The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

Every language changes over time.  The highly poetic, if totally fucking worthless, English prose of the King James Version is no longer in use.  But one can see the evolution of English from before and after it.

[rexbeccarox]

(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). 

Considering there is no way you can prove me "wrong", being that I don't believe your bible, your catechisms, or the vile way you are ok with the disgusting idea of a deity you worship, it seems funny you would think I should be worried

[Minimalist]

I could post a passage from the Catechism explaining this clearly, but you won't let me.

Too funny.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Every language changes over time.  The highly poetic, if totally fucking worthless, English prose of the King James Version is no longer in use.  But one can see the evolution of English from before and after it.

The point is that the writing symbols changed in the 15th Century.  The document is written with the new 15th Century characters and not with any of the older ones.  Therefore the document was written after the new characters came into use.  So it's a fake.

[Minimalist]

It's a xtian web site so anything is possible.  I usually use Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings where they just provide translations.

I still think any discrepancy is fairly innocent.


Much like the Book XX interpolation in Josephus where some scribe saw the word "christos" and shit his pants thinking "THERE'S JESUS!!!!"  Unlike the Book XVIII interpolation which is a deliberate forgery and an intention to deceive for the "glory of fucking god."

[Mudhammam]

Well done, Nestor. You are one of the few shining lights in this forum.

I disagree with your bit on the motivations, but that's to be expected, no? 

My only question would be this: Why would all four of the gospels and the book of Acts omit the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the deaths of Peter and Paul (ca. AD 64-65)? Acts ends sort of awkwardly with Paul languishing in prison...

Regarding your 1st Q: Don't they?
Look at Mark 13, which I think may have been written prior to 70 AD though I cannot be sure:

As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

2“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b]does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world,until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert[e]! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Obviously, if that's a prediction of the Temple's destruction by the Romans, there's a lot there that didn't come to pass. So the author, possibly writing in the years leading up to the siege of Jerusalem, either a) saw the impending signs, wrote this in the context of the book of Daniel, and got much of it wrong or b) wrote this, either before or afterward, and described his perspective of the events in an apocalyptic manner rather than a literal account.

Luke, most definitely written after 70 AD, basically borrows Mark's account (though the "skilled historian" fails to mention his source, as usual), but adds more specific details relevant to the Christian in the late first century (“It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony. So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute") and removes the references to Daniel to make it sound more about recent events. Matthew returns to the original theme of Daniel used by Mark and adds an additional chapter including three parables that turns it into a prophecy about the day of Judgement at the end of the world. Needless to say, that didn't happen. At Jesus' crucifixion, Matthew also has the Jews proclaim, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" which is almost certainly an allusion to the utter destruction of the Jews in Judea during the Roman-Jewish war of 66-73, and all of the Gospels have Jesus say something along the lines of "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." Make of that what you will.

Compare all of this to Josephus' account of Jerusalem's fall:

But these Zealots came at last to that degree of barbarity as not to bestow a burial either on those slain in the city, or on those that lay along the roads; but as if they had made  an agreement to cancel both the laws of their country and the laws of nature, an, at the same time that they defiled men with their wicked action, they would pollute the Divinity itself also, they left the dead bodies to putrify under the sun. 

    ...These men, therefore, trampled upon all the laws of man, and laughed at the Laws of God; and for the oracles of the prophets, they ridiculed them as the tricks of jugglers. Yet did these prophets foretell many things concerning virtue and vice, by the transgression of which these Zealots occasioned the fulfilling of those very prophecies belonging to their country. 
    For there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that the city should then be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews and their own hands should pollute the Temple of God. Now, while these Zealots did not disbelieve these predictions, they made themselves the instruments of their accomplishment....

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

Star and Comet

 

    Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.  

Light Around the Altar

  
    Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan, April, about a week before Passover] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

Cow Gives Birth to Lamb

  
    At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

The Eastern Gate

  
    Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner  temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. 
    This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them.

