39 PM

So is there any evidence you would like to present that you feel should reverse my thinking?

Why would I pretend when it isn't so? I choose to live in reality. Reality being that since nowhere in the NT does it mention the destruction of the Jewish temple, the NT was written before 70 AD.

That's real swell, sub, but what I actually asked was:

What makes the NT so special?

When you stated that you don't blindly believe all historical texts, just the NT.

neo of the mind

06-20-2006, 12:57 PM

lawman:

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Meek Heir

06-20-2006, 02:19 PM

I have no idea.

So if you don't know where to put it maybe they didn't either. And so they decided to leave it out. They can't mention every time Jesus prophecies correctly. Instead they only mention one time, the most important one.

burntgorilla

06-20-2006, 03:38 PM

Whoops, I wrote your name in my quote box instead of my own.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 03:41 PM

So if you don't know where to put it maybe they didn't either. And so they decided to leave it out. They can't mention every time Jesus prophecies correctly. Instead they only mention one time, the most important one.

They don't need to mention every time Jesus' prophecy is correct. The prophecy we are talking about is before the temples destruction and a predictive prophecy by Jesus Christ.

I doubt your claim that Mark is dated anytime after 70 AD as consrvative and liberal Biblical scholars both date the book of Mark before 70 AD.

When you stated that you don't blindly believe all historical texts, just the NT.

Because it speaks about my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Dangerrmouse

06-20-2006, 04:58 PM

...
consrvative and liberal Biblical scholars both date the book of Mark before 70 AD.

For example.........who?

Soc.Dem.

06-20-2006, 05:08 PM

I doubt your claim that Mark is dated anytime after 70 AD as consrvative and liberal Biblical scholars both date the book of Mark before 70 AD.

"The majority of moderate, liberal and conservative scholars assign Mark a date between 60 and 80, although there are vocal minority groups which argue for earlier or later dates."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_Mark

Soc.Dem.

06-20-2006, 05:12 PM

Yeah, there is corroboration.

Joseph Smith History 1 [...]

Sorry, Joseph Smith Jr. came somewhat 1,800 years too late to be able to provide any corroborating evidence on Jesus of Nazareth.

lawman

06-20-2006, 05:40 PM

lawman:
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
I dislike posts that "reply" to something merely by posting a link with no elaboration -- all it says really is "draw your own conclusions." In this case, the writer of the page agrees that there's a significant controversy over the authenticity of Josephus' Testimonium (as I wrote)... then analyzes that controversy mainly by quoting a variety of well-known apologists, concluding that it is at least partially authentic (which, also as I wrote, does seem to be the tentative consensus).

Obviously, however, no more authoritative consensus is available. If the article's author personally believes in total or near-total authenticity, that's one possible conclusion, but it's not the only plausible conclusion, nor does he pretend so.

So what were you trying to say here?

For the record, I would agree that an historical Jesus probably existed, and that Josephus probably wrote something about him that was probably a fair reflection of late-1st-century understanding... but even so, it remains true that setting the Gospels aside, there's little or nothing we can know about that historical Jesus. And "setting the Gospels aside" was indeed what subZero originally asked about, after all, notwithstanding his assertions of unqualified faith in the accuracy thereof.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 06:07 PM

For the record, I would agree that an historical Jesus probably existed, and that Josephus probably wrote something about him that was probably a fair reflection of late-1st-century understanding... but even so, it remains true that setting the Gospels aside, there's little or nothing we can know about that historical Jesus. And "setting the Gospels aside" was indeed what subZero originally asked about, after all, notwithstanding his assertions of unqualified faith in the accuracy thereof.

Do you like being so unsure of things? Try making the Gospels your focus then you will know the historical Jesus.

Why can you not take the Gospels, and the NT as a whole, as historically reliable and know Jesus through them?

What is so damaging to the case for the NT that the books possibly couldn't be taken as truth or at least reliable in what they talk about?

burntgorilla

06-20-2006, 06:40 PM

Because it speaks about my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

So basically, we're back to the "it's true because it says it's true!" school of thought? Can't you see the rather glaring flaw in that?

