Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Unbeliever]

Is this your personal work? Or are you merely linking me to someone else's site? I'm just curious, because I have access to sites and books that respond with volumes of material, too.

Well, I did research, but the ordering is mine. I can't claim to have personally rooted out every one of them, but I saw similar lists that were all jumbled up, with no easy way to find any particular contradiction, so I just put them in some order to make it easier.

Instead, maybe you could layout for me a couple of contradictions from the NT that you find most damning for the truth of Christianity. Then we can actually have a conversation about those.

Thanks.

Well, here's an easy ont to start with:

45. Is Jesus' witness of himself true?
Yes
Jn 8:14

Jesus answered and said unto him, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell hence I come, and whither I go.

No
Jn 5:31

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

[Unbeliever]

Mark's gospel ended this way:

"He is risen." Yeah...Mark knew that Jesus rose from the dead.

The earliest manuscripts suggest that the Mark of the Beast is actually 616, but so what?

So, some guy just happens to be there to tell them Jesus was risen, and they believed him!?

Are YOU a former Christian?

Yeah, I was raised as a Southern Baptist, but then I read the Bible, and that put the kibosh on that.

But in all seriousness, the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries later. They were not part of the original texts, and they were not inspired.

Yeah, I know, it's just a fun fact that, as far as I know, no one before me noticed. I could be wrong on that, though, I just haven't seen it anywhere else.

[Unbeliever]

The Christian Church: why does it exist?

Because, as Jerry Falwell said, "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

[reasonist]

Any word used by humans could obviously be written by humans.

But not any word from a omnipotent deity. Gotcha

Imagine if the bible would say 'and at the end of the 20th century A.D. (!) a communication method will be invented called the internet. Astronauts from a continent called America will land and walk on the moon and at roughly the same time the first heart transplant will be performed in South Africa.'

But no such thing. Instead we have to stay away from our neighbor's ass and worry about gnashing teeth. Maybe if you think a little deeper you will understand.

[Baruch]

Indeed. This scrap is simply one that shows that the number is 616 and not 616 - possibly.

Studying these scraps and those which are much larger, of course, is how we arrive at an accurate text for the NT.

As made up in the fevered imaginations of Nestle-Aland.  I have a copy of the 26th edition ... it keeps changing from edition to edition, and variant readings keep disappearing.  Newspeak anyone?

Scribes made mistakes and emendations all the time ... unless they were Jewish.  The tradition still stands, you have to throw out a Torah scroll for a single mistake ... no erasing or lining out like the Codex Siniaticus ... in Jewish terms, $40,000 down the drain if you make a mistake.

[Baruch]

God has no parts. He is simple (as in "not complex").

Innumeracy ... 3 not equal to 1, 10 not equal to 1 either.  You are criticizing the wrong point ;-)

[Baruch]

Nothing trumps St Pat... It's da BEEER!

I like him too ... even if he did practice Druid magic.

[Baruch]

"But in all seriousness, the chapter and verse numbers were added centuries later. They were not part of the original texts, and they were not inspired."

Wrong, it is very inspired.  Try reading without any chapter, verse or punctuation!  It is a great improvement on the original.  But not as great an invention as an electronic text that can be freely "string" searched ... that could only come from Roswell aliens ;-)

The chapter divisions were devised around 1200 CE.  The verse divisions were devised around 1550 CE, after printing was developed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible

[Baruch]

Baruch, as a Jew do you accept the NT and the divinity of Jesus?

I am not a mystic but belief in spirituality (non religious) as long as I can differentiate between the numinous and the supernatural.
I am not Jewish but lost most of my family in WWII. Every male in my family (6) were killed in Russia for absolutely nothing. So I feel with you and your tribe especially now during Yom HaShoa.

Thanks for the commiseration.  I am sorry for your family's loss as well.  Fortunately most of my people were in the US already.  We don't know what happened to the Czech relatives.  There are many tragedies for many people ... Jewish people are not special ... just more pissed!

You are very careful, to separate numinous from supernatural.  Words entrap, particularly in dialectical opposition.  "Natural" and "supernatural" are poor choices ... actually "numinous" is much better, but most people wouldn't realize that!

