And now for my first response:
BUZZZZZZZZ! Wrong!
See Mark chapter 16. This is the chapter that details the resurrection account. Now, this is no minor issue. The resurrection is perhaps the most important part of Christian theology. Now, I know I was going to gloss over the magic but I only bring it up because it contradicts your assertion that there have been no significant changes.
Originally Mark ends at 16:8. A later version expanded on the resurrection account to make a more satisfying ending.
Really?
Was the stone already rolled away from the tomb or did an angel do it when the ladies arrived?
How many angels were there?
Were they inside the tomb or outside?
Now on to the subject of the so-called eye-witnesses themselves:
Mark:
His authorship is ascribed by "an ancient tradition" (New Oxford Annotated Bible, NT, p57). He was a companion of Paul, who in turn saw Jesus in a vision. So where did Mark get his information. According to the NOAB, it was "a summary of Peter's preaching". But Peter wasn't a witness to all events that Mark relates. Mark places Peter with the servants during Jesus' trial by the priests (Mark 14:54). Neither could Peter have been a witness to the trial by Pilate. So are we dealing with hearsay on top of hearsay. And when was Mark written. Most scholars date it at earliest 70 CE because of the "little apocalypse" in chapter 13. As mentioned earlier, we know of at least one significant alteration to the account in Mark chapter 16.
So, to review, he's our "star witness". His Gospel was the earliest and the others clearly got their story from him. His account is anonymous hearsay on hearsay, written 4 decades + after the alleged events and we know of at least one significant alteration to the modern account.
Next witness, your honor.
Next we have Matthew, who repeatedly perjured himself in his attempts to fabricate "prophecy". Examples:
1:22-23 "A virgin shall conceive. In reality, if you read Isaiah chapter 7, this is not a prophecy but speaks to events in his time.
Matt 2:15 "Out of Egypt". This is a reference to Hosea 11:1 and is not a prophecy but refers to the Exodus.
Matt 2:17-18 "Rachael weeping". Read Jeremiah 31:15-16 in context. This is not a prophecy but about the Babylonian captivity.
Three lies and we're only into chapter 2.
Next witness!
John's Gospel is not only significantly advanced in its theology (re: The Trinity) but also refers to "The Jews" (not the Pharisees, not the priests, not the scribes) as a separate and hostile group to Jesus' followers. But wait, weren't Jesus and his followers Jews? Clearly, this was written in later times when Christianity had emerged as a completely separate sect from Judaism.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Reliable eye-witnesses" should be made of sterner stuff.
(October 29, 2012 at 1:34 pm)chi pan Wrote: With all these copies, there have been no significant changes to content.
BUZZZZZZZZ! Wrong!
See Mark chapter 16. This is the chapter that details the resurrection account. Now, this is no minor issue. The resurrection is perhaps the most important part of Christian theology. Now, I know I was going to gloss over the magic but I only bring it up because it contradicts your assertion that there have been no significant changes.
Originally Mark ends at 16:8. A later version expanded on the resurrection account to make a more satisfying ending.
Quote:As for external confirmation, the geography and description of first century Palestine fits with all other known ancient documents. Archeology also confirms their historical accuracy.And we've found the ruins of Troy. Apparently, it was destroyed in a war. I guess that means that Athena, as depicted in the Iliad and Odyssey, is real.
Quote:Tacitus,2nd century, oblique, tells us nothing but that he was called "the anointed one" and crucified by Pilate.
Quote:Suetonius,...does not mention Jesus at all.
Quote:the Jewish Talmud,...circa 300 CE.
Quote:and Josephus.See my intro above.
Quote:There is also internal evidence to consider. This is looking at the stories themselves and confirming if they are consistent.
Really?
Was the stone already rolled away from the tomb or did an angel do it when the ladies arrived?
How many angels were there?
Were they inside the tomb or outside?
Now on to the subject of the so-called eye-witnesses themselves:
Mark:
His authorship is ascribed by "an ancient tradition" (New Oxford Annotated Bible, NT, p57). He was a companion of Paul, who in turn saw Jesus in a vision. So where did Mark get his information. According to the NOAB, it was "a summary of Peter's preaching". But Peter wasn't a witness to all events that Mark relates. Mark places Peter with the servants during Jesus' trial by the priests (Mark 14:54). Neither could Peter have been a witness to the trial by Pilate. So are we dealing with hearsay on top of hearsay. And when was Mark written. Most scholars date it at earliest 70 CE because of the "little apocalypse" in chapter 13. As mentioned earlier, we know of at least one significant alteration to the account in Mark chapter 16.
So, to review, he's our "star witness". His Gospel was the earliest and the others clearly got their story from him. His account is anonymous hearsay on hearsay, written 4 decades + after the alleged events and we know of at least one significant alteration to the modern account.
Next witness, your honor.
Next we have Matthew, who repeatedly perjured himself in his attempts to fabricate "prophecy". Examples:
1:22-23 "A virgin shall conceive. In reality, if you read Isaiah chapter 7, this is not a prophecy but speaks to events in his time.
Matt 2:15 "Out of Egypt". This is a reference to Hosea 11:1 and is not a prophecy but refers to the Exodus.
Matt 2:17-18 "Rachael weeping". Read Jeremiah 31:15-16 in context. This is not a prophecy but about the Babylonian captivity.
Three lies and we're only into chapter 2.
Next witness!
John's Gospel is not only significantly advanced in its theology (re: The Trinity) but also refers to "The Jews" (not the Pharisees, not the priests, not the scribes) as a separate and hostile group to Jesus' followers. But wait, weren't Jesus and his followers Jews? Clearly, this was written in later times when Christianity had emerged as a completely separate sect from Judaism.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Reliable eye-witnesses" should be made of sterner stuff.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist