Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Mike Cl]

Christianity has compelling evidence and strong corroboration.

Actually, it has neither.  But you do seem to have problems with 'facts' and 'beliefs'--can't tell them apart.  Strong corroboration from within christian documents.  None from outside those documents.  But you hold on to your security beliefs, for I have a feeling you would literally fall apart without them.

[Randy Carson]

Actually, it has neither.  But you do seem to have problems with 'facts' and 'beliefs'--can't tell them apart.  Strong corroboration from within christian documents.  None from outside those documents.  But you hold on to your security beliefs, for I have a feeling you would literally fall apart without them.

Mike, this is silly. The kind of thing folks say when they are running out of actual arguments and they're left with raw emotional responses.

Yes, there are both canonical and non-canonical references to Jesus' existence. The non-Christian accounts provide corroboration that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that he had a brother named James.

There is the existence of the Church itself. Where did that come from and why? No Jesus, no Church, Mike.

So, we have two points in place:

1. The texts we have are accurate.
2. The texts were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses.

Still to come:

Did the authors actually intend to write reliable history, or were they just indulging in a bit of "fan fiction"?

[Randy Carson]

You do seem to think your belief establish  facts.  If you believe it, then it is so.  And if you can find others who agree with you, then they are experts and help you establish your belief as a fact--in your mind only.  You are so blinded by your irrational need to believe this fiction that you will go to any lengths to keep your belief.

You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate.  That would be impossible since we don't have a single autograph to check back to.  And there is no consensus about the dates when these essays were written.  Nor has it ever been established who wrote them.  Since we do not know when they were written nor who wrote them (with the exception of Paul's actual writings), how would you know what they intended?  Facts have been presented to you but they don't fit into your belief system so they are not facts.

Then you are speaking from ignorance about textual criticism. This is not just some "Christian thing". Scholars use textual criticism to establish the correct text of all sorts of ancient documents. It's a legit methodology.

So, when you claim, "You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate", you are speaking out of ignorance.

We don't NEED an autograph; we just need an adequate sample size for the manuscripts. And we have over 25,000 manuscripts of the NT...more than all other ancient works combined.

Finally, you assert that my dating is not correct without proving me wrong. Read the OP. Go through it line-by-line. Show me where I'm wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Prove Jesus ever said anything about being God. Impartial evidence, not apologetics.

[Mike Cl]

Then you are speaking from ignorance about textual criticism. This is not just some "Christian thing". Scholars use textual criticism to establish the correct text of all sorts of ancient documents. It's a legit methodology.

So, when you claim, "You have not established, nor has anybody else, that the text of the NT is accurate", you are speaking out of ignorance.

We don't NEED an autograph; we just need an adequate sample size for the manuscripts. And we have over 25,000 manuscripts of the NT...more than all other ancient works combined.

Finally, you assert that my dating is not correct without proving me wrong. Read the OP. Go through it line-by-line. Show me where I'm wrong.

I guess I'll have to quote myself, since you seem to not like to read that which displeases you:
Oh, yes, Randy, you do like to bring up Homer--which makes sense, since you are a homer for Jesus. :)

5000 Greek manuscripts ("More reliable than Homer" argument)

The claim is along the lines of "over 5000 distinct pieces of evidence for Jesus" is often presented[115]). Examples of this are Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in their book [7] and Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ.

This argument is absurd as textual reliability has nothing to do with historical reliability as demonstrated by how the printing press from 1436 on allowed the production of perfect copies of fantastical (and now known to be totally fictitious) material.

Moreover, we have no reason to suspect that scribes altered writings from Homer to support their particular religious dogma. But we have every reason to suspect it with the New Testament â€" in fact, we know they did. Also, and rather very ironically, this analogy boomerangs on apologists trying to defend the historic evidence for Jesus since few historians today believe that a single historical individual named “Homer” ever really existed.

Finally, as "Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament" by Islamic Awareness[116] shows the argument is deceptive in many ways:

The often quoted "over 5000 Greek manuscripts" actually covers a period of time from the 2nd century to the 16th: i.e. 14 centuries!

The over 5000 Greek manuscripts also cover all 27 books of the New Testament.