Dangerrmouse

06-20-2006, 06:42 PM

Do you like being so unsure of things? ...

Many of us are relaxed about uncertainty. Dealing with it is what we do.
We are not dependent on someone who cannot know telling us how to behave in light of some unbelieveable myths.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 06:45 PM

So basically, we're back to the "it's true because it says it's true!" school of thought? Can't you see the rather glaring flaw in that?

You are right, sorry. He is OUR Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He died for all of mankinds sins, not just mine.

Many of us are relaxed about uncertainty. Dealing with it is what we do.
We are not dependent on someone who cannot know telling us how to behave in light of some unbelieveable myths.

Answer this for me then, since you believe it is myths.

What is so damaging to the case for the NT that the books possibly couldn't be taken as truth or at least reliable in what they talk about?

burntgorilla

06-20-2006, 06:49 PM

You are right, sorry. He is OUR Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He died for all of mankinds sins, not just mine.

I'm not saying he wasn't. But believing something because it says that it's believable is rather gullible, don't you think?

neo of the mind

06-20-2006, 07:05 PM

I dislike posts that "reply" to something merely by posting a link with no elaboration -- all it says really is "draw your own conclusions." In this case, the writer of the page agrees that there's a significant controversy over the authenticity of Josephus' Testimonium (as I wrote)... then analyzes that controversy mainly by quoting a variety of well-known apologists, concluding that it is at least partially authentic (which, also as I wrote, does seem to be the tentative consensus).

Obviously, however, no more authoritative consensus is available. If the article's author personally believes in total or near-total authenticity, that's one possible conclusion, but it's not the only plausible conclusion, nor does he pretend so.

So what were you trying to say here?

For the record, I would agree that an historical Jesus probably existed, and that Josephus probably wrote something about him that was probably a fair reflection of late-1st-century understanding... but even so, it remains true that setting the Gospels aside, there's little or nothing we can know about that historical Jesus. And "setting the Gospels aside" was indeed what subZero originally asked about, after all, notwithstanding his assertions of unqualified faith in the accuracy thereof.

Sorry giving you, "just the link". I figured you would read the link and come to the conclusion that you just did. Why add in my bias beforehand.

That being said. You agree that there is historical record written about Jesus, which was the focus of debate on the topic, only at the first post by the way, so if you chose to consider the debate still open, so be it.
I don't think anyone of you can stay on a specific topic long enough to get anywhere near a conclusion about anything.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 07:08 PM

I'm not saying he wasn't. But believing something because it says that it's believable is rather gullible, don't you think?

You being the third person I have asked this, maybe you have an answer.

What is so damaging to the case for the NT that the books possibly couldn't be taken as truth or at least reliable in what they talk about?

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 07:08 PM

Sorry giving you, "just the link". I figured you would read the link and come to the conclusion that you just did. Why add in my bias beforehand.

That being said. You agree that there is historical record written about Jesus, which was the focus of debate on the topic, only at the first post by the way, so if you chose to consider the debate still open, so be it.
I don't think anyone of you can stay on a specific topic long enough to get anywhere near a conclusion about anything.

Indeed, Josephus spoke on Jesus, but there were many others.

burntgorilla

06-20-2006, 07:13 PM

You being the third person I have asked this, maybe you have an answer.

What is so damaging to the case for the NT that the books possibly couldn't be taken as truth or at least reliable in what they talk about?

Well, basically, if you see the NT as reliable, then by the same thinking, every ancient text ever found is equally reliable. This is rather silly. You see the NT as reliable because it's the word of God and all that. However, it is the NT itself that is making this claim. Put simply, you're saying that the NT is reliable because it claims it is reliable. I, personally, am of the opinion that the NT is neither completely true nor completely false. What I disagree with is taking it as completely true because it says it is. I don't agree that the NT must be completely true or not. Most Christians accept that the NT is not completely true, or at least that it should not be taken literally. For these people, the NT is still highly important.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 07:35 PM

Well, basically, if you see the NT as reliable, then by the same thinking, every ancient text ever found is equally reliable. This is rather silly.

I know it is, which is why I view the NT as above them all in that regard, for several important reasons.