Miraculous Phenomenon of Chariots in the Air

     Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Iyar, May or June] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

Sound of a Great Multitude

    Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

Jesus son of Ananias: A Voice from the East

     But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,
    "A voice from the east, 
    a voice from the west, 
    a voice from the four winds, 
    a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House, 
    a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, 
    and a voice against this whole people!"
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. 
    However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. 
    Hereupon the magistrates, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was,
    "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. 
    Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,
    "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. 
     This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,
    "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the Holy House!"
And just as he added at the last,
    "Woe, woe to myself also!"
there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Regarding your 2nd Q: There's a hell of a lot stuff the NT writers omit that doesn't make sense to me; the deaths of the apostles doesn't seem significant in comparison with their omissions of such details as, What was Jesus' life like prior to his ministry? Where or under whom was he educated, if at all? What happened to his parents, his brothers, and sisters? Where was Jesus' tomb? Where was his family's tomb? What did those outside of his inner circle say when they saw his resurrected body? One could go on and on, but I don't think it's particularly useful. I don't think the author of Acts mentions the deaths of Peter or Paul because either a) he didn't have the info, b) he didn't finish his story, or c) he wanted to immortalize their lives, not their deaths.

---

The author's mindset, sure...but I think we ought to establish that there was a Paul before we go claiming that we have insight into his mind, don't you?  We've both agreed that we are removing the ignorant and un-serious from "Paul", yes?

How would we establish that there was a Paul if not for the writings that the person claiming to be Paul and offering various details about his life provide? Clement, btw, tells us Paul wrote epistles. But moreover, the internal consistency in his choice of words and the style of his letters, along with the descriptions he gives of his past and present circumstances and that of the early church make it very clear that this is a knowledgeable Jewish convert to Christianity who is traveling throughout the empire to spread the new faith. What criteria or standard are using to cast doubt on this information?

Do you get the feeling, from the narrative, that anything about Paul, as a man, is important?   Seems to me the message is the focus, and stands either way.   Legitimate prophet, lol?  More on that in a minute I suppose...

Yes, of course. The man Paul is extraordinarily important to the book of Acts. The whole point of the majority of the book is to chronicle his life's work in the early church throughout the world and to establish the deity's involvement. One doesn't have to view Acts as historically reliable to understand the author's purpose in mythologizing Paul and to compare the information he gives with Paul's own testimony (which often do conflict). Take the miracles out of Acts and you still have an interesting perspective of the Christian missionary, though one that remains suspect on numerous accounts. It doesn't even remotely suggest that Paul was a fictional character though.

-and it's never occurred to you that they -are- a narrative?  That they are not factual accounts?  Ever read the Screwtape Letters, lol?
What narrative? The Pauline epistles predate any narratives.

I've read the Screwtape Letters and no, there is no logically valid or factually sound argument for suggesting that Paul's epistles are comparable to that genre of work. You'd have a better chance arguing that all of Plato's epistles are fraudulent, and even most scholars accept a few of those (namely the 7th and 8th). Paul was no Plato to the average mind in the ancient world. He was just a Pharisee, educated under the law, and notorious to the church for having been one of their most vehement persecutors. It's easy to understand why they would find his conversion significant.

Didn't you seek to demonstrate yourself..earlier, that Paul was both a name, and a name that carried authority in a certain subset?  Does there need to be anything more than this?  Is there any Paul now.....are people referring to Pauls authority regardless?  I don't know why there would have to be a Paul then...if there doesn;t have to be a Paul now - and still those things are true.  Why would there need to be a motive -at all-....I'm not sure I understand the question..?  I thought we both agreed that neither of us sees a conspiracy here?


You and I don't really differ -that- much on the issue of Paul, btw, I can already tell.  You conceive of Paul as a man who wrote letters regarding doctrine.  I thinks it's awfully convenient that he gets those opportunities, that's all.  Particularly in that it is those ignorant and un-serious claims made about "Paul" which forms the basis of his authority to speak to begin with (ah yes, "prophethood").  I doubt that there was a singular man being solicited to respond, via letter, to these churches.  I think that the response to churches is a narrative device...a reason for the narrator to tell the story, a solicitation for correction where none seems to be incoming.

