The Strawman Argument of Biblical Reliability (salvation, grace, translation, hell)

In the recent thread about why read the King James one poster linked a video of debates about Biblical Reliability - this issue has also recently come up on another thread as well. I have seen the others but I did not see the one with Bart Ehrman and James White. As such I am even more convinced that the subtle language use of these debates are set to give conclusions that seem to favor the apologists. As such I wanted to try to clear up what it is that they can and cannot claim.

When it comes to the reliability of the NT there is a subtle claim that informed believers make which misrepresents their opponent’s position and ultimately obfuscates the real points of their critic’s claims.

To summarize this position I will quote James White in his debate with Bart Erhman.

‘The skeptic must explain how the NT text can appear in history via multiple lines of transmission and yet each line presents the same text, yet without any controlling authority’ and ‘The original readings are still in the mss tradition.’ (Emphasis is in the original slide presented).

This sounds as if they ‘know’ or can reconstruct the original NT autographs. It also sounds as if their critics argue that the original cannot be found in the mss traditions.

No one argues that the original text of the mss tradition is not available within the mss that we now have before us. This argument stems from the fact that we have more information than we need to reconstruct that original. As Daniel Wallace has said we have 110% to work with in trying to figure out what the original was. So it is not that we have 95% of the information needed and are lacking 5% but that we have too much information (that is all the textual variants within all mss). This is the problem!

For example, if a verse has 6 readings, for a single word, from 3 lines of mss traditions, then from those 6 we know that one of them is the original that gave rise to those 3 traditions. The problem is that we cannot know which one of those 6 is the original - not that the original is not there given the information. White gave and analogy of a 1000 piece puzzle with 1100 pieces (not 900 pieces). But this analogy fails because a more accurate analogy would be if those extra 100 pieces were able to create 3 or 4 different 1000 piece puzzles – how do you know which one was the original puzzle? And the point of the critic is that no one knows what the original was let alone the original autographs.

As a side note, White claims that this over abundance of information in the mss evidence is how God chose to ‘Preserve’ the text. This is quite laughable given the doctrines of Inspiration and Inerrancy where God, the Almighty, All Knowing, etc., guides the human writers to write the autographs, without errors, but somehow fails to do this when someone copies it – of course this somehow glorifies God’s manifold wisdom – really, is this the best God can do given his abilities and precedent of inspiration?

This is a subtle sleight of hand that the apologists does when discussing these issues in order to make it seem that what the NT says is what God inspired and that you can trust it with all your precious little heart.

But there is another point that needs to be made regarding the term ‘original’ and ‘mss traditions.’ When people like White use the terms original and mss tradition they assume that the listener is going to think of the autographs but that is not the case.

What we have is three periods:

1) The historical facts of Christ – 30-33 A.D.
2) The Autographs – 55-90 A.D.
3) The Lines of Transmission – 250 A.D. onward. (This is the point where copies of the copies, etc. of the autographs gave rise to the different lines of transmission – the textual traditions).

Here we see more clearly what is being said when they say that the mss that we now have contain the original reading in the mss tradition – even if we do not know what the original mss tradition was let alone the autographs. And the autographs do not necessitate that they reflected the facts of history. Here we see that we are many steps removed from knowing what the autographs were.

It is noteworthy to remember that the earliest piece of the NT is a fragment of John called P52 dated to approximately 125 A.D. To say that this represents the autograph is foolish – in fact it is not even clear if this represents one of the textual traditions, even if you find the exact same wording (should say lettering) in later mss because it is so small of a sample of the whole book which these later textual traditions contain – we do not know what P52 contained in every other part of the ms to compare it with these traditions to see if it is one of them despite its wording/lettering being the same. P52 contains 114 Greek letters within John 18:31-33; 37-38. It is a very small Codex fragment that does not even contain the whole of those 5 verses. As an example I will give you the English translation of verses 31b-33 with the bolded part representing what is seen in P52.

