The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Cyberman]

[Randy Carson]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

[Angrboda]

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

Why did you change the verse?

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:

And you didn't reply to its supposed conflict with the allegedly regularized creed from Paul.

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.

This is sheer speculation. What can be asserted without evidence.... And the evidence of heterogenous sects in early Christianity undermines the claim of such a reliable oral tradition.

[Randy Carson]

[quote='Randy Carson' pid='944400' dateline='1431897756']

In post #131, I simply mentioned that Craig had written an extensive article in response to Hume in the event that robvalue wanted to hear an alternative perspective on the supernatural and on Hume specifically.

I have not used Craig to establish the reliability of the NT.

Therefore, what you think of WLC is irrelevant to this thread.

'Nuff said.

---

Wrong again.

The Bible is truth because it is inspired, and we can know that it is inspired because and infallible Catholic Church says so, and we know that the Catholic Church is infallible NOT because an inspired text so but because a historically reliable text says so.

That's very different.

[The Grand Nudger]

Morbid curiosity...but ah, what's the "historically reliable text" that says the catholic church is infallible.....  

[abaris]

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!

Yes. And do you happen to know what the Romans did to insurgents, their followers and their families?

What gives you the impression the apostles would have breathed even one second longer than Jesus if the tale were true? What gives you the impression, other than woo, that Jesus's body, if the story were true, even made it into a grave instead of following the Roman custom of being let to rot on that cross to be disposed of in a ditch at a later time. Again, other than woo.

So let's give you one or some that managed to get away from Roman justice. Let's take Peter, since the bible conveniently mentions that he denied Jesus. A fisherman, again according to the bible. Do you know what that meant at that time in that region? But let's say, for arguments sake, he got away. But he's certainly not a person of the book, he's certainly not a person of the word either, if you take reality instead of woo.

And yes, people remember. The tell tales around the campfires and they tend to embellish their tales. Every person adds a little bit and then someone comes along and decides to record what he heard. What is his source? How many times has the tale been told before and how many persons have retold the story until it reached the ears of the one scribbling it down?

So we have a greek manuscript of campfire tales. And that's about all we have.

[Randy Carson]

Morbid curiosity...but ah, what's the "historically reliable text" that says the catholic church is infallible.....  

You know this is going to derail my thread, right? 

But okay, I'm going to post two answers...the first is one I wrote years ago as a skeletal response to some Mormons I was chatting with in another forum. I modified it slightly later to encompass the Protestant notion that at some point in history, the Catholic Church "went off the rails" thus opening the door to Protestantism. You won't miss the fact that the arguments are geared toward the implications of doctrines that Protestants would readily agree with but misinterpret.

 I would probably update it for regular use in discussions with atheist (since the Bible is of NO value), but this is a quick reply to your inquiry.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

 
The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?


In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Now, this second article fleshes out the logic a bit more wordily.

Infallibility Explained by Reasoning from the Scriptures

Excerpted from an article by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm
 
It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.
 
Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.
 
Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.
 
Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.
 
For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was exercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).
 
Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.
 
Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error -- else the powers of hell would prevail.
 
Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.
 
When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

Hope that helps.

[abaris]

Hope that helps.

Yeah, Peter was a fisherman, according to the bible. Most probably illiterate and quite certainly piss poor.

So, again, outside the supernatural, this is - to put it friendly - quite a bit of a stretch.

[Randy Carson]

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!

Yes. And do you happen to know what the Romans did to insurgents, their followers and their families?

What gives you the impression the apostles would have breathed even one second longer than Jesus if the tale were true? What gives you the impression, other than woo, that Jesus's body, if the story were true, even made it into a grave instead of following the Roman custom of being let to rot on that cross to be disposed of in a ditch at a later time. Again, other than woo.

So let's give you one or some that managed to get away from Roman justice. Let's take Peter, since the bible conveniently mentions that he denied Jesus. A fisherman, again according to the bible. Do you know what that meant at that time in that region? But let's say, for arguments sake, he got away. But he's certainly not a person of the book, he's certainly not a person of the word either, if you take reality instead of woo.

And yes, people remember. The tell tales around the campfires and they tend to embellish their tales. Every person adds a little bit and then someone comes along and decides to record what he heard. What is his source? How many times has the tale been told before and how many persons have retold the story until it reached the ears of the one scribbling it down?

So we have a greek manuscript of campfire tales. And that's about all we have.

Ah, but in this case, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the ruling body, asked for Jesus' body. Not wanting to create further conflict with the Jews, Pilate agreed to hand over the body.

Matthew 27
57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. 58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus’ body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. 59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.

[Cyberman]

Wrong again.

The Bible is truth because it is inspired, and we can know that it is inspired because and infallible Catholic Church says so, and we know that the Catholic Church is infallible NOT because an inspired text so but because a historically reliable text says so.

That's very different.

Fine, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not go down the infallibility route, but since you brought it up:



As for historically reliable, you haven't even come close to establishing that. All you've done is throw up assertions.