Just 6.29% of these 5000 distinct pieces of evidence have been dated before the 9th century and only 48 supposedly predate our oldest intact Bibles[116]
Most of the really early manuscripts are actually fragments no larger then a modern credit card and in many cases not even forming complete words.
"Comparing the above-named seven major critical editions, from Tischendorf to Nestle-Aland, we can observe an agreement in wording of only 62.9% of the verses of the New Testament."
"The percentage agreement of the verses when all the four Gospels are considered is 54.5%."

So the Gospels, the key point of the Jesus story, have verses that have about the chance of a coin toss of matching or being different over the course of 14 centuries.

Our oldest complete Bibles are the Codex Siniaticus (330â€"360 CE) and Codex Vaticanus (c325â€"350 CE), so anything regarding historical reliability must involve Greek manuscripts before those dates. This at best gets us a pathetic 48 Greek manuscripts, all of which have date ranges that allow them to be after Irenaeus's c.180 CE work Against Heresies which extensively quotes from what would in the 4th century become the four canonical Gospels.


This is why there are so many different bibles in existence today.  There is so much disagreement within the extent bibles and bits of bibles, that one can fashion a collection of writings that reflect just about any viewpoint of Jesus and what he taught.  Anybody who studies textual criticism in any depth comes to understand this.  Randy, find that 'thinking' cap of yours and put it on!

[Randy Carson]

Can you prove otherwise?

Don't play games. You made a positive statement and the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate works.

Otherwise, all you have is an opinion which you are asserting.

[Randy Carson]

I don't see how your argument does anything but discredit your own faith. Both the Bible and the LotR books are fiction. As you said, his son never witnessed the existence of Ent wives. That's because they were made up for the fictional world that Tolkien created. In the same way, the Bible's stories were not written by eyewitnesses, but by people making up stories. The difference, however, is that the Bible had countless authors, which resulted in a predictable number of inconsistencies, while LotR had one author plus his son who patched up the leftovers and had a much more consistent story.

Late editing and additions to the text?!? We can't trust anything from LotR because the Silmarillion has been interpolated by Ringians who came later!!!



I was just pointing out that you are willing to accept the existence of the Ent Wives because of a reference to a book whose author is now dead.

You won't accept the existence of Jesus despite a bunch of references from a bunch of books whose authors are now dead.

[Randy Carson]

All that wouldn't prove divinity.

No, it wouldn't. But having an accurate text and reasons to believe that the authors were honest and reliable is a pre-requisite for considering whether what they claim about Jesus' divinity is true.

[Randy Carson]

Smart people who didn't care about the facts. Christianity is based on belief, not facts.

Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Yes or no.

[Blackleaf]

Late editing and additions to the text?!? We can't trust anything from LotR because the Silmarillion has been interpolated by Ringians who came later!!!



I was just pointing out that you are willing to accept the existence of the Ent Wives because of a reference to a book whose author is now dead.

You won't accept the existence of Jesus despite a bunch of references from a bunch of books whose authors are now dead.

I don't believe that Ent wives ever existed in human history. Your logic is broken.

[Blackleaf]

Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Yes or no.

I don't care if he actually existed or not. The miracles attributed to him cannot be validated. Either he was a complete fiction or he was a real person that people transformed into a diety with their stories. The same is true of Muhammed. Did he exist? I don't care. If he did exist, did ALL of the world stop to look in his direction when he was born? No.

[reasonist]

Fascinating! Sigfried would have a hay day. The depth of indoctrination for some is astonishing. That many need an emotional crutch and turn to religious superstition is one thing, but to come to an atheist forum and try to proselytize is a complete different animal. Presenting nothing but the same old fables and mythologies as facts here is a hopeless undertaking.
We have to ask ourselves why this poor, needy soul posts here. It's either to try and convert others or to provoke. Neither works here.
The resident sheep is trying to convince us that claims of miracles from UNKNOWN sources are proven facts. OK, then. I give him that for a moment. All the texts of the Torah and the NT, are true facts through eyewitness accounts (I can't believe I am even contemplating that)!
That means the following:
A) The god in the Torah is a capricious monster on a permanent killing spree. According to the Jewish bible, god killed over 2 million people before wiping out every living thing on Earth. Satan killed 10.

