The NT is not a reliable document about historical events

[Danmark]

LilytheT:

No. In fact, the data themselves make the myth scenario impossible.

1. If we approach the NT with the same neutral, objective, and scientific approach with which we approach every other ancient document, the NT proves to be the most reliable of all. No book in history has been attacked, cut-up, reconstructed, and stood on its head as much as the NT, and yet it lives, and furthermore, the story, written over many years, holds together.

This debate suggests the statement above is wrong.
All of the Gospels were written by anonymous authors years after the events; are loaded with hearsay, and full of bias since they were written to support various Church claims.
They contradict each other at critical points, such as the resurrection, but essentially agree when they copy each other. Many scholars believe the original source documents they relied upon, no longer exist, just like Joseph's Smith's Golden Plates.

The stories do not survive the academic historical critical approach.

Many of the 'documents' are admitted forgeries. All of the Gospels were written after Paul's early letters and Paul seems completely uninformed about most of the stories in the Gospel accounts.

[Divine Insight]

LilytheT:

No book in history has been attacked, cut-up, reconstructed, and stood on its head as much as the NT, and yet it lives, and furthermore, the story, written over many years, holds together.

I disagree that this claim amounts to anything more than a personal opinion.

What does it mean for a book to "live". Just because there are religious zealots who refuses to give up on it?

Obviously the very same thing can be said for the Qur'an.

I also disagree that the story "holds together". On the contrary one of the strongest reasons I personally reject it is precisely because it doesn't hold together. I see it as being one contradiction after another. I don't see where it "holds together" at all.

And this is even more vivid when the OT is included, and I don't see how the NT can even be discussed without taking the OT into consideration as well. The NT has no claims of its own. Everything in the NT is based on claims of prophesies from the OT not the least of which is the claim that Jesus himself was the miraculous demigod son of the God of the OT.

Putting the whole collection of myths together results in countless contradictions and inconsistencies. Especially considering that Jesus didn't even do any of the things the so-called "Promised Messiah" was prophesied to do.

[Danmark]

.


LilytheT, care to respond to this after you read it:



The New Testament is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts. Each one of these manuscripts differ from the other. Hence The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible is forced to say:

It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the Manuscript tradition is wholly uniform.

-George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under "Text, NT").

The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities.

-The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible

But... but... but... we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of fragments of copies that... well... we have them. And we have tradition. So there.

[Regens Küchl]

The Myth about Jesus resurrection and the Myth about Elvis death being faked - Which is more probably true ?

I will start with refuting this claim Zero of LilytheTheologian. Interestingly Zzyzx partly followed in on her error by calling Jesus resurrecion no more credible than Elvis sightings.
He indicates that they have the same probability, which I will show that they have not.

As for comparing Jesus' resurrection to "Elvis" sightings, there really is no comparison. Hundreds of people, individually, have reported having seen Elvis, at different times and in different places. Hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus alive at the same time. We can dismiss the single report of even five hundred persons (Elvis), but when a group of five hundred sees Jesus alive, and that group is not mentally ill, under the influence of drugs, etc. and not all Jesus' followers, it becomes much harder to dismiss the reports as a "vision."

There are only stories about tomb, stones, guards, angel(s), witnesses, etc.

Those stories were written by promoters of the new religion decades or generations after the claimed events. The identity of gospel writers is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians, and there is no assurance any of them had first-hand knowledge.

Since we can't be sure who wrote the stories or what their motivations and veracity may have been, it seems unwise to declare that a dead body came back to life based ONLY on those gospel stories. There is NO other evidence that any such thing happened or that anyone saw a "risen Jesus". Yes, "500 witnesses" were claimed in the stories themselves but there are no independent accounts of that Earth Shaking event.

To me the tales seem no more credible than fantastic tales that Elvis didn't really die (or came back to life) and has been seen by many "witnesses." It also seems as though those who believe tales about the "resurrection of Jesus" should, to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, also believe the Elvis tales and similar tales told about other "gods".

1) Elvis death being faked is no supernatural claim, so it is more probable than Jesus resurrection.

2) We have no proven examples of resurrections in history, but we do have proven examples of faked deaths. Most recently I read an article about a woman who was believed to have died at the twin towers on 9. 11., but instead only used that belief to go underground for personal reasons.

