No, accurate transmission does not imply that the document is historically accurate. I said that in the talk. Accurate transmission means that the document has been copied accurately through the centuries so that the version we have now is a reliable representation of what was originally written. To know whether the document in question (whether the NT or the Iliad) is historically reliable we have to turn to other evidence, like archaeology or onomastics. And apply a consistent standard.
" There's no such thing as historical evidence for resurrection" I didn't discuss evidence for the Resurrection in this talk. My argument was about the general historical reliability of the gospels with regard to the person of Jesus. My argument is that you must apply the same standards to the NT that you apply to any other ancient document purporting to be history. You do not. If you did, you would have to either accept the NT or dismiss 100% of ancient history.
"how is loving god saving" This is very important because it highlights the fact that your problems with Christianity go beyond mere intellectual skepticism about Jesus. I highly recommend Tim Keller's 'Reason for God'. If you Google "Reason For God sermons" you will find a number of free sermons which may help to answer many of your questions.
C.S. Lewis had a helpful insight here: "[Jesus] produced mainly three effects - Hatred - Terror - Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval." I've said before that I think of all the four Horsemen, Christopher Hitchens had the most honest reaction to Jesus: extreme dislike. That's a genuine response. I may disagree with it, but at least he was engaging the real Jesus.
"we can relay on accurate translation & transmition /hand copy" We can rely on accurate transmission to show us what the original documents actually said, not whether they were historically reliable. We then turn to non-Christian sources, archaology and onomastics to tell us whether they are generally historically reliable. If we use the same standards we apply to secular documents, we would conclude that they are. If so, we can learn about the actual, historical Jesus from reading the NT...
"But U don't have to ignore my response as if nothing happened" I didn't. The comparison to the Iliad was for transmission accuracy not historicity. I stated explicitly in the talk that the accuracy of NT textual transmission does not imply historicity. That's why we turn to non-Christian documentary evidence, archaeology and onomastics.
In other words, we know there wasn't a deliberate, consistent attempt to change the originals because we can tell that the manuscripts were copied independently. Where there were changes (and there are a few), we can detect them precisely because we have so many manuscripts which are so old. We can see when and if scribes made alterations and can reconstruct the original rendering. Even skeptic Bart Ehrman believes this (despite his popular work implying the contrary)
"You can't answer simple question" I didn't say I couldn't answer the question. I just think my answer wouldn't fit into a UA-cam comment box and would rather have you read a book that talks about it.
" it's reliable,credible to establish existence of people,places,events like war" Exactly. Or to establish that the sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels are historically accurate. Which is exactly the point I made in my talk. So why not read the gospels and decide whether to reject Jesus or not? "There's no such thing as historical evidence for resurrection" See the two talks I mentioned: 'Miracles, materialism, and quantum mechanics' and 'Is there evidence for the Resurrection?'
The NT has been translated one time. It was written in koine Greek and all modern translations translate directly from the Greek text. That is why you can compare transmission accuracy to any other ancient document, be it the Iliad or Tacitus' Annals. The fact that the NT is Scripture and the Iliad is a poem does not affect how we treat the manuscript evidence (especially for skeptics who deny that it is inspired!) All I ask is that you apply the same standard to the NT and all other texts.
I argue that the evidence we have for the reliability of the NT (archaeology, non-Christian documents, onomastics) is greater than for comparable ancient historical documents. So if we apply the same standards, we'd conclude that we can read the NT to obtain a reliable portrait of Jesus. Then we have a choice: call him an evil megalomaniac or God. I gave reasons at the end of the talk why you should personally read the gospels and let Jesus challenge your atheism. Please consider doing this.
Could you provide some archaeological evidence confirming the historical existence of characters in the Iliad/Odyssey (Odysseus, Hector, Helen, etc...) as I did for the NT?
Yes, hell is real. Two very quick thoughts: 1. My father-in-law is a missionary and has incredible stories about God reaching people with little or no 'normal' access to Christianity. Those who seek find. 2. If the primary obstacle to Christianity were information, everyone in the West would be Christian. They are not. So before we impugn God for not giving other people a chance to hear, we should ask 'What am I doing with the thousands of chances I've been given to hear and believe?'
I realize that that last comment sounded sarcastic, but it wasn't intended to be. I really think you should check the book out because you'd find it interesting. I'd post the link to Amazon, but UA-cam won't let me.
You should watch the rest of the video.I display the quotes on the screen and have the books on my desk. Here, Dawkins seems agnostic about whether the teachings found in the Bible actually come from Jesus. But elsewhere (in his essay 'Atheists for Jesus', for instance), he assumes they do. Dennet (and Sam Harris, by the way) both seem to as well. But the whole purpose of the rest of the video was to present evidence that the biblical portrait of Jesus is indeed generally historically reliable.
