|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4475 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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 3Dead 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Buzsaw writes: What other ancient literature relative to historical knowledge do we have that surpasses Matthew so far as close to the fact? DA writes: This is not an "other ancient historical knowledge related manuscript", Perhaps there was some confusion about my question. 1. I cited some examples of acclaimed relatively early existingmanuscripts pertaining to the events applicable to the life and times of Jesus. 2. Not being apprised enough to assess the citations, assuming that a significant percentage of them would serve the purpose for which I cited them. 3. I then asked what other ancient literature (meaning copy manuscripts} exist relative to historical knowledge (meaning any historical knowledge on any topic) which are as close to the earliest copy manuscripts of Matthew which exist. In other words, DA, what I was after, i.e. other ancient historical knowledge was manuscripts on any topic not related to Matthew but acclaimed as acceptable manuscripts. By literature, I meant scrolls or what we would refer to as books and not just brief architectural plaques on buildings and tombs, etc. I'm more so questioning than acclaiming. Regardless of whether you, Nightrain and Brian understood my question, I appreciate the responses of all. I'm a slow thinker, having no college degree so articulating things like this in order to make sense is often difficult and time consuming. I've been over a half hour on just this one, rephrasing etc, and still not sure I'm making good sense to the reader. ![]() OTOH, thankfully, there are other messages I can type off quickly and move on. BTW, on the side, for what it's worth, I requested prayer for The Devils Advocate, whoever he is, in our Sabbath day class today at the Sabbath day Baptist church were I attend. I referred to you as an angel/messenger from Heaven to EvC, even tough I'm becoming of the opinion that you're a bonafide agnostic. At any rate your obvious intelligence, wisdom, and articulate manner of posting reminds me of somewhat of my friend Nemmessiss Jaugernaut who is also out to sea with the Coast Guard. You and he would make interesting and formidible counterparts in a one on one Great Debate. We miss his participation here. Perhaps we can win you back on the same good team he advocated for some day. Check him out in the archives via his profile sometime if you haven't yet. NOTE TO ADMINS: I'll not make a habit of asides such as this. If it is unacceptable, I understand if you hide it and will take that as an admonition. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DA writes: You seem to be proposing that these are extra-biblical sources supporting the gospel stories (at least this is what it seems you are implying), which they are not (I will continue going down the list today and tomorrow when I get time to confirm this). I don't know how you arrived at that but my proposal was to cite the earliest known manuscripts of scripture. Admittedly, I took them at face value as valid examples of early acclaimed scripture manuscripts.
DA writes: Buzsaw writes: 3. I then asked what other ancient literature (meaning copy manuscripts} exist relative to historical knowledge (meaning any historical knowledge on any topic) which are as close to the earliest copy manuscripts of Matthew which exist. Why are you asking us (non-believers)? It is up to you to provide the evidence for your faith, not us. It seems like I am doing more of the leg work here than you are to prove my point. That is ok but it is up to you to provide your own evidence supporting your position. . I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of. I understand that the gap for Caesar is around a millennium. What verification do we have relative to acclaimed history for the times of Aristotle, Caesar and other ancients? As well, the volume of ancient and early manuscripts of the New Testament is huge compared to any other major ancient writers according to some of the cites which I have searched. One should consider also that given the animosity and persecution of the Roman pagan government against Christianity up until about 300AD, given the number of manuscripts that survived, likely there were originally thousands of manuscripts in the early centuries, given the amount of scrolls which were purposely destroyed by Roman emperors up until Constantine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
8upwidth2 writes: Aristotle did not hold himself up as the Son of God with records that were supposed to be the inerrant word of God. There are not enormous numbers of people (billions) that worship Aristotle. And who really cares what Aristotle thought/said compared to Jesus? For the purpose of this discussion, the content of the manuscripts is not as important as the accuracy of them to the originals. My argument is that the closer you get to the originals, the more likely the copies are compatible with the originals. I am of the opinion that though the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write, the HS did not dictate word for word, letter by letter how the writer was to state the message. However, once the inspired writer wrote, it was important to keep the message pure that the writer wrote. What Aristotle and others wrote and what the Biblical authors wrote all have information which has been considered significant to mankind. What Aristotle wrote about was of great interest to the world at large. That's what made him famous. I haven't read him other than excerpts but I believe he wrote about history, science, etc and philosophized on a lot of interesting and important topics. Whether or not Jesus was/is the son of God should not excuse critics of the Bible from the way they try to discredit it's accuracy. Even if your point is significant, the Bible manuscript's close proximity to the event gives Aristotle's far removed ones plenty of leeway since they are generally accepted as accurate. In other words, if the world accepts Aristotle's as accurate, surely the Biblical ones should be allowed at least as much respect given the vast number of early manuscripts and the close proximity of the early ones to the event compared to Aristotle's and a number of other ancient literature which the world regards as significant and important. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DA writes: Ok, but as I pointed out earlier, two of those you list are not regarded by Biblical scholars as being works of the NT. You still have the rest to reckon with.