3) We have actual interviews in TV documentarys with Elvis witnesses, while only Tales about unknown Jesus witnesses or very half baked ghost storys by apostles who might even be myths themselves.

4) Elvis undoubtedly existed while Jesus could well be a myth himself.

5) It is perfectly logical that Elvis would go into hiding after faking his death, while Jesus as official saviour seems rather neurotic and strange in his "now you see me - now you see me not" behaviour after resurrection and before fleeing his fans by descending to heaven.

Therefore Elvis faking his death is more probable than the resurrection of Jesus

[Regens Küchl]

Claim One of LilytheTheologian :

The biblical canon is composed of works written by those who knew Christ personally or who were writing on behalf of those who had known Christ personally.

This is an enormous distinction. The evidence suggests none of the gospels were written by either an eyewitness or anyone who "knew Christ personally. These anonymous writers, writing decades after the supposed events were writing on behalf of the church, and as you say attached others' names to their works. This was done to elevate the status of these works; to lend them credibility.

What evidence do you speak of? Are you familiar with the most modern dating techniques?

Recent scholarship of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate the authors named are most likely the actual authors. Modern dating techniques show all four gospels to have been written between 40-65, so all are most probably the work of eyewitnesses. They are works of theology, not history, so that has to be kept in mind.

St. Irenaeus identified the author of the Gospel of John as the apostle John, and John is curiously almost absent from the book itself, something that lends credence to his authorship. Irenaeus' own teacher, St. Polycarp, was a disciple of John, and John was the one apostle who lived to be quite old. The book contains numerous details that tell biblical scholars that the author was, indeed, an eyewitness to the events surrounding the life - and death - of Jesus, and that he knew Jesus personally.

New dating done on the fragments of the gospels found show that all were most likely written between 40-65 CE, indicating eyewitness authors and accounts even if their names were not Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew has been dated to the year 40, making it almost surely an eyewitness account of the life of Christ.

We will probably never know for sure who wrote the gospels, but the newest dating techniques do tell us that they were all composed prior to the year 65 CE, something that lends itself to eyewitness information. If they were written as a "hoax," they would agree more on the little details, such as the Nativity accounts. Almost every Biblical scholar agrees that Jesus lived (even the Roman and Jewish authors, such as Josephus agree that he lived), he was baptized by John the Baptist, and he was crucified in either 30 or 33 CE by the order of Pontius Pilate. They do not agree on where he was born. Some believe Bethlehem, some believe Nazareth. Certainly Jesus, himself, considered himself a Nazarene.

Prettyplease validate and tell us more about that newest dating techniques wich tell us that the canonical gospels were all composed prior to the year 65 CE

Are you aware that . . .

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus[32]) view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[33] c. 65–70.[34]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[33] c. 80–85.[34]
John: c. 90–100,[34] c. 90–110,[35] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

[Regens Küchl]

False Claims Two, Three, Four and Five of LilytheTheologian :

NOTHING in antiquity had proven witnesses, as in they went before a notary, etc. and left behind their notarized signature attesting to the events, etc. There were no cameras, so no photos were recorded. No paintings since Jews of the time did not have their portraits painted.

Lily, did you get this misinformation from Bart Errorman?
Here, let Richard Carrier refute it for us:

The “No Records� Debacle: Ehrman declares (again with that same suicidally hyperbolic certitude) that “we simply don’t have birth notices, trial records, death certificates—or other kinds of records that one has today� (p. 29). Although his conclusion is correct (we should not expect to have any such records for Jesus or early Christianity), his premise is false. In fact, I cannot believe he said this. How can he not know that we have thousands of these kinds of records? Yes, predominantly from the sands of Egypt, but even in some cases beyond. I have literally held some of these documents in my very hands. More importantly, we also have such documents quoted or cited in books whose texts have survived. For instance, Suetonius references birth records for Caligula, and in fact his discussion of the sources on this subject is an example I have used of precisely the kind of historical research that is conspicuously lacking in any Christian literature before the third century (see Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 182-87).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

There is no evidence that Alexander the Great even existed, yet because people do not worship him today, he is taken to have existed. We can either accept antiquity as it is, or throw out all of it. (I believe Alexander the Great existed, but he might as well be just as much as myth as no "proof" exists for his exploits.)

