Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[DeistPaladin]

Well then you are only further confusing the issue, which is that because people disagree or other "gospels" came later, what does that tell us about whether the actual ms listed contradict each other? The answer to that is nothing, and the logical fallacy problem remains

I said I didn't know when all the non canonical gospels, etc were written, that I'm not a scholar in such areas. As for your question on the subject of contradictions between the manuscripts, are you referring to contradictions between the books (Synoptic vs. Johnnine Gospels) or are you referring to contradictions between one version of Matthew vs. another?

If the former, the contradictions are legion, as I mentioned earlier with my example of the Synoptic Jesus vs. John's Jesus. From the bloodline to the resurrection account, the story of Jesus is irreconcilable. If the latter, I've already given some significant examples, such as Mark 16.

It doesn't matter what scholars on either side think. That is an argument by authority fallacy.

Argument from authority is not the same thing as citing sources and their research. Argument from authority is where a scholar offers their opinion and we should just accept it on the basis of their mere say-so. Citing a source and that scholar's research, which is what I did, is a different matter. Get the definitions of fallacies straight before you bandy them around in the future.

Does Ehrman ever point out that you can reconstruct 90 % the NT from the writings of second century Christians?

Source please? I'd not heard this before. Or is this a bare assertion?

Presumed facts don't impress me- maybe some of the readers looking for the contradictions the non-Christian Durant called "minutae" for a reason. But as Jesus said, we all find what we are looking for.

Considering that Biblical scholars doubt the authenticity of half of Paul's alleged epistles, I think there's reason to express doubts. Do you dispute that interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy are serious problems with ancient religious scriptures?

I would love to hear your theory on why Marcion promoted the works of Paul and used Paul as his primary prophet. Had Marcion not read the epistles of Paul to know that Jesus was born of a woman, of the seed of David? Or was Marcion hoping no one else would read the works of Paul?

I find it very strange and wonder if the problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation which abounded at that time might serve to explain the mystery. Or would you prefer to believe one of the two options I outlined in the previous paragraph?

My turn to roll on the floor laughing perhaps. Are you suggesting that this second presumed fact (they had nothing written) means they did not hear the Gospel?

What?

There was no "THE" Gospel. Frankly, there isn't a THE Gospel even today. Even with the modern NT, the story is an irreconcilable mess. Back then, there were many more versions of the story and many wild variations of "Christianity".

BTW doesn't your statement contradict the "Q" Gospel theory, you know the one Gospel writers copied? When was that written?

The "Q" Gospel is a hypothetical document, a supposed "source" for the later authors. Show me proof it really existed.

Yes, but not hundreds, and this fact is duely noted in all serious study Bibles. You did know that "false in one part therefore false in all" is a logical fallacy, no?

You asked for an example and I gave you two. And I'm not a Bible scholar. And while it doesn't suggest every word if false, it does effectively sink claims of "perfectly preserved". One error is all that is needed to disprove "perfect".

No the majority says he wrote to verse 16:8, but you no doubt have a preferred list of "Christian" scholars.

Wait, are you saying that Mark should end at 16:8 and the later verses are non-canonical? You do realize that this ending omits the sighting of the resurrected Jesus? That it ends with an empty tomb, some guy in white and fleeing, frightened women? And this is the earliest story of the resurrection? It's easy to see why Mark was later changed with a more satisfying ending.

"I and the father are one," and "he who has seen me has seen the Father," makes it entirely unclear I'm afraid. I'm surprised he said that much, give how it enraged religious quite people willing to knock him off early.

Are you so dense that you don't know what "Synoptic Gospels" means? Matt, Mark and Luke. NOT John. Find me where in the SYNOPTIC Gospels that Jesus claims to be God.

I'm going to fast forward through your exegesis of Matthew. "There are no contradictions. You see when Jesus said... he really meant... and so..." (mental gymnastics).

Echoes, assumptions, vague "guilt by association" arguments are no help here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "guilt by association". 1John 4:1-3 and 2 John verse 7 make it clear the Docetics were a serious problem for the early "church" that they should be condemned in not one but two canonical epistles. And instead of appealing to recent history, within the lifetimes of some who would read it, John appeals to faith.

And I'm going to fast forward through your reactions to what Muslims and Trinitarian Christians agree on that the early Christians did not. My point flew right over your head and your reactions show you had no comprehension of what I was trying to tell you.

I don't have the patience to speak any slower to you. Go back and re-read my post on this point and see if you understand it any better.

These are mostly rhetorical questions. You still haven't answered my question: What are the contradictions in the documents listed?

Actually, they're significant questions of theological disagreement among the early Christians. And I provided two non-disputed points at which canonical scripture was changed.