DA writes: Buzsaw writes: I believe the earliest manuscripts known of Aristotle have a gap of around 1500 years whereas the gap for the earliest NT manuscripts are around 200 and some claim earlier, yet nobody questions the accuracy of the Aristotle manuscripts that I'm aware of. Yes, yes. I have "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (both volumes) in my library as well. Joshua McDowell is not a scholar or an expert (as I expressed in my previous post) in the fields of Biblical research, archeology, linguistics, etc. He does not do field work or any type of peer-review research in these areas much less examine and test these manuscripts. He is an evangelist with an obvious bias towards trying to prove the Bible to be true and the inerrant word of God. Regardless of Josh's lack of elite credentials, you still have what he stated and cited that is factual to reckon with. Much if not most of what he claims relative to the manuscripts is factual. No?
DA writes: The writings of Aristotle in no way have the smallest chronological distance, between original composition and the earliest known manuscripts we have in custody, so this is a Christan apologetics strawman argument. Why not compare a similar type of religious writing that is comparable to the Bible. Say the Qur'an? LOL. Mohammed's writings are not nearly as ancient and subject to as much loss, destruction, both deliberate, time related, disasters such as the destruction of Jerusalem, and weather elements, etc. The Jewish leaders who hated and had Jesus killed had a vested interest in destroying anything that would advance his religion which they considered cultish and false.The Pagan Roman emperors persecuted the Christians and burned their scrolls. It's a wonder that as much as we have still exists; perhaps and likely providential since writers of scripture themselves prophesied that they would never be and Jesus prophesied one or more times in the Olivet discourse gospels that before the end of the age his gospel would be published world wide. Thus the Bible became the world's all time best seller, last I heard. ![]() DA writes: LOL, we have tons of evidence created at the time of Julius Caesar supporting the existence of Caesar including sculptures, portraits, coins, engravings and historical writings which undeniably substantiate his existence. If you want to get into early corroborating stuff, there's an impressive amount of it for the NT as well. No?
DA writes:
That was not his job description. That's why he had 12 disciples. Jesus busily went about doing miracles and lecturing while others observed what would be proclaimed and written about him. What writings by Jesus himself do we have? Absolutely none!After all, certainly the mighty and amazing works that Jesus did would not go unpublished and unrecorded. DA writes: Bullshit. It matters not the quantity of manuscripts we have after the fact (as these are all copies of copies of copies ad infinitim). What matters is if any contemporary sources confirm the existence of Jesus Christ. In this aspect you are at a dead stop. There are absolutely no pieces of evidence confirming the existence of Jesus at the time he was still alive. Not one shred of literature was written about Jesus or by Jesus himself until well after his supposed death. No artifacts point to his existence during his life. There is nothing until after the fact. After the fact writings are notorious for manipulation or outright fabrications. LOL. We could cite multitudes of notable ancients (Aristotle?) who's existence is not validated by original manuscripts contemporaneous to the time which he lived.As well, if the quantity of corroborating literature is important relative Caesar, so be it with Jesus. DA writes: After the first century C.E. there's a ton of literature mentioning Jesus. However, it should be pointed out that this is evidence only that lots of people believed in Jesus - not that Jesus existed. Furthermore, the stories about Jesus have as much validity as the writings about Gautama Buddha (of which writings are written within 100-200 after his death), whose existence is also much speculated. Christianity has as much validity as any other major religion out there: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. There is nothing that sets it apart in its authenticity. LOL. Gautama Buddha had no corroborating evidence for himself or his Buddhism such as the Biblical record which has many prophecies in the OT relative to Jesus, verified as prophetic via the Dead Sea Scrolls. As well the Biblical record has all of the prophetic and archaeological etc corroborating evidence for it's credibility. Buddhism has nada. My friend, you're and intelligent man. Man, it's time you get apprised on the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Without looking now, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think you said much, if anything on my Middle East prophecy thread. If not, how about that? Man, it's no wonder you slid into agnosticism! Without the prophecies and all of the good corroborating Biblical record stuff, likely I'd be agnostic as well.
