U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:02 PM
 
Location: GOVERNMENT of TRAITORS & NAZIS
20,550 posts, read 22,709,293 times
Reputation: 7625

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
It shouldn't be difficult to understand that by comparing the extant manuscript copies it is possible to identify the variants and get back to the original text.

As for Bart Ehrman, this is his statement concerning what scholars say about the issue.
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
What is silly is your statement that what was said or implied is that ''the lack of ORIGINALS prove the copies are 99% accurate.''

What is said by the New Testament textual critics is that the original text can be mostly reconstructed by comparing the extant manuscripts and identifying and eliminating the variants, thus being able to determine what was originally written.

I provided the statements of the top textual critics, and I showed the kinds of variants that are present in the manuscripts.

The simple fact of the matter is that our present Bible is some 99 percent faithful to the original text. And you might try studying what is involved in New Testament textual criticism before dismissing it.
That is exactly what you posted---

Quote:
New Testament textual critics state that what we have is around 99 percent accurate to the original text. You might ask how can we know that since we don't have the originals with which to compare them. If we had the originals there would be no need for textual criticism which by comparing all the extant manuscript copies can recover most of the original text by identifying and filtering out what was not in the originals. In other words, what was in the original text can be found among the many extant manuscript copies. The goal of textual criticism is to identify the original text by comparing the copies and identifying the variants thus leaving the original text. We will probably never have 100 percent accuracy, but again, textual critics say we have around 99 percent accuracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:20 PM
 
20,291 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Bart Ehrman:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyi15_npTj8 (3-minute video clip Ehrman vs Evans)

That last one is big. Christian can argue Jesus wasn't important enough to be written about by the Romans although both Luke and Mark testify that his fame spread throughout all the region and into other countries. Yet not a single letter in the thousands of private correspondences uncovered in the period ever mentions a man from Galilee who works marvelous miracles and was crucified.
Attempting to use Bart Ehrman to cast doubt on whether Jesus existed when he wrote a book defending the fact that Jesus did exist, and in large part, used the Gospels to do so, is unwise.
'Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.' Published in 2012.

https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exi.../dp/0062204602
While Ehrman doesn't believe everything in the Gospels, he recognizes them as valid historical sources.
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they must be recognized as historical sources of information.'' [p. 71]

''The (sometime) atheist opinion of the Bible as nonhistorical is no better than the (typical) fundamentalist opinion.'' [p.72]

''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.'' [p.73]

''So too the Gospels. Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources.'' [p. 74]


Ehrman's statement in the video that the Gospels don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses is not entirely true. As I stated in post #12 of this thread, the Gospel of John does indeed claim to have been written by an eyewitness.
At the end of the Gospel of John (21:20-24) the writer is identified as the beloved disciple who leaned upon the breast of Jesus at the last supper. The words, ''This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things,'' in verse 24 refer to ''the disciple whom Jesus loved'' in verse 20. And the Gospel of John was one of the last of the New Testament letters to have been written, probably somewhere around A.D. 95.



F. F. Bruce, (1910-1990), Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England comments,
Here we have a plain statement that the beloved disciple is the real author of the Gospel. Even if the words 'who wrote these things' do not mean that his hand held the pen, any more than the language of John 19:19 means that Pilate with his own hand wrote the inscription which was fixed to the cross, they do point to him as the guarantor of the record. 'These things' cannot be confined to the narrative of chapter 21; indeed, since chapter 21 has the nature of an epilogue, they may refer more directly to the preceding chapters than to this. The claim then, is that the witness to the truth of this Gospel is one who was in close touch with all that is described in it.

The Gospel of John, F. F. Bruce, p. 409

Dr. Edwin A. Blum writes,
The fourth Gospel ends with information about its composition. The beloved disciple is identified as the author (cf. comments on ''Authorship'' in the Introduction). The first sentence in verse 24 may have been someone other than John, but the wording sounds Johannine (cf. 19:35). These things most likely refer to the entire Gospel. The words, We know that his testimony is true, were probably written by someone other than John. They are an endorsement, perhaps by the Ephesian church, or a testimony from the early church as a whole. They were certainly in a position to know the facts better than any generation since then.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 346
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:51 PM
 
20,291 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28 View Post
That is exactly what you posted---
No, I did not say or even remotely imply that ''the lack of ORIGINALS prove the copies are 99% accurate.''

