The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Angrboda]

No, the materials would not be dated very early either way.  That's the point.  If Paul was the source of the common passages referenced by Paul, then you cannot date the composition of Luke-Acts prior to Paul.  The textual evidence in Acts suggests that it was Luke who was influenced by Paul in his later account.  This deprives you of justification for the early dating.  Hearsay from someone who wasn't even there at the time, written years — even decades later — is hardly a testimony to historical reliability of the documents.  You need an early date because Paul is a relatively poor source for historical details about Jesus; without the early date, the historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life is put in doubt.

That aside, 1 Corinthians 15 is almost certainly a proto-creed of the early church which Paul memorized while in Jerusalem.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[Verse replaced with original quotation from the NIV. -Jorm]



Who did he receive this from? When? This is the language of the Pharisees and of rabbinic schools. Paul was a trained scholar under Gamaliel, and he conveys this creed from memory just as he had previously learned and memorized the tenets of Judaism. This dates the core message of the resurrection to a very early point.

It reads like an interpolation to me.  If this is the entirety upon which you're resting an early composition of the gospels, I'm afraid that reed won't hold the weight.  

Acts 10:40-41: "This one God did raise up the third day, and gave him to become manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses, to those having been chosen before by God -- to us who did eat with [him], and did drink with him, after his rising out of the dead;"

That's Luke, the self-same one you claim was a companion of Paul and who recorded an "orderly account."

[downbeatplumb]

I will, but not tonight. 

One more question though: Are supernatural things possible?

No they are not.

Things happen that are hard to explain but nothing ever properly investigated has ever been found to be supernatural. They have all turned out to be natural events or hoaxes.

such as.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/no...esus-tears

When water started trickling down a statue of Jesus Christ at a Catholic church in Mumbai earlier this year, locals were quick to declare a miracle. Some began collecting the holy water and the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni began to promote it as a site of pilgrimage.

So when Sanal Edamaruku arrived and established that this was not holy water so much as holey plumbing, the backlash was severe. The renowned rationalist was accused of blasphemy, charged with offences that carry a three-year prison sentence and eventually, after receiving death threats, had to seek exile in Finland.

[Minimalist]

That closes off another atheist argument: that the apostles were lying intentionally.

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, I see ... copies of copies.  Kind of like how people whisper a message from one to the other and see how far it gets distorted ... what was that game called again, Randy?  Help a brother out, I'm old and my memory is fading.

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I was trying to give him the benefit of the the doubt. Trotting out WLC destroyed even that.

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.

[DeistPaladin]

It would have been a truly remarkable thing if this Roman official had included that much theology in his report.

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.

[Randy Carson]

You have a link for this, I presume? Or should I just take your word for it? Hey, I'm the first to drop a bad source if it brings my argument into question.

Several: Here's one with references to Craig's own books.  Here's Craig himself, asserting that "god exists because I know god exists, so screw your evidence!" is a reasonable justification for belief.

It's not that WLC is a bad source, it's that he's not even a source at all: he's just a bilge pump spewing christian propaganda wrapped in ten dollar words.

In the article to which you linked, Craig wrote:

As to your point about my defense of the witness of the Spirit undermining my apologetic efforts, I have no choice but to hold to the religious epistemology that I think is true, whatever the consequences. Ironically, I have in my published work and debates offered a more robust natural theology and presentation of Christian evidences than most self-described evidentialists. I find it odd that because I also believe that there is a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, that fact is thought to somehow undermine the arguments and evidence I present. I suspect that people are just reacting emotionally to my claims about the witness of the Spirit rather than making the effort to engage my arguments in detail premise by premise.

I understand that we will disagree on this point, but I don't find Craig's statements to be as damning as you do, and the last line is particulary on target.

To illustrate, just as Craig says people are finding his "witness of the Spirit" statement to be an excuse to not deal with his philosophical arguments, so in like manner, you will now use my quotation of WLC as an excuse to avoid actually engaging the arguments I make since merely by association I "have lost all credibility."

Anyone taking that tack was already looking for an excuse to dismiss me without engaging me.

---

You have a link for this, I presume? Or should I just take your word for it? Hey, I'm the first to drop a bad source if it brings my argument into question.

Mark Smith  posed the following scenario to Craig:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, Mark Smithstill nothing happens. There is no resurrection – Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

Smith then asked Craig if he would then deny Christianity, having seen with his own eyes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Smith writes:

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian.

In 2007, Zachary Moore decided to try again. Craig confirmed that that no evidence could overturn his “inner witness of the Holy Spirit.”