… the Jews. For us it is not permitted to kill anyone so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke signifying what kind of death he was going to die. Entered therefore again into the Praetorium Pilate and summoned Jesus and said to him thou art king of the Jews?

What is being said by White and Wallace is that these lines of transmission (the textual traditions and all the variants within them) contain the ‘original’ that gave rise to them - not the autographs per se. The problem is that the ‘original’ of these textual traditions is far removed from the autographs. So not only can they not know what the original was that gave rise to the different lines of textual traditions, even though these mss contain that original, they cannot even touch what the autographs were and certainly nothing necessitates that the autographs represented the actual historical facts of Christ’s life.

Yet the way they speak of these facts really muddles the issue of Bart Ehrman’s point, which still stands, that we don’t know what the original autographs were not that the mss evidence does not contain the original, which gave rise to the textual traditions, even though we still cannot choose which original that might be.

The time period between these periods and the available mss that we have for each of them pretty much, at this point, seals the deal that we cannot know.

There is at least a 25 year gap between when the historical facts took place and when the first epistle was supposedly written (which were copied less than the Gospels – appox. 2/3 of the Greek mss are from the Gospels – that is over 3000 of the 5700+ mss that we have). The first Gospel that was written was Mark supposedly in approximately 66-70 A.D.

So ask yourself what period do the vast majority of mss start to appear? The first major material of the Gospel of Mark, which covers portions of 8 chapters, is dated to around 225 A.D. And we know that this gospel is completely different, in tone, from the other three that came later. Another way to ask this question is – how many mss do we have up to 200 A.D.? Answer – nil compared to the all other Greek mss – we have 10 papyri fragments 6 of which are dated at 200 A.D. (P52 125 A.D; P90; P104; and P98 150-200 A.D.; P32; P46; P66; P67; P77; and P103 200A.D.)

The reason I ask this is that it is important to see that the textual traditions actually start much later than when the autographs were written from which copies of copies of copies developed before the proliferation of mss representing these traditions. The point being that during each period there is copying errors that developed so that by the time you get to the ‘original’ that gives rise to all the textual traditions you are years removed from those autographs as well as the historical period. This ‘original’ is really a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. which took place over the previous century before the vast majority of mss start to appear. Also, most of the Christian ‘scribes’ of that period were not professional or even trained which is clear because the further back you go those mss have more errors, between themselves, than the later ones which were done by trained scribes.

Yes, the mss that we have CONTAIN the original that gave rise to these traditions – but we still do not know what that original was. That is how we study these mss traditions that go back to a point that is later in time than the original autographs – approximately 145-180 years later which itself is 25-60 years after the life of Christ. White says that the proliferation of these traditions is evidence that they were quick to write down and record these writings. This is laughable given that no one in the early Christian community saw it necessary to write anything until supposedly 55 A.D. and the Gospels were later than this -70-90 A.D. The proliferation started much later.

White also said that if there was corruption early on (70 A.D. up to 200-250 A.D.) prior to the time (after 200-250 A.D.) when this proliferation started and when we get copies that give rise to the textual traditions that we should/would have multiple textual traditions that would not lead back to an original that gave rise to these traditions. In other words you would have multiple-multiple traditions each with their own original that gave rise to each group of traditions that can be genealogically structured. Oh Vey!

So, if there was ‘corruption’ at the very beginning we might have an original that gives rise to one group of textual traditions - A, B, C, D, and another original that gave rise to another group of textual traditions A1, B2, and C3 and so on – each leading back to their own original that gave rise to each group of traditions.

Of course this is purely an assumption with nothing to back it up particularly since we don’t have the autographs or very many mss for the period up to 250 A.D. Furthermore, the period prior to 200-250 A.D. is where we have the least mss and which are the most discrepant – that is they have the most variants between them precisely because the scribes during this time were sloppier. Well if that is not grounds for ‘corruption’ (and this term does not necessitate only moral corruption but simple accidental corruption) of the text along with the fact that you have a gap between this original and the autographs as well then I don’t know what is. Why should we not expect that in this gap of time errors and corruption took place just as it always has?

