RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 6:29 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 17, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 10:58 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Parker, try to keep up. I dealt with Ehrman's silly Telephone Game in the OP.
No, you didn't. You yourself have acknowledged at least two translations, and we haven't even gotten to the parts about the oral histories that lead to those written versions.
You might think you've "dealt" with them. That only reveals your slipshod standards.
Yeah, you acknowledge that at least two translations occurred, but you refuse to entertain the possibility of error in there.
Parker-
The NT was written Greek. We have over 5600+ copies of the originals which can be compared. While over 400,000 variants exist, none of them adversely affect Christian doctrine. The modern text of the the NT accurately reflects the words that the authors put down on papyrus.
As for the ORAL histories, this is another strength of the Christian argument. Perhaps I will type it out at some point. But here's a preview:
The Jews were a people of the book (the Torah), but they were also an oral culture. This means they had exceptional memories for the spoken word - a skill that is largely lost today with our smartphones, etc. However, it is not unusual even today for Muslim clerics to have the entire Qur'an memorized, and those who have done so are honored with the title of "Hafiz" or "Hafiza". It was not unusual for Jewish Rabbis to memorize large portions of the OT, either.
In that context, the community that formed the early Christian Church was capable of remembering accurately the life and sayings of someone they believed to be God. And since living eyewitnesses were still available for consultation, it wasn't so difficult for the authors to check their facts before publication.
(May 17, 2015 at 4:37 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And the evidence that there were any "apostles" is what? They are like Robin Hood's Merry Men. Chrome on the bumper of your bullshit story.
P.S. The only person who thinks that any fucking apostles - illiterate Galilean fisherman who suddenly became "literate" in Koine Greek! - wrote anything is you. And I have alredy dismissed you as a fucking moron.
It's also worth noting that, when I pressed him on this earlier, Randy's only response was to assert by fiat that there was no doubt at all that the apostles were the gospel authors; I don't know about the rest of you, but that's a far cry from the biblical history scene that I'm familiar with.
For the purposes of proving the reliability of the NT, the names of the authors is not technically important.
All that really matters is whether the authors were in a position to record history accurately.
However, if you feel that the identification of the authors IS important, we can take that side trip.
Please advise.
(May 17, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Seriously, is there a Christian scholar whom I could have trotted out that would have maintained my credibility? Be honest.
Blomberg? Hahn? Evans? Licona? Ratziinger? Von Balthasar?
You tell me which Christians you read and respect, and I'll try to include some of their thoughts in my posts, okay?
When discussing reality, facts are the only authority. You can trot out people who have studied theology 'til the cows come home, but until you bring facts, you cannot demonstrate that they have inspected anything other than a fairy-tale.
Reality doesn't give two shits rubbed together what scholars think. Bring some facts demonstrating your story.
That's the direction this thread is moving in. One firmly supported step at a time.
(May 17, 2015 at 4:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(May 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Horseshit. Can you imagine one Roman aristocrat writing to another...
"Hey, boss. Can you believe this? I ran into a bunch of morons who worship some guy that we crucified as a criminal and they think he came back from the fucking dead to atone for their sins."
I would think the Romans would have been amused by the tale.... if it had existed at the time.
I would think the Romans would be alarmed.
When the crucified someone, they wanted them to stay dead and be symbols of fear (fuck with us and this is what we'll do to you). For a convicted criminal to have been seen alive and be worshiped as a savior would be a huge red flag.
I agree.
The Romans soldiers were professional killers, and there is NO WAY Jesus came down off the cross alive.
Which, happily seals off ANOTHER rabbit trail commonly pursued by skeptics - the Swoon Theory.
Let's give DP a hand for his clear thinking on this important point!