Once again, I said, as do the New Testament textual critics, that by comparing the extant manuscript copies, the variants can be identified and filtered out in order to determine what the original text is. Not that the original text will probably ever be 100 percent identified, but that 99 percent of the text is not in doubt by the New Testament textual critics.

The distinction between what I said and what you seem to think I said is not difficult to see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 06:55 PM
 
8,539 posts, read 11,869,117 times
Reputation: 3081
The fact that the LINEAGE of Jesus is traced back through so many fictional characters in the Old Testament (all the way back to Adam) indicates that Jesus, at least the character portrayed in the gospels, was fictional. There is absolutely no other way to interpret it.

But I do believe that the character was based on a real person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,991,179 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
Where are the historical records written DURING his time?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965 View Post
Well, a few more educated Jews than I have said that he was just a Rabbi with a small following...
And you don't trust your more educated Jews.

Historical records of Jesus time a the gospels. Don't forget the 3 historians actually back up what is mentioned in those gospels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,991,179 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
In what way are they against me?

You're listing people who wrote 70 to 120 years AFTER Jesus died and you're trying to make us believe that just the mention of Chrestus is enough to prove that Jesus rose from the dead when NOT a single one even mentions resurrection. How gullible and naive do you think we really are??????????????????

NONE of the people you list, pneuma, mentions Jesus resurrecting. I told you this is your collective imaginations jumping to the conclusion he did just because a handful (a VERY small handful--less than 5) mentions him 100 years later.

And then someone says, "I am getting so sick of these unbelievers demanding proof!!!!!!

Oh, I just couldn't stop laughing. Like you guys wouldn't demand proof if a bunch of us came in here saying Zeus was actually Jesus....Zesus = Jesus.

Again, I'll say as many times as it needs to be said. Maybe someone will finally wake up:

From the Washington Post, as about a conservative neutral reporting source as you can get:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.0fddb71fa750



That's what I keep asking for and they keep dodging answering a straight question, playing a shell game with us instead.

"We have historical records"
"When were they written?"
"Well, 100 years after Jesus died, but what does that matter?"
"Are they eyewitnesses to his resurrection? Were they even in Israel at the time?"
"How could they be? They were written 100 years after he died, but again what does that matter? I'm getting so sick and tired of your skeptics demanding proof he actually lived!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post

Historical records of Jesus time are the gospels. Don't forget the 3 historians actually back up what is mentioned in those gospels.
And you keep changing what you asked for, you only ask for a historical record stating a man named Jesus lived. You NEVER asked for one about a resurrection.

You know I answered your inquiry, don't like it so you add something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,991,179 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
If that's your standard of evidence, then hardly anyone existed prior to 1000 years ago. There is no such evidence for most ancient figures.
That correct, the is less evidence outside the OT that Moses, Abraham, Issac and Jacob existed then there is Jesus did. Richard knows this, but when it comes to Jesus he kind of forget it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,991,179 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Oh dear! Here they come again! The tired old Christian apologetics of Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius et al. Soundly debunked so many times that apologists that use them these days are simply laughed at.

No. There are no historical records.

Nonsense!
You are free to believe that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,991,179 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutdude View Post
was there a historical jesus

it doesn't matter.

The genie is out of the bottle. And now there's 30,000+ variations of it flying around.
:d lol

Last edited by pneuma; 08-19-2016 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2016, 07:17 PM
 
16,062 posts, read 9,228,838 times
Reputation: 7148
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Bart Ehrman:




That last one is big. Christians can argue Jesus wasn't important enough to be written about by the Romans although both Luke and Mark testify that his fame spread throughout all the region and into other countries. Yet not a single letter in the thousands of private correspondences uncovered in the period ever mentions a man from Galilee who works marvelous miracles and was crucified.
How many 1st century letters from Palestine exist?????

Oh, the epistles are ... letters from that region, so such do exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top