The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

Typically catholic. I suppose.  

[Randy Carson]

Typically catholic. I suppose.  

Dunno. 

I'm a convert, so I didn't grow up with that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh good god..you actually subjected yourself to catholicism...voluntarily?  I'm going to try and be nicer to you in the future, you've suffered enough.
(you missed out, then, on the best part of the teachings of Cathol....being surrounded by confused and guilt ridden teenage girls - it's a masterclass in overcoming passive objection)

[Minimalist]

[Randy Carson]

Christians call the first three Gospels "Synoptic", meaning "similar", in a tacit admission that John's Gospel sits oddly alongside of them. 

John is different. Why is this a problem?

See, atheists want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they point to similarities in the accounts of the four gospels and cry, "See! They've colluded with one another. The Catholic Church orchestrated this conspiracy. The witnesses have rehearsed their testimonies." Well, yeah, they did, actually. Hundreds of times. It's called preaching, and it's what the apostles (like all Christians) were called to do. And that rehearsal works in favor of a reliable translation of the gospel message into our hands, not against it.

But on the other hand, skeptics like to point out the "discrepancies" among the various accounts of certain events and the distinctiveness of John when compared to the synoptics as evidence that the eye-witnesses couldn't get their stories straight.

Well, which is it Deist? You can't have it both ways.

Really, where do I begin in the daunting task of detailing just how badly this Gospel is a complete rewrite of the entire story, featuring a completely new character? Is it really even necessary?

Don't waste your time butchering the subject. Anyone who wants to can simply read John for himself.

For now, let's just say that John's Gospel is clearly written at a much later date.

Arguably the only thing you've written correctly in the last dozen paragraphs.

"The Jews", not the pharisees, not the high priests, not the scribes but THE JEWS are a separate and hostile sect.

By 95 AD? Sure. It was after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and after the destruction of the Temple which put an end to Temple sacrifices. The Jews had martyred several leading members of the Church and general persecution had broken out. So, yeah...the groups were separate.

Jesus, instead of being a separate being with a subordinate will to his father, inferior knowledge to his father and spoke of and to his father in 2nd and 3rd person while the booming voice from on high did likewise, John's Jesus was one with his father.

Sure. John had the advantage of an extra 30-40 years of reflection on what the incarnation meant. You got this right, also (though that was not your intent).

Jesus didn't need to be baptized by John the Baptist nor did he require John the Baptist to get out of the way. Jesus opened up a rival baptism franchise and beat John the Baptist as his own game while JtB cheered him on. What a guy! Jesus didn't start his ministry in a backwater town and made his way to Jerusalem but rather kicked it off in the temple of Jerusalem! 

You might review John 1 and John 2 again.

Reliable eye-witness accounts my ass. 

You wrote, "I'm now going to cross-examine the witnesses. Everyone get out your Bibles, Occam's Razors and a full Haz-mat suit because this is going to be bloody."



That's it? You're done?

Moving on...

[Randy Carson]

Would it be fair to say, Randy, that if you hold a pre-existing belief that the bible is the innerant word of God, that you're not in a position to view it objectively? I mean, you can literally never allow yourself to come to a conclusion that finds any sort of fault with it at all, let alone something as important as Jesus.

Why not? I could change my mind at any time.

If sufficient proof that the Bible is a work of fiction is presented, then I can walk away at any time. It will be unsettling, to be sure, but if I'm believing in NOTHING, then I'm not going to lose anything.

The converse of this is the real problem. You believe in nothing, but if YOU are wrong then you lose it all.

Pascal's Wager is not a proof for the existence of God. But it is food for thought for folks like you who are more on the fence.

[Minimalist]

John is different. Why is this a problem?

Because it tells a different holy bullshit story yet morons still insist that all of them are "true."

[Randy Carson]

Remember those zombies that popped out of their graves and went to visit their buddies when Jesus died?  Is that a true story or pure BS?  If it's pure BS then why isn't the story of the resurrection pure BS?  Paul said that if the real dead don't rise then his story is pure BS.  Based on your knowledge of human history do dead people return to life?  Have you received visits from any of your dead relatives?

No, I haven't been visited by any dead relatives. Yet.

However, I don't really think there is any reason for me to expect them any time soon. The passage you are referring to is this:

Matthew 27
51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

If you'll notice, this event occurred at the moment of Jesus' death...something that has not been repeated. And while the author reports that "many" were raised, he does not say "all".

[Minimalist]

How come no one noticed "any?"

[Cyberman]

Randy, would you find Pascal's Wager convincing "food for thought" if a Muslim tried it on you? How about a scientologist?