You see the NT as reliable because it's the word of God and all that. However, it is the NT itself that is making this claim. Put simply, you're saying that the NT is reliable because it claims it is reliable.

It isn't just because it says it is the word of God, and if that is what you think, how isn't the NT historically reliable?

If it can be determined valid on what it speaks about ,in which we can verify, I see no reason why it shouldn't be trusted when speaking about things we cannot verify.

I, personally, am of the opinion that the NT is neither completely true nor completely false. What I disagree with is taking it as completely true because it says it is. I don't agree that the NT must be completely true or not. Most Christians accept that the NT is not completely true, or at least that it should not be taken literally. For these people, the NT is still highly important.

So, again, what is so damaging to the case of the NT that it should be viewed as not completely true?

lawman

06-20-2006, 08:10 PM

Do you like being so unsure of things?
I don't have any problem with it. An ongoing search for truth is far more interesting than an illusory sense of certainty. And when I am "sure of" something, I try hard to base that determination on a fair evaluation of the evidence, not on what I may "like" to think about the subject.

What is so damaging to the case for the NT that the books possibly couldn't be taken as truth or at least reliable in what they talk about?
Silly question. Here's one back at you: what is so damaging to the case for the Bhagavad Gita that it couldn't possibly be taken as truth or at least reliable in what it talks about?

How isn't the NT historically reliable? If it can be determined valid on what it speaks about on things in which we can verify, I see no reason why it shouldn't be trusted when speaking about things we cannot verify.
There are different kinds of truth claims. Some are verifiably by empirical evidence; on such matters, the NT (and the Bible in general) get some right and some wrong, while some remain up in the air despite scholars' best efforts. Others are not empirically verifiable (instead, e.g., they are spiritual or supernatural). Evidence or conclusions about the first category cannot logically be exrapolated to the second.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 08:15 PM

I don't have any problem with it. An ongoing search for truth is far more interesting than an illusory sense of certainty. And when I am "sure of" something, I try hard to base that determination on a fair evaluation of the evidence, not on what I may "like" to think about the subject.

Of course it is, when all you think that truth is, is an illusion. I have evaluated the evidence as well.

Silly question. Here's one back at you: what is so damaging to the case for the Bhagavad Gita that it couldn't possibly be taken as truth or at least reliable in what it talks about?

OK, no answer. Just as I thought.

There are different kinds of truth claims. Some are verifiably by empirical evidence; on such matters, the NT (and the Bible in general) get some right and some wrong, while some remain up in the air despite scholars' best efforts. Others are not empirically verifiable (instead, e.g., they are spiritual or supernatural). Evidence or conclusions about the first category cannot logically be exrapolated to the second.

So, again, what is so damaging to the case for the NT that the books possibly couldn't be taken as truth or at least reliable in what they talk about?

You have yet to post anything that would contradict anything the NT says.

cpwill

06-20-2006, 09:34 PM

cp-

This isn't one of those threads about the existence of God or the foundation of faith. (Which you're asserting is as logically self-evident and beyond debate as the existence of one's biological parent, ignoring the fact that, really, it's not.) Do you really mean to suggest that beliefs about exernal issues such as the authorship date of the Gospels are (for you) inextricable from the basic tenets of Christain faith?

their truthfullness i find to be inextricable from the point of christianity, yes. however, the question itself seems to be coming from a wrong assumption: faith does not depend on these texts. sorry if i was taking it off track.

What this is is a thread that very specifically asked about "historical data" that may or may not substantiate one particular Gospel story.

absolutely, as i've mentioned many times earlier, the new testament texts are incredibly rich on detail and pretty dang strong on historical basis. there are no less than 84 details in the second half of Acts alone that have been independantly verified, ranging from local officials names, to regional slang, to roman military deployments, to correct lines of trade routes, to inscriptions on statues, to harbor depths. these guys were pretty clearly not making this stuff up as they went along. then there is the argument over the dates themselves. personally, i'd argue for some earlier dates than were suggested earlier, for the simple fact that events that happened later in the first century make no appearance in them. the destruction of jerusalem, for example, certainly would have recieved at least an occasional allusion. ditto for the book of acts ending prior to paul's execution. as the second half of acts is the story of his ministry, such an event (had it occured by the time of the writing, and not possibly as part of his defense, as it is addressed to a Roman Official) would have been in there just as the martyrdom of stephen is. however, even taking the later dates a decade or two closer, the historiocity of the gospels is still incredibly closer than the other great texts that come to us from the ancient world.