TEZ, I think you misunderstood my statement. I am asserting that the primary obstacle to the Christian faith is not lack of information. We have incredible access to the gospel here in the West, but not everyone is a Christian. So it is naive to think that having access to the gospel is the only problem. Our problem is that we hate God and reject him. External exposure to the gospel does not change that; only God can change that.
TEZ, the time scale is not thousands of years but decades. Remember, we have physical copies of manuscripts from the 2nd century. Even skeptical textual critics agree that our modern Bible reproduces the original documents written ~80A.D. with 99.99% accuracy. So we need only show that Jesus' teaching was preserved for the ~50 years that elapsed between his life and the writing of the gospels.I think that the archaeological and onomastic evidence shows that the gospel authors were very reliable.
" as if legend must be non existent person" The evidence presented shows not only that Jesus was a real person but that the gospels are historically accurate in preserving his teaching and claims about himself. You cannot claim that the stories and sayings recorded are not later fabrications, unless you are willing to apply a different standard of historicity to the NT than to all other ancient document purporting to be history.
The fact that some holy texts were altered does not mean that all holy texts were altered, just as the fact that some secular texts have been altered (Shakespeare) does not mean that all secular texts have been altered. "Doesn't make it true." No. Transmission accuracy doesn't make it true. But archaeology, non-Christian documents and onomastics provides evidence that it is true. Apply the same standards to the NT as to Tacitus.
"Teachings could easily have been misinterpreted/altered over time, except for those aspects that had historical accuracy" I would need to see some evidence of this. Given all the evidence we have for the historical reliability of the gospels, I think a tremendous burden of proof falls on the person who wants to claim that everything was altered _except_ all of the claims we have confirmed through archaeology, onomastics, etc...
I presented three lines of evidence that the NT is historically reliable. Could you provide examples of a few other ancient documents for which we have similar evidence which you dismiss as fictional?
"I don't se how ''decentralized, uncontrolled and geographically dispersed'' would prevent that." Imagine trying to get all the scribes to make the same changes to the manuscripts to suppress the original content. That's possible if the Church is organized, centralized, and local. It doesn't work for the first three centuries of Christianity (which is where the earliest manuscripts come from), when the Christians are persecuted and spread all over the Mediterranean.
Alek, the comparison to the Iliad is with regard to transmission accuracy, not historicity. If you think that the Iliad has been transmitted accurately, then you need to affirm that the NT has been transmitted accuracy, because it is better attested by at least a factor of three. But use Tacitus' Annals or Josephus' Jewish Wars, if you want.
...But if that's true, then we face the dilemma I presented in the talk. Jesus is either God or an evil megalomaniac. I suggest reading the gospels yourself and making the choice. Don't just say "Oh, I'm sure he's just an evil megalomaniac because I'm an atheist." Let Jesus challenge your worldview. Especially in light of the four issues I listed: his impact, his teaching, his Resurrection, and his message. See my talk 'Is there Evidence for the Resurrection?' for more on that issue.
"Also did Jesus actually support or recognize the horrendously unethical old testament?" Yes, he did and this is certainly something that I wrestled with as a young Christian. However, I would point out two things: 1. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then his view of the OT God as a God of love is correct and it is our understanding or intuition that is wrong 2. You should get an ESV Study Bible. A lot of my beliefs about what the OT taught were simply wrong But the key issue is: Who is Jesus?
UA-cam won't let me post links. If you Google 'Resurrection and Worldview' and you'll find an essay I wrote on the Resurrection that links to Lowder's essay and even uses it as a framework. See also my video 'Is there evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?' I'm going to sign off now. Goodnight!
My argument is that the 'legend' option is not historically plausible. Even if you take a radically skeptical approach and attribute to Jesus only material found in Q, you're still left with very audacious claims. So Jesus is either the only person with the authority to make such claims (God) or a cult leader. It never argue that it is impossible to choose 'cult leader'. You can. I think that is the most dangerous thing a person can do. But it is a genuine response to the historical Jesus.
".Btw,You know that authors are anonymous,that it wasn't actually Mark,Luke,John,Mathew." It is true that the gospels don't name their authors explicitly (although Luke and John allude to it). I think a good case can be made for traditional authorship, but that is irrelevant to this talk. Whether they are historically accurate does not depend on whether we know the names of the authors.
''I didn't discuss evidence for the Resurrection.It's about the general historical reliability of the gospels with regard to the person of Jesus'' ?What historical reliability are we talking here? That I should accept by the same standards? Miracles aside,I don't deny existence of a person. Or cult members that believed & followed him. Btw,''to death'' proves only that they believed -doesn't mean it is
"The gospels were written decades, if not centuries, after Jesus time" Are you aware that we have numerous physical fragments of the gospels dating to within a few decades of their composition? Would you mind if I recommend a book that I think you'll find helpful? It's called 'The Historical Jesus: Five Views.' Check it out.