No, I am not a Christian Jew (also often called Messianic Jew).  But I have worshipped with both Regular Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians.  My spirituality is too universal to be overly ethnic.  For the last several years I have been irreligious, but still theist.  So no, I don't accept the NT or Jesus' divinity ... as such.  But then I don't accept the OT or Moses' divinity ... as such.  What I mean by scripture and by divinity, doesn't fit a stereotype.  After studying most religions intensively, I can see the value in each, particular the Eastern ones.  I am just not very social in my old age.  But I might get back to the social aspect some day.  Never say never ;-)  But I am not far from being a Universalist Unitarian.

[Baruch]

Hey, as a Catholic (and former Protestant), I could not agree more.

It's also why Mohammed simplified Christianity and Judaism when he invented Islam.

The most fundamentalist Sunnis have reduced Islam down to WWMD.  Sad.  Yet, they don't ride a camel to work (in most places).  If following WWJD ... I suppose one could ride a donkey are just walk.

[reasonist]

No, I am not a Christian Jew (also often called Messianic Jew).  But I have worshipped with both Regular Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians.  My spirituality is too universal to be overly ethnic.  For the last several years I have been irreligious, but still theist.  So no, I don't accept the NT or Jesus' divinity ... as such.  But then I don't accept the OT or Moses' divinity ... as such.  What I mean by scripture and by divinity, doesn't fit a stereotype.  After studying most religions intensively, I can see the value in each, particular the Eastern ones.  I am just not very social in my old age.  But I might get back to the social aspect some day.  Never say never ;-)  But I am not far from being a Universalist Unitarian.

To stay with the topic of the thread, I was just curious if you accept the NT and Jesus' divinity. You answered it eloquently but left me somewhat confused. You don't accept the Torah either but you state that you are a 'freethinking theist" which is a bit of an oxymoron to me. I'd like to separate spirituality and faith but free thinking usually cancels out faith or theism. You don't adhere to any dogma but you are a theist? I just can't get my head around it but if you can do that, all the power to you,  friend.

[Blackleaf]

No, Blackleaf. These are facts that are acknowledged by real scholars who hold a broad spectrum of beliefs.

But let me illustrate why only the ignorant deny these five facts.

The Christian Church: why does it exist?

The Mormon Church: why does it exist?

Muslims: why do they exist?

Stupid people who wouldn't know good logic if it was delivered via ACME anvil landing on their feet: why do you exist?

[Baruch]

To stay with the topic of the thread, I was just curious if you accept the NT and Jesus' divinity. You answered it eloquently but left me somewhat confused. You don't accept the Torah either but you state that you are a 'freethinking theist" which is a bit of an oxymoron to me. I'd like to separate spirituality and faith but free thinking usually cancels out faith or theism. You don't adhere to any dogma but you are a theist? I just can't get my head around it but if you can do that, all the power to you,  friend.

Freethinking certainly implies non-dogmatic.  Otherwise I would be a dogmatic theist ;-(  "Freethinking" is closer to the facts about me than irreligious.  So being non-dogmatic, I certainly can't accept clerical authority or scriptural authority or even lay group think.  So once you take the authority out of religion, it is just a voluntary social club of like-thinking people.  Though when I was married to a pastor, voluntary took on nuances ;-)  So definitely arguments about NT accuracy are curiosities to me, not really important.  Scripture means writing, and I am making new scripture right here, right now.  But of course, I still have my own psychology, independent of my social relationships.  But that is another thread.

[Baruch]

The Mormon Church: why does it exist?

Muslims: why do they exist?

Stupid people who wouldn't know good logic if it was delivered via ACME anvil landing on their feet: why do you exist?

Psychology and sociology trumps "snicker" logic.  And average intelligence is a low bar, and most people try to limbo, not jump over.

[Mike Cl]

Freethinking certainly implies non-dogmatic.  Otherwise I would be a dogmatic theist ;-(  "Freethinking" is closer to the facts about me than irreligious.  So being non-dogmatic, I certainly can't accept clerical authority or scriptural authority or even lay group think.  So once you take the authority out of religion, it is just a voluntary social club of like-thinking people.  Though when I was married to a pastor, voluntary took on nuances ;-)  So definitely arguments about NT accuracy are curiosities to me, not really important.  Scripture means writing, and I am making new scripture right here, right now.  But of course, I still have my own psychology, independent of my social relationships.  But that is another thread.

That's what I've always liked about you Baruch.  You think.