RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 14, 2015 at 2:56 pm
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2015 at 3:01 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 14, 2015 at 2:51 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: You still have a story replete with demon infested pigs, virgin birth, slaughter of innocents (with zero historical support), zombie resurrection (not just Jeez, but also a whole graveyard full!), and miscellaneous magic tricks such as turning water to wine, walking on water and feeding the masses with a fish.
If a thousand people believe a wrong thing, it is still wrong.
From the outsider perspective, Christianity is no less outlandish than the tales of the Greek gods, Mohamed having a confab with Gabriel and flying about on his winged horse-thingy or Joseph Smith discussing golden plates with Moroni. At least Zeus got some hot chick tail now and then, and Mohamed could diddle 20 women in a night. Busy busy! Even the lead singer in Steel Panther could only manage 17 girls in a row. The stuff of, uh, legends!
Why is Christianity any less outlandish? A cuz it is real? Not dumb like those other stupid stuffs?
Or if a billion people believe a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Conversely, if only one person believes a right thing, it is still right.
I am one in this forum. Let's see how the discussion goes.
(May 14, 2015 at 2:52 pm)Jenny A Wrote: That once the texts were considered sacred they were copied with care, I've not much doubt. But we know little of how they were treated before that, so I can't follow you as far as the original author's intent being followed. It's clear the authors of the gospels used other source material that they did not necessarily treat so carefully. It follows that what they did unto the texts of others might well have been done unto them by others. And there are certainly cases were where theological ideas were purposely inserted, rather than merely being mistakes in copying. Paul's prohibition of women participating in the service for example:
"As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:33-35
And then there are the faked letters of Paul. Why would anyone think a text written by someone fraudulently pretending to be someone else was sacred?
Jenny-
You have some good points and questions. I will try to answer them at the appropriate time.
The purpose of these first posts is to establish one fact: we are working with an accurate text.
That eliminates the freshman-level arguments about the "telephone game" and "corrupted texts".
Just out of curiosity, which letters do you believe are "faked letters of Paul"?