White just assumes that the copy that gave rise to these traditions somehow is exactly as the original autograph 150-200 years earlier because all the mss that we have contain an original that gave rise to one group of textual traditions that can be genealogically structured without a governing authority. It completely misses the whole point and practical nature of human error with or without a governing authority. And let’s not forget that the earlier church had its own authority and its own religious infighting from the beginning and that a state authority controlling transmission is beside the point that Ehrman and others make.

The fact of the matter is that we have an autograph many decades later than the historical period and that this autograph gets copied then that gets copied and so on for approximately 150 years so that you end up losing the autograph and the first copy of the autograph and end up somewhere down the line with a copy that starts to proliferate into multiple textual traditions. These mss have enough information so that the original copy that gave rise to these traditions has the original in it but we still cannot decide what that is. That is the reality!

If this is compelling information that grants you as a Christian to take solace in these writings that they are what God gave you, as inspired and inerrant, then I feel sorry for you. This practice of phrasing the debate as ‘NT Reliability’ because the mss CONTAIN the original that gave rise to the textual traditions while suggesting that the critic/skeptic argues that it does not is a subtle trick and clearly fails. The critic/skeptic does not argue that these mss do not CONTAIN the original to the textual traditions that arose starting around 200-250 A.D. but that they don’t know what it is and that it does not matter when we are really in need of the autographs. Furthermore, even if we had the autographs this speaks nothing of the facts of history or whether they were inspired.

[TRANSPONDER]

That does indeed sound like a strawman to me.

The nub of the argument seems to be this:

"‘The skeptic must explain how the NT text can appear in history via multiple lines of transmission and yet each line presents the same text, yet without any controlling authority’ and ‘The original readings are still in the mss tradition.’ (Emphasis is in the original slide presented)."

For one thing, I don't believe the skeptic has to do any such thing. For a start to explain how it happened that way is to accept the suggestion that that was the way it happened. That has yet to be demonstrated by the Bible -believer.

I would ask them to explain how, if the lines of transmission are reliable, we seem to have (quite apart from non -canonical gospels, simply left out because the Roman church did not approve of them) a basic story of a very un -Christ -like figure, diverging in very significant ways into the synoptic version and the gospel of John, and then again being overlaid with a number of other sources, introducing contradictions - the 'Q' material, unknown to mark and the material common to Mark and Matthew but unknown to Luke, who evidently used some earlier version of the synoptic gospel, and he added 'Q' but split it between the sermon in Galilee and a lot of sayings on the way to Jerusalem.

This is not even to consider the individual additions of each of the writers.

In the face of this, to talk of what the skeptic has to explain in terms of the faithful transmission of the gospels is not so much a strawman but an absurd claim.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That does indeed sound like a strawman to me.

The nub of the argument seems to be this:

"‘The skeptic must explain how the NT text can appear in history via multiple lines of transmission and yet each line presents the same text, yet without any controlling authority’ and ‘The original readings are still in the mss tradition.’ (Emphasis is in the original slide presented)."

For one thing, I don't believe the skeptic has to do any such thing. For a start to explain how it happened that way is to accept the suggestion that that was the way it happened. That has yet to be demonstrated by the Bible -believer.

I would ask them to explain how, if the lines of transmission are reliable, we seem to have (quite apart from non -canonical gospels, simply left out because the Roman church did not approve of them) a basic story of a very un -Christ -like figure, diverging in very significant ways into the synoptic version and the gospel of John, and then again being overlaid with a number of other sources, introducing contradictions - the 'Q' material, unknown to mark and the material common to Mark and Matthew but unknown to Luke, who evidently used some earlier version of the synoptic gospel, and he added 'Q' but split it between the sermon in Galilee and a lot of sayings on the way to Jerusalem.

This is not even to consider the individual additions of each of the writers.

In the face of this, to talk of what the skeptic has to explain in terms of the faithful transmission of the gospels is not so much a strawman but an absurd claim.