Now what kind of a sick mind would grovel and submit himself to serfdom to a mass murderer like that? What must go on in someone's mind to stoop to such low? What a miserable existence must one live, in order to relinquish any rational judgement and ignore morality and ethics? What a pathetic way to waste a life! To enjoy and admire a celestial North Korea and to give up independent thought for dogma is the very definition of being spiritually and mentally enslaved.
I don't feel resentment towards people like that, just pity. Pity for losing out on the fascinating subject how the universe actually works, without heavenly creation or interference. Pity for being so caught up in a fictional reality, that reason and logic falls by the wayside. I wish there would be an indoctrination detox center, where the most ardent sheep can be sent to lose their toxic beliefs. But we have to co-exist with these backward minds and fight them every step of the way in order not to be taken over. That goes for Islam as well. And fight we will...until superstition is replaced with compassion, empathy and love for our fellow brothers and sisters, regardless of color, creed or tribe.

[Randy Carson]

Prove Jesus ever said anything about being God. Impartial evidence, not apologetics.

Sure. Someone else asked me this once, so I put some thoughts together.

We can take a look at what Jesus said, how he acted, what others said and how they responded, etc.

The Divinity of Jesus Christ Proved from Scripture

I.   Did Jesus claim to be God?

1. Jesus claimed the Divine Name (‘I AM’)

Exodus 3:14
13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD,  the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

John 8:58
53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus if they did not believe that He was claiming to be God?

2. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and equal to God.

John 5:18
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

3. Jesus claimed to be the First and the Last â€" a Title Reserved for God Alone

Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.”

Revelation 1:17-18
“Do not be afraid; I [Jesus] am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”

Would a mere prophet claim to be the “First and the Last”?

4. Jesus claimed to be Truth â€" not just to proclaim the truth.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

5. Jesus claimed to share in Divine Glory

In the Old Testament, we find that Yahweh will not share his glory with anyone.

Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” (Cf. Isaiah 48:11â€"“My glory I will not give to another.”)

Yet Jesus claimed, not only that he would be glorified with the Father, but that he had glory with the Father before the world was created!

John 17:5
“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

How can anyone see this as anything other than a claim to deity?

6.   Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God Before the Sanhedrin

Daniel 7:13-14
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Daniel prophesied that the Son of Man would be worshiped as God.

Mark 14:61-65
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Replying to the High Priest at His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus quoted the Daniel and applied this prophecy to Himself.

II.   Did Jesus act as God might act?

1.   Jesus forgave sins â€" which only God can do.
Luke 5:20
2.   Jesus accepted worship.
Matthew 2:2, 11
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 28:9, 17
Luke 24:52
John 9:35-38
3.   Jesus did not reject worship.
Revelation 19:10 â€" the angel tells John to worship God only; Jesus never tells anyone not to worship Him.

III. Did Jesus’ disciples believe He was God?

1.   Thomas worshipped Jesus
John 20:28-29
2.   John declared that Jesus is God.
John 1:1, John 1:14

3.   Paul taught that Jesus was God.

Romans 10:9-13
because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord (kurios) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord (kurios) will be saved.”

In verse 13, Paul quotes an Old Testament prophet who was speaking about God when he wrote:

Joel 2:32
“And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD (kurios) shall be delivered”

Thus, in one brief passage, Paul uses the word kurios, or Lord, to speak about both the Father and the Son proving that Paul believes that Jesus is God.

4.   The author of Hebrews clearly shows that the Son of God is God.

Hebrews 1:1-9
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father”?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
    and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
    and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
    a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
    therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
    by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

IV. Did Jesus’ enemies believe He claimed to be God?

1.    The Jews tried to stone him for blasphemy.
   John 8:58 â€" “I AM’
   John 10:30-33 â€" second attempted stoning
2.   The Sanhedrin asked Jesus if He was the Messiah and the Son of God
Mark 14:61-62 (cf. Daniel 7:13-14, Psalm 110)

V.   Did the demons recognize Him as God?

Mark 1:23-24
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you areâ€"the Holy One of God!”


VI. Does the Bible tell us that Jesus is God?

Acts 20:28 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood.

