The Historical Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@h311inac311

You’re still (deliberately, I think) missing the point about Moby Dick. I mentioned it to refute one particular point you made, that the  number of copies of a manuscript has some bearing on the truth or falsity of what’s contained in that manuscript. It doesn’t matter if the author claims it to be true or if there are people who believe it to be true. 

Think about the converse of your argument: if there was only a single but complete copy of the Gospel of Luke, would you be less likely to believe it to be true? What you’re doing with your point about copies is setting up a scale of veracity based on a single - and rather silly - criterion.

Let me try another example. Consider Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘History of The Kings of Britain’. Monmouth claimed it to be true. It was considered to be a valuable historical source for nearly half a millennium. There are hundreds of manuscripts of it dating from during or shortly after Geoffrey’s lifetime. And yet it contains such nonsense as the Trojans found Britain, wizards, dragons, legendary kings, etc.

Boru

     What I'm getting at is that multiple copies can be compared one to another to ensure that they haven't been tampered with. Simply put, if we have 100 copies of Mark then it is basically impossible for any one person to be able to alter the Gospel of Mark. The edits can be compared against the other copies. People will make mistakes, language will change, even people with good intentions will add to the scriptures (as they did with the story of the woman caught in adutery) but ultimately the vast majority of these copies agree far more than they disagree. The mistakes can be made known by comparing them to the majority of the other texts that are available. 

                  I knew at least one of you would want to pull the "Gospels have been corrupted" card. So I was trying to get ahead of that claim.

      No, I'm not setting up a scale of veracity based on one single and important criterion. I'm pointing something out that's very important to know. The Gospels haven't been tampered with. We know that as a historical fact because of the many different copies of the original which are still available today. It is one point in favor of the Gospel, can a Mighty Temple be built on a single pillar? I'm just here to make sure that you guys know that the first pillar is there and that it is made of stone. 


 How do you know that Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of The Kings of Britain' is wrong?

So, there are linguistic changers, errors, additions, etc, but the Gospels 'haven't been tampered with'. How do you reconcile these statements?

I know Monmouth is wrong, because there is no evidence - historical, archeological, linguistic - that corroborates what he says. The lack of supportive evidence for Monmouth is positively Biblical in scope.

Boru

[h311inac311]

Check me here guys:

The authors made truth claims...

New religions can't be started...

Eyewitness testimony of miracles...

They wouldn't die for a lie...

The crucifiction was special and unique...

I think I got a "Bad Christer Argument Bingo" winner here. And all from just one post.

The authors didn't just make truth claims, they also made these claims during a time when there were living witnesses to the events in question who would've called them out for telling lies. Many of them died for those claims as well.

       When did I say new religions can't be started?
What I was saying is that if your new religion is based on something verifiably false then it will be much more difficult for it to spread. 

Is all eyewitness testimony of the supernatural wrong by default? 

Yes, most people won't die for something which they know to be a lie. 

     Oh and yes the crusifixion of Jesus was unique, even from a totally secular perspective; this is because Jesus was well known for his ability to talk his way out of a tight situation. And yet, when faced with certain torture, humiliation and death, he didn't bother to open his mouth in his own defense. 

Also, the crucifixion is one of the biggest events in all of human history. So yes it is a very big and unique event, not just because a person died on a cross but because one of the most famous people died on a cross. Indeed, there was something peculiar about this one Roman crusifixion which stands out against all others.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@h311inac311

The fact that most of the early apostles proved that they were willing to die for their faith does add something to the veracity of their claims. Will people die for something that they know to be a lie? Some of these apostles claimed to have traveled with Christ and watched him as he performed miracles. And for some reason all of these witnesses, when isolated, when facing certain death; were still willing to testify to the end that Jesus is the Truth. Even if denying him meant saving their own skin. How many other religions can say that about their earliest proponents?

It adds nothing to the veracity of their claims. People may not be willing to die for something they know to be a lie, but they're perfectly happy - giddy, even - to die for a sincerely held belief, even if that belief is false. Happens all the time.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

     The fact that most of the early apostles proved that they were willing to die for their faith does add something to the veracity of their claims.

There is no evidence that apostles died for Jesus or their faith. Not even the Bible makes that claim (Bible mentions deaths of two apostles: James and Judas). There were later legends of how each apostles died invented by Christians because they love inventing stories and then believe in them as if they are true. Like, Christians invented thousands of saints and their biographies and then believe in them as if they really existed and died for their faith. Take saint Christopher - he never existed.

[h311inac311]

So, there are linguistic changers, errors, additions, etc, but the Gospels 'haven't been tampered with'. How do you reconcile these statements?

I know Monmouth is wrong, because there is no evidence - historical, archeological, linguistic - that corroborates what he says. The lack of supportive evidence for Monmouth is positively Biblical in scope.

