Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 106 of 306 (494541)
01-16-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
01-15-2009 12:58 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Peter said that He "committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22). Where's the less than perfect God-man there ?
Well, I dunno, there`s that little matter of STEALING a herd of pigs, and DROWNING them in a lake. Maybe the Gerasene/Gadarene/Gergesan lawyers told the owners to drop the case when they heard of the crucifixion of Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 01-15-2009 12:58 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 01-17-2009 7:41 AM Nighttrain has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 306 (494548)
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


I have just finished scan reading the thread. Perhaps relative to topic we need to compare the Biblical record with other ancient historical knowledge related manuscripts.
Among all of he authors, let's assume that just one, Matthew, who was a disciple of Jesus and knew him well, was the only writer of the New Testament, not to mention all the others.
What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact?
Manuscript (MS) Contains: Date Eyewitness page ref. Notes
Magdalen Papyrus (P64) Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Before 66 A.D. 125 3
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D.
"could be as early as A.D. 50" 46 4
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q4 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 Before 68 A.D. 140 5
Barcelona Papyrus (P67) Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28 Before 66 A.D. 68-71 6
Paris Papyrus (P4) Luke 3:23, 5:36 "not much later" than 66 A.D. 70 7
Pauline Codex (P46) Paul's Epistles (??) 85 A.D. 70-71
Bodmer Papyrus (II) (Johannine Codex P66) Gospel of John, "near complete" 125 A.D. 71
P32 ? 175 A.D. 71
P45 ? 150 A.D. 71
P77 ? 150 A.D. 71
P87 ? 125 A.D. 71
P90 ? 150 A.D. 71
John Rylands Greek 457 (P52) John 18:31-33, 37-38 100-125 A.D. 115, 126, 138 8
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2683 (P77) Matthew 23:30-39 150 A.D. 126
P. Oxyrhynchus 2 (P1) Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20 "not much later" than P4 (ca. 100 A.D.?) 126 9
P. Oxyrhynchus 3523 (P90) John 18:36-19:7 ca. 125-150 A.D.? 127
What about complete or nearly complete copies of the New Testament?
(From McDowell, pp. 46-48)
Manuscript (MS) Date Notes
Chester Beatty Papyri 200 A.D. Much but not all of NT on papyrus.
Codex Vaticanus 325-350 A.D. A codex is a book, as opposed to a papyrus scroll.
Codex Sinaiticus 350 A.D.
Codex Alexandrinus 400 A.D.
Codex Ephraemi 400 A.D.
Codex Bezae 450 A.D.+
Codex Washingtonensis ca. 450 A.D.
Codex Claromontanus 500's A.D.
What other evidence exists that supports the belief that the NT was written sooner rather than later?
In addition to the NT MSS themselves, we have the writings of the Church Fathers, early Christian writers who quoted from the NT. To quote extensively from books and epistles (letters) of the NT those books and letters must already have been written and be in circulation.
The number of such quotations of the Bible known from early Christian literature is vast - over 36,000 quotes are known from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (McDowell, p. 52). Sir David Dalrymple once asked himself the question, "Suppose that the New Testament had been destroyed, and every copy of it lost by the end of the 3rd century, could it have been collected together again from the writing of the Fathers of the second and third centuries?"
His answer? "...as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses." (McDowell, pp. 50-51)
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html?200916