Titus 2:13 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

2 Peter 1:1 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Hebrews 1:8 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God,  is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.

Revelation 1:17-18

Son of God, Son of Man
What do these phrases mean in the context of the culture in which Jesus lived and spoke?

[Blackleaf]

Ask for impartial evidence, get Bible quotes.

[Randy Carson]

I guess I'll have to quote myself, since you seem to not like to read that which displeases you:
Oh, yes, Randy, you do like to bring up Homer--which makes sense, since you are a homer for Jesus. :)

5000 Greek manuscripts ("More reliable than Homer" argument)

The claim is along the lines of "over 5000 distinct pieces of evidence for Jesus" is often presented[115]). Examples of this are Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in their book [7] and Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ.

This argument is absurd as textual reliability has nothing to do with historical reliability as demonstrated by how the printing press from 1436 on allowed the production of perfect copies of fantastical (and now known to be totally fictitious) material.

If it's absurd, why doesn't your copy-paste source explain why this is the case?

Mike are you saying that we DON'T have over 5,000 separate copies of these texts? That would come as quite a shock to the museum curators where they are housed.

Moreover, we have no reason to suspect that scribes altered writings from Homer to support their particular religious dogma. But we have every reason to suspect it with the New Testament â€" in fact, we know they did. Also, and rather very ironically, this analogy boomerangs on apologists trying to defend the historic evidence for Jesus since few historians today believe that a single historical individual named “Homer” ever really existed.

This is an argument?

Mike, WE KNOW that scribes altered the New Testament texts. This is not in question. What you seem to be IGNORANT about is why this is not the problem you think it to be.

Seriously, Mike. Watch Dr. Wallace's presentation. You will save yourself a lot of time.

Finally, as "Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament" by Islamic Awareness[116] shows the argument is deceptive in many ways:

The often quoted "over 5000 Greek manuscripts" actually covers a period of time from the 2nd century to the 16th: i.e. 14 centuries!

Sure. Not a problem. Having manuscripts from the second century is the kind of material scholars would love to have. Here's how others compare:

The over 5000 Greek manuscripts also cover all 27 books of the New Testament.

Yes! The average manuscript is 490 pages in length.

Just 6.29% of these 5000 distinct pieces of evidence have been dated before the 9th century and only 48 supposedly predate our oldest intact Bibles[116]
Most of the really early manuscripts are actually fragments no larger then a modern credit card and in many cases not even forming complete words.
"Comparing the above-named seven major critical editions, from Tischendorf to Nestle-Aland, we can observe an agreement in wording of only 62.9% of the verses of the New Testament." "The percentage agreement of the verses when all the four Gospels are considered is 54.5%."

So the Gospels, the key point of the Jesus story, have verses that have about the chance of a coin toss of matching or being different over the course of 14 centuries.

Possibly correct but irrelevant. Scholars consider even spelling variation of one letter in a wored wird werd word to be a variant. I just gave you four as an example of this. But we are 99+% sure of what the autographs said because we have so many copies with which to derive that text, and even Bart Ehrman admits in Misquoting Jesus that no major Christian doctrines are in doubt as a result of these variants.

So, you see, what these Muslims believe in their efforts to support their own fanciful beliefs is based on a misunderstanding of what textual criticism really tells us. IOW, you fail.

Our oldest complete Bibles are the Codex Siniaticus (330â€"360 CE) and Codex Vaticanus (c325â€"350 CE), so anything regarding historical reliability must involve Greek manuscripts before those dates. This at best gets us a pathetic 48 Greek manuscripts, all of which have date ranges that allow them to be after Irenaeus's c.180 CE work Against Heresies which extensively quotes from what would in the 4th century become the four canonical Gospels.

Pathetic?

What's pathetic is attempting to dismiss the treasure trove of NT manuscripts that scholars of other ancient authors would love to have.

This is why there are so many different bibles in existence today.  There is so much disagreement within the extent bibles and bits of bibles, that one can fashion a collection of writings that reflect just about any viewpoint of Jesus and what he taught.  Anybody who studies textual criticism in any depth comes to understand this.  Randy, find that 'thinking' cap of yours and put it on!

Yeah. Uh...no. Watch Dr. Wallace's talk on YouTube.