Are trying to establish that the Epistles had an author...or do you think that I would dispute that claim?  We can both agree to skip that, entirely un-serious debate...eh?  :wink:

I don't understand the first paragraph; regarding the second, it's not his supposed miracles (per Luke) that establish his authority. It's his personal experience of Jesus following his relentless attacks on the church, whatever that amounted to (not uncommon for mystic-types btw), and his knowledge and fluency of both Jewish text and Greek language. That's his appeal. Nothing extraordinary in the sense that one should presume that without the later miracles there is nothing left of Paul to be known or to be relevant to a study of early church history. That's just insanely ignorant to even suggest.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Boy, they sure fucked up. They've classed animals incorrectly, guessed wrongly at the shape of the world, fucked up pi by calculating it to zero places ...

Bottom line: the anthology codified in the Bible was the result of a vote by men.

Also, Randy, I'm wondering when you'll answer my earlier points ... if you can.

---

(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.

Wait -- you don't consider the protection of pedophile priests as a failure -- in this case, a failure of conscience?

I'll get to the rest of those points later. Answer me that: you honestly don't think that protecting molesters is an ethical and moral failure?!

Tell me again how faith in god is the only source of morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

How would we establish that there was a Paul if not for the writings that the person claiming to be Paul and offering various details about his life provide? Clement, btw, tells us Paul wrote epistles. But moreover, the internal consistency in his choice of words and the style of his letters, along with the descriptions he gives of his past and present circumstances and that of the early church make it very clear that this is a knowledgeable Jewish convert to Christianity who is traveling throughout the empire to spread the new faith. What criteria or standard are using to cast doubt on this information?

How indeed, but this is a question that you must answer, not me.  Yes, "Clement"...while I wouldn't lean on Clement..if I were you, isn't it starting to seem a bit odd that we are shoring up one legendary/mythical personage with another?  In any case, the author wrote in the authors style (and of course the author of dracula was similarly reliable-on that count).....you keep calling him Paul, but I don't know why, given our discussion.  You ended this segment by appealing to the claims of the narrative as evidence of the claims of the narrative, I find this unconvincing.  That's the only metric I'm applying, at present.  Do you think I need more?

Yes, of course. The man Paul is extraordinarily important to the book of Acts. The whole point of the majority of the book is to chronicle his life's work in the early church throughout the world and to establish the deity's involvement. One doesn't have to view Acts as historically reliable to understand the author's purpose in mythologizing Paul and to compare the information he gives with Paul's own testimony (which often do conflict). Take the miracles out of Acts and you still have an interesting perspective of the Christian missionary, though one that remains suspect on numerous accounts. It doesn't even remotely suggest that Paul was a fictional character though.

Then we both agree that with any given attribute of Paul, it is -possible- that the item in question is mythological, or legendary, correct?  Myth and legend are what I, personally, would call works of fiction.  You?

I've read the Screwtape Letters and no, there is no logically valid or factually sound argument for suggesting that Paul's epistles are comparable to that genre of work. You'd have a better chance arguing that all of Plato's epistles are fraudulent, and even most scholars accept a few of those (namely the 7th and 8th). Paul was no Plato to the average mind in the ancient world. He was just a Pharisee, educated under the law, and notorious to the church for having been one of their most vehement persecutors. It's easy to understand why they would find his conversion significant.

-and yet above, you accepted that there -was- a myth, or legend..even if there was a man?  I'm simply suggesting that the epistles -are- part of that myth, that legend..and yes...part of that genre - that they are non factual, or..if you prefer..fiction. Which shouldn't be surprising....because that's precisely what CS Lewis -intended- to do when he wrote the damn story man......