I did read that elsewhere. Meh.

---

You have a link for this, I presume? Or should I just take your word for it? Hey, I'm the first to drop a bad source if it brings my argument into question.

So, now that Esquilax and I have both posted a video and quotes from WLC showing himself to be an intellectually dishonest dirtbag, will you still continue to use him as a reference?

Let's see how intellectually honest you are.

I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.

---

That aside, 1 Corinthians 15 is almost certainly a proto-creed of the early church which Paul memorized while in Jerusalem.

[Verse replaced with original quotation from the NIV. -Jorm]

Why did you change the verse?

Who did he receive this from? When? This is the language of the Pharisees and of rabbinic schools. Paul was a trained scholar under Gamaliel, and he conveys this creed from memory just as he had previously learned and memorized the tenets of Judaism. This dates the core message of the resurrection to a very early point.

It reads like an interpolation to me.  If this is the entirety upon which you're resting an early composition of the gospels, I'm afraid that reed won't hold the weight.  

The entirety. Of course not. It is simply one of many pieces of evidence that point to a probable conclusion.

Acts 10:40-41: "This one God did raise up the third day, and gave him to become manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses, to those having been chosen before by God -- to us who did eat with [him], and did drink with him, after his rising out of the dead;"

That's Luke, the self-same one you claim was a companion of Paul and who recorded an "orderly account."

Well, technically, it's Peter quoted by Luke:

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

---

I will, but not tonight. 

One more question though: Are supernatural things possible?

No they are not.

How do you know this?

[Esquilax]

In the article to which you linked, Craig wrote:

As to your point about my defense of the witness of the Spirit undermining my apologetic efforts, I have no choice but to hold to the religious epistemology that I think is true, whatever the consequences. Ironically, I have in my published work and debates offered a more robust natural theology and presentation of Christian evidences than most self-described evidentialists. I find it odd that because I also believe that there is a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, that fact is thought to somehow undermine the arguments and evidence I present. I suspect that people are just reacting emotionally to my claims about the witness of the Spirit rather than making the effort to engage my arguments in detail premise by premise.

I understand that we will disagree on this point, but I don't find Craig's statements to be as damning as you do, and the last line is particulary on target.

So I guess poisoning the well by intimating that people who disagree with you are merely doing so for emotional reasons is just kinda your thing, then.

To illustrate, just as Craig says people are finding his "witness of the Spirit" statement to be an excuse to not deal with his philosophical arguments, so in like manner, you will now use my quotation of WLC as an excuse to avoid actually engaging the arguments I make since merely by association I "have lost all credibility."

But I have engaged with your arguments before, and have done so since; I gave sufficient evidence for why WLC should not be considered a reliable source of information, as he's always going to find some way to twist whatever he's talking about back to his preferred conclusion, or not talk about it at all, and now you're dodging this point by attempting to insinuate things about my character instead. Aside from being a gross tactic in general, and profoundly dishonest to boot, it also ignores the facts.

But let me ask you this: would you take a citation from a person asserting precisely the same things as I've shown WLC asserts, but for a religion you don't already agree with, or a secular position, at all seriously? And if you wouldn't, if you'd treat it as suspect, why would you expect anything different from us?

Anyone taking that tack was already looking for an excuse to dismiss me without engaging me.

Which is a hilariously ironic statement for you to make, considering that your next response is:

I did read that elsewhere. Meh.

"Meh." You accuse us of looking for excuses to dismiss you, and your next response is... a fiat dismissal of damning evidence. So, are you being a hypocrite, intellectually lazy, or don't you have an actual response?

Or much more likely, all three?

I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.

Oh yeah? Present them.

I'd say I like a challenge, but you're presenting me with WLC arguments, so I won't be getting one. But your hilariously misplaced bravado is entertaining and all. I'll even be doing you a favor by allowing you to blatantly shift the burden of proof, here!

Oh hey, will you accept "meh" as a defeater for his arguments?

[Randy Carson]

That closes off another atheist argument: that the apostles were lying intentionally.

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.

John 21:20-24
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

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.

Matthew 9:9
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

As a tax collector, Matthew was hated by the Jews because he worked for the Romans. But he was not illiterate. In fact, Matthew may have been chosen by Jesus specifically because of his ability to write, and consequently, his eyewitness accounts could possibly be contemporaneous.
Luke was a gentile, and a trained physician...a man of education like Paul. And Mark, John Mark, had travelled extensively throughout Greek-speaking lands with Peter, Paul and Barnabas.