Boru

Are the errors significant? Lets look at English for a moment. For many centuries there was no agreed upon standard for how words ought to be spelled. So if one Bible says, "I am the way the trueth and the life" does the spelling of the word truth really change the meaning of the text? 

Yes modern scholars have determined that the story of the woman caught in adultery was added by comparing later copies to earlier ones. That's what the process of scholarship is there for. My only question is weather or not this story is true. Beyond that we have the fact that it has been effectively canonized by the ancient church. So the real question is weather or not the Holy Spirit would not approve of such an addition. Don't know why but I don't feel like Jesus, the main character of said story, is losing sleep over its addition to the Gospel of John.

As it is written, "There are also many other things which Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that not even the word itself could contain the books that would be written. Amen"


When we compare one copy to another we can find the errors rather easily. Mistakes will be made, but they won't be made in the exact same places. Consider my earlier example.

The cat leaped.

The dog jumped.

A cat jumped.

Can you determine the original message?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, there are linguistic changers, errors, additions, etc, but the Gospels 'haven't been tampered with'. How do you reconcile these statements?

I know Monmouth is wrong, because there is no evidence - historical, archeological, linguistic - that corroborates what he says. The lack of supportive evidence for Monmouth is positively Biblical in scope.

Boru

Are the errors significant? Lets look at English for a moment. For many centuries there was no agreed upon standard for how words ought to be spelled. So if one Bible says, "I am the way the trueth and the life" does the spelling of the word truth really change the meaning of the text? 

Yes modern scholars have determined that the story of the woman caught in adultery was added by comparing later copies to earlier ones. That's what the process of scholarship is there for. My only question is weather or not this story is true. Beyond that we have the fact that it has been effectively canonized by the ancient church. So the real question is weather or not the Holy Spirit would not approve of such an addition. Don't know why but I don't feel like Jesus, the main character of said story, is losing sleep over its addition to the Gospel of John.

As it is written, "There are also many other things which Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that not even the word itself could contain the books that would be written. Amen"


When we compare one copy to another we can find the errors rather easily. Mistakes will be made, but they won't be made in the exact same places. Consider my earlier example.

The cat leaped.

The dog jumped.

A cat jumped.

Can you determine the original message?

If the Bible is holy writ, why would there be any errors in the first place? As the roadmap for human salvation (which is what God wants, after all), it’s not unreasonable that God would use his omnimax powers to make sure that NO copying errors crept in.

But we don’t have that. What we have is a series of myths and legends edited by people with their own agendas. The Bible isn’t prophecy, the Bible is propaganda.

Boru

[h311inac311]

     The fact that most of the early apostles proved that they were willing to die for their faith does add something to the veracity of their claims.

There is no evidence that apostles died for Jesus or their faith. Not even the Bible makes that claim (Bible mentions deaths of two apostles: James and Judas). There were later legends of how each apostles died invented by Christians because they love inventing stories and then believe in them as if they are true. Like, Christians invented thousands of saints and their biographies and then believe in them as if they really existed and died for their faith. Take saint Christopher - he never existed.

An excerpt from Church History Book II from author Eusebius, a 4th century church historian.

The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.

5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.


https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm


These words come from someone on my side of the debate so of course they will be dis-regarded as bias. 

Beyond that, the well has already been poisoned against all believers, so what can any of us say in our defense?

[h311inac311]

What we have is a series of myths and legends edited by people with their own agendas.

Now for sure you are the one who is missing my point about the over-abundance of available copies. The copies let us determine what was and was not original. That's how we found out that the story of the woman caught in adultery was a later addition.

If there is an addition we can figure that out easily because it won't be in the majority of other copies. I'm not sure how many times I've made this same point, but you don't seem to understand how history is preserved. But if you want to make this claim I suggest you try to back it up with something historical rather than rhetorical.

Your other point is this, "Why didn't God preserve his word the way that I think that he should?" Well, maybe God isn't as pedantic as you are.

When the apostles quoted the Old Testament they were often quoting not only from the Septuagint, but also from the variants of the Septuagint, meaning that if we hold the word to its own standard it passes.

So are you telling me that you know what God's standard ought to be? And are you telling me that you know that his standard has been violated by our modern understanding of the manuscript tradition?

[Fake Messiah]

These words come from someone on my side of the debate so of course they will be dis-regarded as bias. 

These words will be discarded because they don't mention Paul, it's that you and some other Christians are hallucinating that he was there in these writings.

[Fake Messiah]

Now for sure you are the one who is missing my point about the over-abundance of available copies.

This abundance of copies that you talk about don't count because they were created many centuries later, in medieval times, and they are copies of gospels that were written centuries after the supposed death of Jesus.