DA writes: Can you provide any more compelling evidence or dispute what I have written here? The ball's in the air, heading your way, my friend. Grab it when it gets to you and see if you can make a little more yardage than you made here. ![]() DA writes: BTW, Buzz, this is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about accepting everything at face value (i.e. McDowell's claims) and testing the validity of his claims. I've listened occasionally to good brother Josh. I'm not with him on some pre-trib rapture, and other stuff, so I don't take him at face value. Nevertheless at least I give him the due respect when he's right. ![]() Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Nighttrain writes: Speaking of surviving manuscripts, Buz, like to look at this site and tell me what was so different once Christians came to power? Apart from a active manufacturing industry that couldn`t even produce texts that agreed, a witch-hunt against pagan, Gnostic or alternative Christianities literature meant that we are lucky to have any contrasting material today. Who knows what numbers of contra-orthodox manuscrips were burned? Maybe they even outnumbered official literature. Hi Nighttrain. This does not pertain to the topic in that the persecution and manuscript burning applicable to the times of Jesus was cited only to explain why the earliest NT manuscripts were not abundant relative to the times of Jesus and shortly after his death. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DA writes: Regardless, there are no contemporary sources of the life of Jesus. Case closed. DA, you appear to be raising the bar way up from what anyone is claiming. Neither Jeremiah or anyone here is claiming that there are contemporary sources. The claim is that nothing compares to the proximity of the existing copies to the original ancient historians etc. You go at length to discredit 200 AD copies when that is remarkably close compared to Aristotle, Plato, etc who's literature is not questioned. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DA writes: I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit. Who cares about the composition date to earliest known manuscripts for Aristotle and Plato. That is a strawman argument that I (and many scholars) have knocked down and beat to death. 1. And I responded with reasons why the Quran was a poor example in itself. I'm not repeating over and over for you; too busy for that.2. You and many scholars have done no such thing. I and many scholars have refuted you and many scholars. Case not closed by a long shot. 3. Aristotle and Plato are not strawmen for the reasons I have stated. DA writes:
1. You proposed that the Bible has existing documents closed to estimated original composition dates than any other literature citing Aristotle as an example. 2. I ask why are you using Aristotle since that is not even close to being a close proximity between original composition to earliest known manuscripts and stated this is a deliberate strawman argument you are setting up. I then show you dates of Qur'an manuscripts that rival if not beat the original composition to earliest manuscript dates of the Bible. I also show specific evidence both manuscripts from contemporary source (at the same time), statues, engravings, coins, etc. dating to the same time as Caesar confirming his existence also dubunking your argument.. 1. You're not making a lick of sense here, DA. I used Aristotle and Plato to show that manuscripts far removed from the times they were written are accepted as accurate by academia. I WANT examples farther removed from the time of their writing to the time of the the earliest manuscripts observable than those of the NT to support my argument. There are many more than just Aristotle and Plato that could be cited. If anything is a strawman it's your Quran argument. Imo, that is too recent to apply to the ancient era of Jesus and Aristotle who's time was relatively close enough to each other to make a comparison.
DA writes: 3. You ignore this and keep on about Aristotle, so I entertain your notion and show you that the internal and external consistency of his own writings and that of contemporary sources justify scholars to determine that he was a real person. I then state that even if this were not the case it would make no difference what so ever LOL. Substantial internal and external literary consistancy also exists relative to the NT determining that Jesus was a real person. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that's what supports the existing manuscripts of Aristotle as reliable, so be it with the NT.
DA writes: I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit. How so? I told you why that's a strawman.
DA writes: Bullshit! It is questioned. This is a blatantly false statement. 1. It's not as blatant as your communication, when aroused. ![]() 2. You have yet to prove it false. ![]() BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Brian writes: How could anyone ever prove that Jesus was not real, or should I say how could anyone convince a Christian that Jesus wasn't real?I'd really like to know because no matter the evidence that may come to light in the future, if it is negative towards jesus then it isnt accepted. 1. The corroborating evidence relative to the NT is enough for logical and reasonable folks who search out those corroborating evidences and corroborate them to come to the conclusion that the NT is at least as reliable as the the works of Aristotle and others. 2. The Bible has always been not only the most loved book on the planet, but the most hated. More have feverishly worked to eradicate the Bible from existence than any other literary work existing while more others have loved it than any other. That's significant, in that it is indicative that there exists good and evil; God and Satan as the Bible claims; an ongoing war between good and evil, truth and false, etc. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DA writes: Quran early manuscripts closer to original composition dates than NT, case closed DA, I'm wearing of trying to get it in your head that to make my point we're not looking for close proximities of other literature to debunk the Bible. What I need to support the Bible is to show that other accepted literature like Aristotle is accepted regardless of the gap from copies to original. Get it? Nobody, including me are trying to discredit the accuracy of the Quran, but it is a strawman for the reasons I've given. We need older stuff to be relative to the Bible which you and others are trying to debunk as to accuracy. Aristotle and Plato are examples more fitting to ancient manuscripts. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024