Time Gap Between Original and First Surviving Copies That We Have
Homer: 500 years.
Demosthenes: 1400 years
Herodotus: 1400 years.
Plato: 1200 years.
Tacitus: 1000 years
Caesar: 1000 years.
Pliny: 700 years.
New Testament: 25-30 years

there is also the issue of the number of surviving manuscript copies; the fewer the number of copies available, the higher the possibility that errors that are existant in a couple of accounts will not be corrected or contradicted by the others. the number of copies we have?

Number of Manuscript Copies That Have Survived
Homer: 643
Demosthenes: 200
Herodotus: 8
Plato: 7
Tacitus: 20
Caesar: 10
Pliny: 7
New Testament: 5,686

neo of the mind

06-20-2006, 09:57 PM

cpwill:

Excellent post. I have seen these facts brought forth before and it should be considered and remembered by those on both sides of the debate.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 09:58 PM

their truthfullness i find to be inextricable from the point of christianity, yes. however, the question itself seems to be coming from a wrong assumption: faith does not depend on these texts. sorry if i was taking it off track.

Glad to hear it cpwill!

as the second half of acts is the story of his ministry, such an event (had it occured by the time of the writing, and not possibly as part of his defense, as it is addressed to a Roman Official) would have been in there just as the martyrdom of stephen is. however, even taking the later dates a decade or two closer, the historiocity of the gospels is still incredibly closer than the other great texts that come to us from the ancient world.

Time Gap Between Original and First Surviving Copies That We Have
Homer: 500 years.
Demosthenes: 1400 years
Herodotus: 1400 years.
Plato: 1200 years.
Tacitus: 1000 years
Caesar: 1000 years.
Pliny: 700 years.
New Testament: 25-30 years

These are very good points and exactly what some of reasoning is behind holding the NT in such a high regard as truth instead of all other ancient texts.

there is also the issue of the number of surviving manuscript copies; the fewer the number of copies available, the higher the possibility that errors that are existant in a couple of accounts will not be corrected or contradicted by the others. the number of copies we have?

Number of Manuscript Copies That Have Survived
Homer: 643
Demosthenes: 200
Herodotus: 8
Plato: 7
Tacitus: 20
Caesar: 10
Pliny: 7
New Testament: 5,686

Indeed, another one of the many reasons to hold the NT in high regard and we can be SURE that it is reliable. Also I would like to add a cool note here, that the number 5,686 is Extant Greek Manuscripts.

Let us also not forget about the manuscripts of other languages. With this inclusion we now reach 24,970 total for all MSS.

cpwill

06-20-2006, 10:02 PM

not to mention the widespread quoting of the NT by the church fathers; to the point where we can actually reconstruct the entire NT from their letters missing only 11 verses.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 10:06 PM

not to mention the widespread quoting of the NT by the church fathers; to the point where we can actually reconstruct the entire NT from their letters missing only 11 verses.

Indeed, from the early Patristic quotations from the New Testament there are 36,289.

Dangerrmouse

06-20-2006, 10:08 PM

All the copies in the world may suggest he was a living person, but not of his magical attributes.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 10:15 PM

All the copies in the world may suggest he was a living person, but not of his magical attributes.

Why? Why can you believe that the copies are true in saying that He was living and a real person, but not that He did miracles?

neo of the mind

06-20-2006, 10:19 PM

Why? Why can you believe that the copies are true in saying that He was living and a real person, but not that He did miracles?

Your jumping ahead their sub, just the fact that some people will consider that he was a real person is a start...don't get a fuse blown.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 10:20 PM

Your jumping ahead their sub, just the fact that some people will consider that he was a real person is a start...don't get a fuse blown.