This another good point. The gap between the autograph and the copy that gave rise to the textual traditions is full of non-canonical material. Who is to say how close any of this material might have been to not only the autographs but that actual history.

Just because material of the textual tradition won out, even without a governing authority like a state church does not mean that this material represents the history or the autographs.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

In the recent thread about why read the King James one poster linked a video of debates about Biblical Reliability - this issue has also recently come up on another thread as well. I have seen the others but I did not see the one with Bart Ehrman and James White. As such I am even more convinced that the subtle language use of these debates are set to give conclusions that seem to favor the apologists. As such I wanted to try to clear up what it is that they can and cannot claim.

When it comes to the reliability of the NT there is a subtle claim that informed believers make which misrepresents their opponent’s position and ultimately obfuscates the real points of their critic’s claims.

To summarize this position I will quote James White in his debate with Bart Erhman.

‘The skeptic must explain how the NT text can appear in history via multiple lines of transmission and yet each line presents the same text, yet without any controlling authority’ and ‘The original readings are still in the mss tradition.’ (Emphasis is in the original slide presented).

This sounds as if they ‘know’ or can reconstruct the original NT autographs. It also sounds as if their critics argue that the original cannot be found in the mss traditions.

No one argues that the original text of the mss tradition is not available within the mss that we now have before us. This argument stems from the fact that we have more information than we need to reconstruct that original. As Daniel Wallace has said we have 110% to work with in trying to figure out what the original was. So it is not that we have 95% of the information needed and are lacking 5% but that we have too much information (that is all the textual variants within all mss). This is the problem!

For example, if a verse has 6 readings, for a single word, from 3 lines of mss traditions, then from those 6 we know that one of them is the original that gave rise to those 3 traditions. The problem is that we cannot know which one of those 6 is the original - not that the original is not there given the information. White gave and analogy of a 1000 piece puzzle with 1100 pieces (not 900 pieces). But this analogy fails because a more accurate analogy would be if those extra 100 pieces were able to create 3 or 4 different 1000 piece puzzles – how do you know which one was the original puzzle? And the point of the critic is that no one knows what the original was let alone the original autographs.

As a side note, White claims that this over abundance of information in the mss evidence is how God chose to ‘Preserve’ the text. This is quite laughable given the doctrines of Inspiration and Inerrancy where God, the Almighty, All Knowing, etc., guides the human writers to write the autographs, without errors, but somehow fails to do this when someone copies it – of course this somehow glorifies God’s manifold wisdom – really, is this the best God can do given his abilities and precedent of inspiration?

This is a subtle sleight of hand that the apologists does when discussing these issues in order to make it seem that what the NT says is what God inspired and that you can trust it with all your precious little heart.

But there is another point that needs to be made regarding the term ‘original’ and ‘mss traditions.’ When people like White use the terms original and mss tradition they assume that the listener is going to think of the autographs but that is not the case.

What we have is three periods:

1) The historical facts of Christ – 30-33 A.D.
2) The Autographs – 55-90 A.D.
3) The Lines of Transmission – 250 A.D. onward. (This is the point where copies of the copies, etc. of the autographs gave rise to the different lines of transmission – the textual traditions).

Here we see more clearly what is being said when they say that the mss that we now have contain the original reading in the mss tradition – even if we do not know what the original mss tradition was let alone the autographs. And the autographs do not necessitate that they reflected the facts of history. Here we see that we are many steps removed from knowing what the autographs were.

It is noteworthy to remember that the earliest piece of the NT is a fragment of John called P52 dated to approximately 125 A.D. To say that this represents the autograph is foolish – in fact it is not even clear if this represents one of the textual traditions, even if you find the exact same wording (should say lettering) in later mss because it is so small of a sample of the whole book which these later textual traditions contain – we do not know what P52 contained in every other part of the ms to compare it with these traditions to see if it is one of them despite its wording/lettering being the same. P52 contains 114 Greek letters within John 18:31-33; 37-38. It is a very small Codex fragment that does not even contain the whole of those 5 verses. As an example I will give you the English translation of verses 31b-33 with the bolded part representing what is seen in P52.