Come Lord Carrier! Shine your light!

Okay, So What about the Historicity of Spartacus?
It’s always something. First it was, “We have better evidence for Jesus than for the contemporary emperor Tiberius.� Matthew Ferguson annihilated that one. Then it was, “We have better evidence for Jesus than for Alexander the Great.� Which I annihilated in On the Historicity of Jesus (pp. 21-24). Or it was, “We have better evidence for Jesus than for Socrates.� Which I also annihilated in OHJ (Chapter 8.2, “The Socrates Analogy�). Or it was, “We have better evidence for Jesus than for Pontius Pilate, the guy who allegedly killed him.� Which I’ve also annihilated. And then it was, “We have better evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar.� Which I just annihilated. Now the claim going around is, “We have better evidence for Jesus than for Spartacus,� the enslaved gladiator of Thrace (now mostly Bulgaria) who led a nearly successful slave revolt against the Romans in Italy in 73-70 B.C.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7924

As for the hypostatic union, Jesus was either Lord, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth, and there are many, and valid arguments showing that he was not a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. (Myth probably least of all.) Therefore, he was Lord, and divine.

Do they still teach C.S.Lewis False Trilemma on theological schools?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lewis_Trilemma

If you know the criteria for establishing a myth, you can easily, and fairly quickly, figure out why Christ cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be a myth.

OK, they have to teach that at theological schools, but the truth is:
Jesus Never Existed

[Danmark]

What evidence do you speak of? Are you familiar with the most modern dating techniques?

Recent scholarship of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate the authors named are most likely the actual authors. Modern dating techniques show all four gospels to have been written between 40-65, so all are most probably the work of eyewitnesses. They are works of theology, not history, so that has to be kept in mind.

New dating done on the fragments of the gospels found show that all were most likely written between 40-65 CE, indicating eyewitness authors and accounts even if their names were not Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew has been dated to the year 40, making it almost surely an eyewitness account of the life of Christ.

We will probably never know for sure who wrote the gospels, but the newest dating techniques do tell us that they were all composed prior to the year 65 CE, something that lends itself to eyewitness information.

You ARE aware, are you not, that the Dead Sea scrolls contain not even a single fragment of any of the Gospels?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Which is interesting since the documents found there are dated from 408 BCE to 233 CE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_da ... ea_Scrolls

You wrote:

New dating done on the fragments of the gospels found show that all were most likely written between 40-65 CE

Surely you are not referring to radiometric dating?
This from an evangelical site that questions a new proposed dating of a fragment of Mark from the 90's CE:
If the dating of this is accurate, this would be the oldest New Testament manuscript fragment discovered and a substantial discovery, since no one has yet found a first-century fragment. (The oldest fragment we know of is from the Gospel of John, called P52 ...and dated to the first half of the second century.)
Some caution is in order however....
http://tinyurl.com/mzumwaw

[1213]

The stories do not survive the academic historical critical approach.

To me that tells more about “academic historical critical approach� than about the Bible and its credibility.

Many of the 'documents' are admitted forgeries.

Would you please tell what 'documents' are admitted forgeries?

[joejoeson]

That's funny because I never really viewed the NT as a historical document, but I suppose Christians would want it to be seen as historical for obvious reasons. It is true as the OP said that the gospels were written years after the life of Jesus, even the Roman Catholic Church admits to this, and none of the gospels are the same. Sure they represent the same basic story but there are things added to each one, expanded upon, etc, so if they are so true, then why wouldn't they be the same? I suppose we could forgive the authors for this, it doesn't seem too outrageous since the Gospels do have similar things to them, but the problem is always the theological angle to it, if this book is holy and written with the help of God, then there shouldn't be any kind of discrepancies to the four gospels. So I'd say if one word is different between each gospels then that would indicate that God needlessly rewrote the gospels differently, four times. Then you have things like in the book of John which says contradictory things about the nature of Jesus, whether he is the Father or the Father is greater than him, so why are there differences at all between the gospels if it is so historically accurate? Thanks.