I am not at all neo. Not one bit. I am trying to help Him see that they should be lumped together is all. They being, since it is true in stating that He did exist it should be taken as truth of the things He did when He existed.

Just fowarding the positive momentum we have here.

Dangerrmouse

06-20-2006, 10:23 PM

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 10:29 PM

He undoubtedly had the miraculous bits posthumously grafted onto his CV.

And your proof of this, is?

neo of the mind

06-20-2006, 10:44 PM

Did I say I believed that he once lived? He may have, he may not. The evidence tends toward the possibility that he did. He may even have been a passable street magician. He undoubtedly had the miraculous bits posthumously grafted onto his CV.

I stand corrected.

As far as being a street magician....He would have had to be more than that in order to convince millions of people that he was God.

sub - I wasn't talking about your fuse by the way. :o

JoeR

06-20-2006, 10:44 PM

He'd only have to convince a few.

sub_zer0

06-20-2006, 10:55 PM

I stand corrected.

As far as being a street magician....He would have had to be more than that in order to convince millions of people that he was God.

sub - I wasn't talking about your fuse by the way. :o

It's all god neo, no worries.

lawman

06-21-2006, 12:57 AM

absolutely, as i've mentioned many times earlier, the new testament texts are incredibly rich on detail and pretty dang strong on historical basis. there are no less than 84 details in the second half of Acts alone that have been independantly verified, ranging from local officials names, to regional slang, to roman military deployments, to correct lines of trade routes, to inscriptions on statues, to harbor depths. these guys were pretty clearly not making this stuff up as they went along...
I never said they were. I haven't asserted that the New Testament is a work of utter fabrication; that would be a very aggressive and hard-to-defend stance. I'm sure that it reflects the beliefs, attitudes, and oral traditions of many early Christian faith communities. It's also plausible that books chronicling events closer to the time of writing (e.g., Acts as opposed to the Gospels) suffered less distortion of details overall.

That said, none of this proves any particular claim about the NT's reliability as a whole. Many other texts are rich on accurate and evocative detail as well, from other ancient holy books to modern historical novels. That hardly means they don't contain elements of invention.

personally, i'd argue for some earlier dates than were suggested earlier, for the simple fact that events that happened later in the first century make no appearance in them. the destruction of jerusalem, for example, certainly would have recieved at least an occasional allusion...
And it did, as we discussed upthread. (No, there was no editorial aside explicitly saying "oh, BTW, the Temple got destroyed 40 years later," but the allusions are there nevertheless. "Let him that readeth understand," y'know?)

there is also the issue of the number of surviving manuscript copies...
It would be nice if you'd provide some kind of citation when you post lists of facts like this... but in this case, it's really kind of moot anyway. As one very informative (and agenda-neutral) site on the scholarly practice of textual criticism (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/intro.html#FinalNotes) observes, "One of the great rules of textual criticism is that 'manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted.' " It's no surprise (and of little consequence) that the Bible got copied over and over again by diligent believers; but it's worth remembering that there are no surviving original texts, and all of the earliest manuscripts are fragmentary at best. We're into the 4th century before we get the first surviving copy of the entire NT, the Codex Sinaiticus.

Why? Why can you believe that the copies are true in saying that He was living and a real person, but not that He did miracles?
I don't understand how you can even ask this question. How is the distinction not clear to you? There's nothing extraordinary about claiming that a person lived, and we understand the sorts of straightforward evidence than can be weighed both for and against the claim. "Miracles" are another matter entirely: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as David Hume so cogently observed. (In a nutshell: we've all known real living people; none of us has ever witnessed a miracle.)

I am trying to help Him see that they should be lumped together is all. They being, since it is true in stating that He did exist it should be taken as truth of the things He did when He existed.
And we're all trying to help you see that they shouldn't be "lumped together."

Look: George Washington existed. I can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Does it therefore stand to reason that he chopped down a cherry tree as a boy, then confessed to it because he "could not tell a lie"?

(Or perhaps more pertinent to your worldview: any number of gnostic and/or "heretical" gospels also describe Jesus existing, in the course of ascribing words and actions to him. Should you, or we, uncritically take them as true as well? If not, why not? Upon what do you base the distinction?)