… the Jews. For us it is not permitted to kill anyone so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke signifying what kind of death he was going to die. Entered therefore again into the Praetorium Pilate and summoned Jesus and said to him thou art king of the Jews?

What is being said by White and Wallace is that these lines of transmission (the textual traditions and all the variants within them) contain the ‘original’ that gave rise to them - not the autographs per se. The problem is that the ‘original’ of these textual traditions is far removed from the autographs. So not only can they not know what the original was that gave rise to the different lines of textual traditions, even though these mss contain that original, they cannot even touch what the autographs were and certainly nothing necessitates that the autographs represented the actual historical facts of Christ’s life.

Yet the way they speak of these facts really muddles the issue of Bart Ehrman’s point, which still stands, that we don’t know what the original autographs were not that the mss evidence does not contain the original, which gave rise to the textual traditions, even though we still cannot choose which original that might be.

The time period between these periods and the available mss that we have for each of them pretty much, at this point, seals the deal that we cannot know.

There is at least a 25 year gap between when the historical facts took place and when the first epistle was supposedly written (which were copied less than the Gospels – appox. 2/3 of the Greek mss are from the Gospels – that is over 3000 of the 5700+ mss that we have). The first Gospel that was written was Mark supposedly in approximately 66-70 A.D.

So ask yourself what period do the vast majority of mss start to appear? The first major material of the Gospel of Mark, which covers portions of 8 chapters, is dated to around 225 A.D. And we know that this gospel is completely different, in tone, from the other three that came later. Another way to ask this question is – how many mss do we have up to 200 A.D.? Answer – nil compared to the all other Greek mss – we have 10 papyri fragments 6 of which are dated at 200 A.D. (P52 125 A.D; P90; P104; and P98 150-200 A.D.; P32; P46; P66; P67; P77; and P103 200A.D.)

The reason I ask this is that it is important to see that the textual traditions actually start much later than when the autographs were written from which copies of copies of copies developed before the proliferation of mss representing these traditions. The point being that during each period there is copying errors that developed so that by the time you get to the ‘original’ that gives rise to all the textual traditions you are years removed from those autographs as well as the historical period. This ‘original’ is really a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. which took place over the previous century before the vast majority of mss start to appear. Also, most of the Christian ‘scribes’ of that period were not professional or even trained which is clear because the further back you go those mss have more errors, between themselves, than the later ones which were done by trained scribes.

Yes, the mss that we have CONTAIN the original that gave rise to these traditions – but we still do not know what that original was. That is how we study these mss traditions that go back to a point that is later in time than the original autographs – approximately 145-180 years later which itself is 25-60 years after the life of Christ. White says that the proliferation of these traditions is evidence that they were quick to write down and record these writings. This is laughable given that no one in the early Christian community saw it necessary to write anything until supposedly 55 A.D. and the Gospels were later than this -70-90 A.D. The proliferation started much later.

White also said that if there was corruption early on (70 A.D. up to 200-250 A.D.) prior to the time (after 200-250 A.D.) when this proliferation started and when we get copies that give rise to the textual traditions that we should/would have multiple textual traditions that would not lead back to an original that gave rise to these traditions. In other words you would have multiple-multiple traditions each with their own original that gave rise to each group of traditions that can be genealogically structured. Oh Vey!

So, if there was ‘corruption’ at the very beginning we might have an original that gives rise to one group of textual traditions - A, B, C, D, and another original that gave rise to another group of textual traditions A1, B2, and C3 and so on – each leading back to their own original that gave rise to each group of traditions.