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Brian, posted 01-17-2009 4:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 119 by Nighttrain, posted 01-17-2009 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 120 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-17-2009 9:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 121 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-17-2009 9:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-19-2009 10:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 108 of 306 (494599)
01-17-2009 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by jaywill
01-16-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Yes or No?
Is the Gospel of Matthew an anonymous work?
Yes or No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jaywill, posted 01-16-2009 12:07 PM jaywill has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 109 of 306 (494600)
01-17-2009 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D.
"could be as early as A.D. 50" 46 4
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q4 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 Before 68 A.D. 140 5
There were no NT texts at Qumran Buz.
You really should do your homework instead of being so gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-17-2009 11:15 AM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 110 of 306 (494605)
01-17-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by jaywill
01-16-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Yes or No?
Have you forgotten so soon, You're not INTERESTED ANYWAY. Remember?
I am not interested in Jesus, that much is obvious, and I find the New testament the most boring collection of texts of all time.
However, what I AM interested in is the personal integrity of so-called Christians.
I am interested in finding a Christian who challenges my opinion of Christians. Now I think that the majority of Christians are ignorant, moronic, gullible, lying, deluded, hatred-filled, unfortunate, self-centred people.
So far, you are not doing much to change my opinion.
I await your 'yes' or 'no' answer, which is a test that you have failed so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jaywill, posted 01-16-2009 12:07 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 111 of 306 (494617)
01-17-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Nighttrain
01-16-2009 6:35 PM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
Well, I dunno, there`s that little matter of STEALING a herd of pigs, and DROWNING them in a lake. Maybe the Gerasene/Gadarene/Gergesan lawyers told the owners to drop the case when they heard of the crucifixion of Jesus?
I didn't see anything about Jesus stealing pigs.
That's stupid. Maybe you want to also say that when He stopped the storm on the lake He stole the rain water from the farmers on shore.
Or when He healed the lepers He stole some patients from the local medical doctors.
Or when He fed the crowd of 5000 with a few bread and fishes He stole the revenue from the fish markets and bread sellers in town.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Nighttrain, posted 01-16-2009 6:35 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-17-2009 8:08 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 118 by Nighttrain, posted 01-17-2009 7:51 PM jaywill has not replied

8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 112 of 306 (494618)
01-17-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by jaywill
01-17-2009 7:41 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
I think Night Train was referring to Matthew 8:28-34 where the devil was cast out of this guy and into a nearby herd of pigs..and they all ran and jumped into a lake. Is that technically Jesus stealing? After all, the devil really did it. And the pigs should have known better than to feed near a possessed lunatic.
I do agree that Jesus showed no concern for the pigs and probably could have been found guilty of conspiracy to drown the pigs. He should have paid for the pigs..but he had no money. If he could bring a man back to life...a herd of pigs should have been a piece of cake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 01-17-2009 7:41 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jaywill, posted 01-17-2009 8:48 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 113 of 306 (494621)
01-17-2009 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by 8upwidit2
01-17-2009 8:08 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
They didn't ask to be paid for the pigs. They did ask Him to go away. And He did. And as far as I know He is never seen going in that region again.
Their loss turned out to be much greater than a herd of swine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by 8upwidit2, posted 01-17-2009 8:08 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 114 of 306 (494623)
01-17-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Huntard
01-16-2009 2:27 PM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
nothing except maths can ever be proven.
There are a few criminals behind bars that might beg to differ with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Huntard, posted 01-16-2009 2:27 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 01-17-2009 10:29 AM jaywill has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 115 of 306 (494632)
01-17-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by jaywill
01-17-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
jaywill writes:
There are a few criminals behind bars that might beg to differ with you.
Like the innocent ones?
I meant that nothing can ever be proven to 100%. Except in maths. I just don't like using the word proof. I use evidence instead. As do courts by the way. They see something as proven beyond reasonable doubt, not as 100% proven. But anyway, care to give your thoughts on the rest of my reply? I don't think disagreeing over the use of a word will get us anywhere, so fine, if you want to use proof for it, ok go ahead, I won't whine about it.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jaywill, posted 01-17-2009 8:56 AM jaywill has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 116 of 306 (494636)
01-17-2009 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Brian
01-17-2009 4:12 AM


Brian writes:
There were no NT texts at Qumran Buz. You really should do your homework instead of being so gullible.
This isn't just being gullible it is deliberate ignorance and cherry picking sources to support an obviously errant viewpoint. BTW, one of the prevailing theories of the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that of an Essenes-like group, a mystic sect of Jews that existed in the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD, who collected and stored the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew Bible manuscripts i.e. Old Testament) in the caves of Qumran. Jesus was not Essene/Qumramite, so why would Essene/Qumranite Jews be collecting writings from disciples of Jesus in the first place?
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D.
Here is what this suspected "New Testament" manuscript of Mark looks like:
from this greek scholars can make out several fragmented koine greek letters:




That's it. There are several arguments for this fragment fitting the description of being a fragment of Mark 6:52-53 but many counterarguments as well shown here and in fact as Wikipedia so eloquently states:
wikipedia writes:
The majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's identification and it is "now virtually universally rejected"
This is further amplified with verifiable sources which back up this statement:
1. Dr. Wayne McCready, Professor of Western Religions at the University of Calgary, Director of the Calgary Institute for the Humanities, previous President of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, Co-Chairman of the Conference on Second Temple Judaism and recognized subject matter expert in second temple Judaism and the origins of Christianity, says in his peer-review article "The Historical Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls":
McCready writes:
Jose O'Callaghan has proposed that Greek fragments in Cave 7 were from a number of New Testament texts, including Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, James and 2 Peter. He is most certain about fragments identified with 1 Timothy (7Q4) and Mark (7Q5). On the whole, O'Callaghan's thesis has met with scholarly skeptism since the fragments are small, almost illegible, and his strongest case does not agree with known versions of Mark.
further his footnotes specifies that
Dr. McCready writes:
Greek fragments of Jewish scripture (e.g. Lev, Num, and Deut) were found in cave 4, and in addition to Greek versions of Exodus and the Letter of Jeremiah (an appendix of Beruch) 17 unidentified Greek fragments were found in Cave 7.
so just because these fragments are in Greek does not implicitly dictate that they are manuscripts of Christian origins.
2. Dr. A. R. Millard, Emeritus Professor of Hebrew/Ancient Semitic Languages and History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, and Honorary Senior Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool states in "Reading and Writing in the time of Jesus":
Dr. Millard writes:
In 1955 archaeologists exploring caves near the Dead Sea hoping to find more "Dead Sea Scrolls" entered one (Cave 7) and extracted 18 pieces of Greek papyrus rolls from the floor, with three small lumps of mud which carried in reverse the writings of other fragments transferred by dampness from papyrus which had later perished. Intensive scrutiny enabled M. Baillet, who edited the fragments for the official publication, to recognize one piece as Exod. 28.4-6 and another as part a copy of the apocryphal book of Baruch, containing 6.43-44. The others were left unidentified until 1972 when a Spanish papyrological scholar, J. O'Callaghan, published his identifications of some of them as remnants of book of the New Testament. As it is usually suspected the owners deposited the papyri in the caves at the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is about 67 or 68 AD, his work won wide publicity, for none of the Gospels had usually been dated so early. Were these fragments from New Testament books made before this date? The cave could have served as a hiding place later than the main collections of Hebrew scrolls, but the style of Greek script set these pieces in the early part of the first century AD, or earlier, so their age is not really in doubt. As soon as O'Callaghan's study was circulated, responses flowed from New Testament scholars and paleographers, all agreeing that the pieces are too small to support the identifications proposed, some arguing that others could be made from non-Christian Greek books. Interest waned as those most competent to judge showed that basis for the identification was weak. The fact that these fragments could not be identified is not unusual in the study of Greek papyri where many pieces, some much larger, suffer the same fate. It is equally true for some of the tatters among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Without an ancient copyright library holding an example of every published book, it is impossible to place each piece in a known book, and, in any case, a fragment may come from a unique work that only ever existed in a single copy which modern students could have no hope for identifying unless a considerable amount of text or some key words survived. However, further study has shown that three pieces fit together and they have been identified as parts of the Greek version of the book of Enoch.
These are just a few critiques of Jose O'Callaghan analysis of these papyrus fragments.
Buzz, to me your claims of these external evidences supporting the validity of the "New Testament" Jesus are highly speculative (notice I am not contesting the actual existence of a person named Jesus who may or may not have existed but rather that of the persona of Jesus written about in the New Testament). I will continue to research your other "sources" and examine their validity.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Brian, posted 01-17-2009 4:12 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Brian, posted 01-17-2009 5:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 117 of 306 (494675)
01-17-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by DevilsAdvocate
01-17-2009 11:15 AM