I don't understand the first paragraph; regarding the second, it's not his supposed miracles (per Luke) that establish his authority. It's his personal experience of Jesus following his relentless attacks on the church, whatever that amounted to (not uncommon for mystic-types btw), and his knowledge and fluency of both Jewish text and Greek language. That's his appeal. Nothing extraordinary in the sense that one should presume that without the later miracles there is nothing left of Paul to be known or to be relevant to a study of early church history. That's just insanely ignorant to even suggest.

His personal experience with jesus.......?  A vision of the risen christ on the road to Damascus?  Is that his personal experience of jesus?  You;re assuming, in this "relentless attacks on the church" business that the narrative is true, is factual...which is precisely what -you- must  demonstrate.  

You're losing me bud..............you've done nothing but assume your conclusion in support of your conclusion for the entirety of our interaction on this subject.  What do you hope to achieve with this?  I know what the story says as well as you, you aren't going to surprise me with the narrative -itself-....so we can skip all of that.....

-if you want to surprise me, show me the evidence, not the claim. We are not discussing whether a study of Paul is relevant to the history of the church, and no one suggested that it wouldn't be. If you'd like to have that conversation have it with someone else who holds that position or would advance that opinion? It does seem insanely ignorant to suggest...so why did you suggest it?






 

[The Grand Nudger]

HMN, an addendum, lets see if we';re on the same page, if we'rte having the same discussion?  
-You and I both agree that there are (lets say 7) letter attributable to a single author.  Yes?
-You and I both agree that the narrative is, for the most part, internally consistent - and that we can safely remove those obvious mythologies and forgeries in the periphery and still be left with some text.  Yes?


The question I'm asking..with all of this, any of it, is simple.  Is there some reason, other than the claims contained in the narrative, that we are calling this author Paul?  Why we are assuming, even, that there must have been a life of Paul, as it were? I understand that many do, I'm wondering what evidence leads us to that -as a conclusion-, rather than an assumption? Something other than the text, I presume?

[Ravenshire]

Muslim, Jewish, Atheist - makes no difference to me what someone's beliefs are. If they are NOT Christian, then they are forced to explain away the account of the resurrection of Jesus one way or another.

Bullshit. We're not forced to "explain away" a fucking thing. It's up to you to convince us if you want us to believe. You really don't get the whole burden of proof thing, do you? So far you've done a shit job. If that gawd of yours actually exists, it bust be epic face-palming at the poor job your doing.

---

---

And my answer was: Someone asked.

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

Well I can see a male dominated judgemental society that make ISIS look like pansy liberals would have just been dandy with that explanation when confronted with a pregnant teen who joseph had not known in the biblical sense.

"Sure" they would have gone. "that makes sense"[/sarcasm]

She would have been stoned to death and you know it.

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

In one book, Jesus is described as playing by a stream with some other children. While the other children are probably just splashing around, Jesus is digging pools of water next to the bank, in which he forms statues of birds out of the muddy clay. Being a miracle-worker, he then turns the bird-statues into real, living birds, which then fly away. Observing this, a child comes by and proceeds to splash the water in the pools with a stick. Jesus does not take kindly to his playmate’s antics, and uses his spell-casting powers to wreak vengeance on him:
— Infancy Gospel of Thomas 3:2-3
Just a little later in the same day, Jesus is gallivanting about town performing errands as well as the occasional miracle when a boy accidentally bumps against him in the street. What would Jesus do, you ask? This time, he lacks the patience to watch him wither and die:
— Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1

Read more at [url=http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2011/01/jesus-the-child-killing-dragon-tamer/#bOkVo8piguwiiYDZ.99

http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2011/01...uwiiYDZ.99

Notice that this gospel was written around 80 ad putting it around the same age as the canonical gospels.

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

So every single argument you gave to support those based on age also relates to the one that contains the story of killer christ.

Enjoy

---

Oh, but his infallible church didn't vote that gospel into the cannon so it's not true/doesn't count. Duh!