Of course this is purely an assumption with nothing to back it up particularly since we don’t have the autographs or very many mss for the period up to 250 A.D. Furthermore, the period prior to 200-250 A.D. is where we have the least mss and which are the most discrepant – that is they have the most variants between them precisely because the scribes during this time were sloppier. Well if that is not grounds for ‘corruption’ (and this term does not necessitate only moral corruption but simple accidental corruption) of the text along with the fact that you have a gap between this original and the autographs as well then I don’t know what is. Why should we not expect that in this gap of time errors and corruption took place just as it always has?

White just assumes that the copy that gave rise to these traditions somehow is exactly as the original autograph 150-200 years earlier because all the mss that we have contain an original that gave rise to one group of textual traditions that can be genealogically structured without a governing authority. It completely misses the whole point and practical nature of human error with or without a governing authority. And let’s not forget that the earlier church had its own authority and its own religious infighting from the beginning and that a state authority controlling transmission is beside the point that Ehrman and others make.

The fact of the matter is that we have an autograph many decades later than the historical period and that this autograph gets copied then that gets copied and so on for approximately 150 years so that you end up losing the autograph and the first copy of the autograph and end up somewhere down the line with a copy that starts to proliferate into multiple textual traditions. These mss have enough information so that the original copy that gave rise to these traditions has the original in it but we still cannot decide what that is. That is the reality!

If this is compelling information that grants you as a Christian to take solace in these writings that they are what God gave you, as inspired and inerrant, then I feel sorry for you. This practice of phrasing the debate as ‘NT Reliability’ because the mss CONTAIN the original that gave rise to the textual traditions while suggesting that the critic/skeptic argues that it does not is a subtle trick and clearly fails. The critic/skeptic does not argue that these mss do not CONTAIN the original to the textual traditions that arose starting around 200-250 A.D. but that they don’t know what it is and that it does not matter when we are really in need of the autographs. Furthermore, even if we had the autographs this speaks nothing of the facts of history or whether they were inspired.

Excellent analysis, Shiloh!

[thrillobyte]

The easiest way to know the gospels were written after 70 AD is to realize the writers could not have known the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent in 66-70 AD, therefore they could not have written Jesus' "Little Apocalypse" until AFTER the destruction had been completed. With hindsight Mark could then construct Jesus' words about Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles (Romans), but not before.

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

The easiest way to know the gospels were written after 70 AD is to realize the writers could not have known the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent in 66-70 AD, therefore they could not have written Jesus' "Little Apocalypse" until AFTER the destruction had been completed. With hindsight Mark could then construct Jesus' words about Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles (Romans), but not before.

Sigh.

Jesus was an apocalyptic, and as such well within the Jewish prophetic tradition. I mean, how many of the OT prophets spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and the wrath of God etc etc etc?

Like all us us, gifted with 20-20 hindsight, the Gospel writers took the words out of context and low and behold, an actual event was "predicted".

When I was a kid I remember hearing the thumper televangelists talking about the United States and the British Commonwealth prophesied in the Bible. I can remember my grandfather telling me that somewhere among the OT prophesies were descriptions of modern automobiles and the consequences of their existence.

In psychology it is called cognitive dissonance. We interpret the past based upon the present.

[TRANSPONDER]

There are three possible ways of looking at the 'destruction of the temple' prophecy.

(a) It was a real prophecy that jesus made, knowing what was going to happen.

(b) it was piece of apolcalyptic guesswork on his part, which just happened to come true. (that at least is the nearest to finding automobilessin the Bible - the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem surrounded by armies is a bit more specific than that)

(c) the prophecy was written in after the event.

Let me make a prediction of my own. If it had been written in later - say by whoever it was who wrote the original version of the Synoptic gospel, it should not be found in the gospel of John. Is it?

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There are three possible ways of looking at the 'destruction of the temple' prophecy.

(a) It was a real prophecy that jesus made, knowing what was going to happen.

(b) it was piece of apolcalyptic guesswork on his part, which just happened to come true. (that at least is the nearest to finding automobilessin the Bible - the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem surrounded by armies is a bit more specific than that)

(c) the prophecy was written in after the event.

Let me make a prediction of my own. If it had been written in later - say by whoever it was who wrote the original version of the Synoptic gospel, it should not be found in the gospel of John. Is it?

