The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Homeless Nutter]

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.

Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

It's not very likely, but it IS possible...based on what we know of Yoko.

Fine. So what? 

As long as you don't expect tax exemptions, or influence over legislation because of it - you can make up whatever sh*t you like. Same with scientific theories - nobody is forcing you to pray to the String, or Drake equation, or taking away your liberties because of those theoretical concepts - are they? 

On the other hand - I'm supposed to adjust my life-style, because dumb people believe their imaginary friend wants me to.

[Angrboda]

You're attempting to demonstrate the reliability of the text, not the capacity of your imagination.  Try to remain on point and not deviate into ad hoc excuses when you fail to deliver on your point.  As to whether there is a double standard, the mythicist is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of an alternate explanation, whereas the apologist is attempting to demonstrate the probability of a certain explanation.  There is no double standard as the epistemic standard required of each position is different based on the conclusions they are trying to reach.  Your attempt to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament is not enhanced by postulating "missing stories" and ad hoc explanations for why a particular segment of the text suggests that it is unreliable due to a logical difficulty.  All you do is undermine your entire case by doing so.  How many other "missing details" are we to grant before its reliability is discredited?

Nice try, jorm.

You want to be free to speculate about alternative explanations for the resurrection or anything else to which you take exception. 

But you refuse to allow me the freedom to theorize about how the questions posed by Jenny A and Wyrd might be answered. In case you've forgotten, they were pretty simple really:

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

And my answer was: Someone asked.

Whoa. That's "unpersuasive speculation" if I ever saw it.   

This does nothing to answer the point I made.  Your answering for the text does not demonstrate the reliability of the text.

But nice try avoiding the point to once more shout "Hypocrisy!  Hypocrisy!"

[Minimalist]

I was thinking about the First Century Roman emperors, such as Claudius.  I believe he has a historical record with the Christians as well as a Biblical one.  And I was also thinking about the catacombs but their involvement with Christian burials may start around the Third Century.  

Anyway, your Greek link is written in modern Greek so it's a fraud. That also blows Nestor's link out of the water for the same reason.

There is only one reference in Claudius (Suetonius) and that is to "Chrestus" not "Christos."  It also says that Chrestos was in Rome during the reign of Claudius which is completely at odds with the later "jesus" bullshit story as it developed.  You are correct about the catacombs.  We have no first century xtian burials in Rome.  That shows up later in the 2d century.  I actually got to visit one when I was in Rome.  Covered with swastikas which made the Jewish members of our group somewhat uncomfortable.  The guide assured them that these were Persian good luck charms of the day and not German graffiti from WWII.

We have multiple references to Chrestus and Chrestianos (followers of Chrestus).  Sadly we cannot be sure that helpful xtian scribes were not simply correcting what they assumed to be spelling errors.  The Suetonius mentioned above says Chrestus but that manuscript is one which came down to us from a non xtian chain of custody so the need to
correct the spelling may have not been as obvious.  Remember, even the manuscript of Tacitus' Annales clearly shows under ultraviolet light that the word was originally "Chresitanos" not "Christianos."  And for the idiots who say "it's only one letter difference:"  That is true of Farm and Fart, too.  Makes a great difference in meaning.

The link does say "original Greek" where available.  I don't think they are trying to con anyone.

---

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.


Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

Actually slightly more reasonable than your jesus bullshit.  Especially the Yoko part.

[downbeatplumb]

Matthew 15:21-28
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Less time online and more time reading good books is my advice.

Indeed and a very good point, if his alleged ministry was for anyone it was specifically the jews and no-one else.
However this is not how the message is or has been presented is it?
It has erroneously been made to apply to non-jewish people.

You assume I am ignorant of the bible, I find this amusing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Someone asked" is indicative of hearsay, and not eyewitness testimony. /Capt Obvious

[Randy Carson]

by the way what do you make of the jesus the child killer as described in the infancy gospel.

What I make of it is that this is a good example of why Jesus established an infallible Church before the inerrant book was written.

The Catholic Church discerned which books were and were not inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

[IATIA]

What I make of it is that this is a good example of why Jesus established an infallible Church before the inerrant book was written.

(my bold for clarity)



Have you actually read the bible? We have, and it is full of errors and contradictions.

[rexbeccarox]

by the way what do you make of the jesus the child killer as described in the infancy gospel.

What I make of it is that this is a good example of why Jesus established an infallible Church before the inerrant book was written.

The Catholic Church discerned which books were and were not inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

(bold mine)

Infallible church?  Huh.  Pedophile priests; AIDS in Africa; the fact that no pope, at least in modern times, agrees with the next; the Inquisition; just to name a few.

Inerrant book?  Global flood; immaculate conception; zombies; rape and murder by your inerrant god; a tree of knowledge?  You have to be effing kidding me on this.  

[Randy Carson]

What I make of it is that this is a good example of why Jesus established an infallible Church before the inerrant book was written.

The Catholic Church discerned which books were and were not inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

(bold mine)

Infallible church?  Huh.  Pedophile priests; AIDS in Africa; the fact that no pope, at least in modern times, agrees with the next; the Inquisition; just to name a few.

First, go and learn the difference between infallibility and impeccability. Then you can try again.

Inerrant book?  Global flood; immaculate conception; zombies; rape and murder by your inerrant god; a tree of knowledge?  You have to be effing kidding me on this.  

I could post a passage from the Catechism explaining this clearly, but you won't let me. Cause you don't want me to prove you're wrong (like last time).

So, research the matter for yourself because you have no "effing" clue what you're talking about (like last time). 

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I was thinking about the First Century Roman emperors, such as Claudius.  I believe he has a historical record with the Christians as well as a Biblical one.  And I was also thinking about the catacombs but their involvement with Christian burials may start around the Third Century.  

Anyway, your Greek link is written in modern Greek so it's a fraud. That also blows Nestor's link out of the water for the same reason.

There is only one reference in Claudius (Suetonius) and that is to "Chrestus" not "Christos."  It also says that Chrestos was in Rome during the reign of Claudius which is completely at odds with the later "jesus" bullshit story as it developed.  You are correct about the catacombs.  We have no first century xtian burials in Rome.  That shows up later in the 2d century.  I actually got to visit one when I was in Rome.  Covered with swastikas which made the Jewish members of our group somewhat uncomfortable.  The guide assured them that these were Persian good luck charms of the day and not German graffiti from WWII.

We have multiple references to Chrestus and Chrestianos (followers of Chrestus).  Sadly we cannot be sure that helpful xtian scribes were not simply correcting what they assumed to be spelling errors.  The Suetonius mentioned above says Chrestus but that manuscript is one which came down to us from a non xtian chain of custody so the need to
correct the spelling may have not been as obvious.  Remember, even the manuscript of Tacitus' Annales clearly shows under ultraviolet light that the word was originally "Chresitanos" not "Christianos."  And for the idiots who say "it's only one letter difference:"  That is true of Farm and Fart, too.  Makes a great difference in meaning.

The link does say "original Greek" where available.  I don't think they are trying to con anyone.

---

---

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.


Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

Actually slightly more reasonable than your jesus bullshit.  Especially the Yoko part.

---

Good points.  The problem with Greek is that there's a lot of differences in it that indicates where and when it was written.  Your source is written in modern Greek, which means that it was written after 1455.  Technically the claim that it was written in original Greek is true since modern Greek is still Greek but it was not written thousands of years ago.  It's a fraud.

You can evaluate it yourself.  http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Greek