Buz will do anything...
Thanks for the post DA.
Buz, like so many other fundies, will accept any old garbage that he thinks supports the Bible, even if it contradicts an earlier claim that he has made for some other Bible error.
It makes me very sad that so many people have wasted their life away in a pool of ignorance that keeps this myth of Christ alive.
These people claim to love the Bible yet they insult it every day of their lives with the embarrassing grabage they serve up as 'evidence' to support its veracity.
If you think citing Callaghan and Theide's 'NT' texts at Qumran is willful ignorance, you should have a look at the tripe served up by Buz in the Exodus threads!
Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-17-2009 11:15 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 118 of 306 (494686)
01-17-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jaywill
01-17-2009 7:41 AM


Re: Reasons to believe they told the truth
I didn't see anything about Jesus stealing pigs.
That's stupid
The only thing stupid around here is the inability of some folk to read.
Who disturbed the demons? Where were they permitted to go? What happened next? At the end of the day who were minus a herd? Possibly families starving as a result.
Funny that archaeology has never turned up any bone collection in the Sea of Galilee. But then they have never turned up anything relating to Jesus and gang anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 01-17-2009 7:41 AM jaywill has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 119 of 306 (494689)
01-17-2009 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


Dodgy Dates
Ah, Buz, the old 'I`ve-got-more-MS-than-you-so-I-have-to-be-right ploy. Unfortunately, Carsten Peter Theide and-gasp-Josh Mcdowell aren`t great places to start. Try reading Metzger-Text of the New Testament-instead of pot-boilers like Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Pap--- yours--- mine
P1---- c.100--- 3C.
P4---- 66--- 3C.
P32--- 175--- c.2C.
P45--- 150--- early 3C.
P46--- 85--- c.200
P52--- 100-125---c.2C.
P64--- pre-66--- c.200
P66--- 125--- c.200
P67--- pre-66--- c.200
P77--- 150--- 2-3C.
P87--- 125--- 3C.
P90--- 150--- 2C.
Sourced from Metzger and here:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html
Well, you did get close with 4/12
I think Carsten Theide has resiled from those early dates and many scholars dismiss his claims to correlation between the DSS and the NT.
Admittedly, paleography isn`t an exact science, more an art. With a wide margin. But not that wide.
Dunno what you are trying to prove with the codices as they contradict each other. (see Metzger and others)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 120 of 306 (494695)
01-17-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


Buzzsaw writes:
I have just finished scan reading the thread. Perhaps relative to topic we need to compare the Biblical record with other ancient historical knowledge related manuscripts.
Among all of he authors, let's assume that just one, Matthew, who was a disciple of Jesus and knew him well, was the only writer of the New Testament, not to mention all the others.
What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact?
Let's analyze these shall we. One at a time so we can devote plenty of time on them and provide you ample room for rebuttal.
Buzzsaw writes:
Manuscript (MS) Contains: Date Eyewitness page ref. Notes
Magdalen Papyrus (P64) Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Before 66 A.D. 125 3
This is not an "other ancient historical knowledge related manuscript", it is most likely a copy of a copy or at best (and very unlikely) a copy of the original manuscript of the NT book of Matthew. The Magdalen Papyrus is considered by the general consensus of Biblical scholars to be a manuscript page from a codex (book), not a handwritten scroll typically used by the original NT writers of the mid and late 1st century AD; because it is written on both sides (scrolls are only written on one side and rolled up).
Therefore it seems likely that the Magdalen Papyrus was not transmitted into codex format until at least the early to mid 2nd century, well after the original authors/witnesses of Christ died (see "Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels " by Barbara Aland and Charles Horton; and "The Birth of the Codex" by C.H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat). The earliest dating is by Dr. Thiede who dated it to the late 1st century AD, sometime after the fall of Jerusalem. However, the vast majority of his peers disagree with this assessment and place this date closer to 200 AD as shown here.
Thus you cannot use the Magdalen Papyrus as an independent external account of Matthews account. Strike 2 (strike 1 was when I rebutted your claim of the Qumranic 7Q4 and 7Q5 fragments as even being NT manuscripts much less "other ancient historical knowledge related manuscript" relating to the book of Matthew).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024