I've stated my theory. Your analysis is not unreasonable.

I am at that point in my life where I dont want to spend all of my time parsing this that and the other. Keerist you atheists share a lot with the thumpers. i have my beliefs and they give me comfort in these my last days. But I still can think and I still can recognize a good argument. Doesnt mean I am going to jump to the dark side

[TRANSPONDER]

I am getting a sorta feeling of deja vu as I say 'nobody is asking you to' .

A point was made about reliably transmitted gospel accounts, and I explained why I thought the evidence debunked the idea from the start.

It is saying that I (and maybe others) do not buy the Gospel Jesus for that reason. If others perefer to believe on Faith, that's fine. Just so long as they don't try to claim that it is based on a reliable Gospel account.

Now, as to why I spend so much time on the matter, there are two - maybe three main reasons

(1) Because Christian apologists try to argue that the Gospels are reliable eyewitness accounts. The argue in depth, extensively and at length. You can hardly blame us for having to put in an equal amount of effort in refuting these claims.

(2) it is a fascinating research study in itself. Penetrating the mysteries of the gospels and how they were written, which tells us why, and thus by whom, has been a pleasurable and rewarding research subject for me.

and a possible (3) So far as I know, nobody else has done this work, the 'lives of the Real Jesus that i have seen preferring to begin with a conclusion (Jesus was an intinerant rabbi; Jesus was a Herodian agent, Jesus has really caesar, Jesus was a Hasmonean pretender) and then looking in the gospel text for anything that supports that theory and what doesn't they read in between the lines.

maybe I have done that too, but I flatter myself that i have looked at ALL the gospel text and answered all the problems and come to conclusions based on that study. So the '3' is that this work needed to be done.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by chuckmann

Sigh.

Jesus was an apocalyptic, and as such well within the Jewish prophetic tradition. I mean, how many of the OT prophets spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and the wrath of God etc etc etc?

Like all us us, gifted with 20-20 hindsight, the Gospel writers took the words out of context and low and behold, an actual event was "predicted".

When I was a kid I remember hearing the thumper televangelists talking about the United States and the British Commonwealth prophesied in the Bible. I can remember my grandfather telling me that somewhere among the OT prophesies were descriptions of modern automobiles and the consequences of their existence.

In psychology it is called cognitive dissonance. We interpret the past based upon the present.

If one of the "authentic" letters of Paul (and I don't take Paul to be a real apostle; I take him to be a false one, not called by God but having had an epileptic seizure or something on the Damascus road) but if one of his authentic letters had contained something to the effect "The Romans will destroy Jerusalem in 25 years time, and it actually happened 25 years later, I'd have to seriously reconsider my position.

But from we have, Paul never mentions anything about the historical Christ or what He said or did while on earth; all his epistles contain are vague references to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and salvation by faith through grace--which isn't even a genuine Pauline belief since the infamous verse which has caused all this trouble between salvation by works vs salvations by faith was not even written by Paul nor did it even originate with Paul (Ephesians is one of the phony Pauline epistle). Nor does Paul ever mention anything that can be construed as reliable historical context--just his own gibberish about what he claims to get through divine revelation from Jesus Himself.

Consequently, 99% of what Paul has to say are his own subjective opinions about how Christianity should operate wrapped in a claim that he got his doctrine through divine revelation from Jesus. Let me remind the reader that Mary K Baxter also claims to have gotten her knowledge of hell as being a torture chamber through divine revelation from Jesus exactly as Paul claims. Do we take Baxter's rants to be divine inspiration? Why should we take Paul's then?

In conclusion we have absolutely no evidence that anyone connected with Jesus, including Jesus Himself, knew or made any reliable historical record of the destruction of Jerusalem before it happened. Everything we have prior to 70 AD never mentions anything prophetic that came to pass; everything we have that seems to prophesize the destruction of Jerusalem has historically been proven to have come well after the event; hence it's not prophecy, just history.