Alek, are you getting this from academic sources or just atheist websites? Textual transmission was totally decentralized, uncontrolled and geographically dispersed. Suppression like you're suggesting was not possible even if we ignore the fact that we have manuscripts from hundreds of years before Constantine. You don't need miracles to force the dilemma I mentioned. Just generally historical reliability on the person of Jesus. But see my talk 'Miracles, Materialism, and Quantum Mechanics'
"How is quantity of manuscripts relevant?" Because skeptics constantly make the assertion that the Bible is unreliable due to copying. You're even doing it yourself. My point is that if we apply the same standards of manuscript reliability to the Bible that we apply to any other ancient document, we must conclude that it has been transmitted accurately. Or are you willing to throw out the Iliad?
"But-non christian historians? Archaeology ? A box with most popular/common Jewish names of that time-gospel writers used those names.& that's strange?" Again, I'm only asking that we apply the same standards of historicity to the NT that we apply to any other ancient historical work. No double standards. I'm arguing that you either have to use the same standards and also accept the NT as generally reliable or throw out everything (Josephus, Tacitus, Thucydides, etc...). Which is it?
TEZ, thanks for the compliment! But if it is sincere, then you definitely need to interact with the work of Christian apologists and philosophers like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zacharias, etc.. who are far more logical and intelligent than me.
".You probably know about Dead see scrols.That's clear indication of changing,destroying,adding" The Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any NT manuscripts! They only include parts of the OT and other Jewish religious writings. How would this have any relevance to whether the NT was transmitted accurately?
"Your arguments would hold substantially more credibility without all the fact-less hypothesis, misquotings, scripture hoopla and biased opinions." It's hard to contest 'biased opinions' or 'Scripture hoopla'. But could you cite some examples of 'fact-less hypotheses' and 'misquotings'? I can provide references to all of my sources, if you'd like to see them.
"Even if jesus existed, there is no evidence he was anything but a normal human being" This is where I would encourage people to look at the evidence for the Resurrection. You can check out my video 'Is there evidence for the Resurrection?' if you'd like. Or Google 'Resurrection and Worldview' for an essay I wrote.
''comparison to the Iliad is with regard to transmission accuracy, not historicity'' Every translation from one language to another,inevitable has some changes.Small or/and significant.U know how accurate is telephone game.Or how reliable is oral tradition.Before even starting stranslating from aramaic to greek to latin to english.More important one is poem the other is holy text, where different man have interes,agenda,to change,destroy,add.
"Devine inspiration of the Bible." What exactly does that mean? That each person who contributed to the Bible as we know it now was given the words by God? But that all of the people who wrote books in the Bible that people later decided to leave out were not given their words by God?
''your problems with Christianity go beyond mere intellectual skepticism'' What? This is pure logic !! Your ''mysterious ways'' is go read this book.You can't answer simple question & you think Tim Keller has the answer? How this mystery works? Only believers go to heaven & people that never had a chance to hear /reject or accept Jesus go to hell. I kinda preffer the lame ansewer ''I don't know,but I believe it anyway that god has some extra plan for them''
Talk about standards,Historic evidence-beside more/different sources,there's methodology involved (like disinterested remarks) & it's reliable,credible to establish existence of people,places,events like war,etc.-definitely not to confirm walking dead.Testimonial,anecdotal is not just sub-standard,utterly unscientific,it's not at all evidence that zombies are real. There's no such thing as historical evidence for resurrection -if you have any standards
Dead see scrolls are just physical evidence that holly texts were hidden,included,excluded. But You don't need phisical evidence to know that people change,add, destory. If from the first pope to King James, people were skimming You don't think in bronz age palestine happened? I don't understand how...even with originals - couldn't mean more than what they believed. Doesn't make it true.
''No, accurate transmission does not imply that the document is historically accurate'' ? This is confusing. I thot the whole time yoy claim that we can relay on accurate translation & transmition /hand copy. But,let's stop repeting & going in circles.I I grant you accuracy,how is antient text evidence for miracles or divine origin.As I said before,there's no agenda,politics,changing,adding,destroying with Illiad.
Even if jesus existed, there is no evidence he was anything but a normal human being Your arguments would hold substantially more credibility without all the fact-less hypothesis, misquotings, scripture hoopla and biased opinions. Then again, if you did that you would only have my first sentence.
TheCareertalk, You should watch my video 'Is the evidence for the Resurrection?' I give several examples of non-Christians who affirm that there is good evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. among them Jeff Lowder, founder of infidels.org
Again with standards.Befor going to your sub-standards you offer only 3 options.Real person,becoming a legend is 4-th option,which you don't consider. I'm not sure how this qulifies...as cognitive dissonance,compartmentalization or simple ignoring. Ofcourse, another option might make people reconcider
Again?Which is is? I understand U blew it with Iliad example,usualy it's Cesar or Alexander the great,used for that point.But U don't have to ignore my response as if nothing happened & go on offence (as the best defence) with ''Again,which is it'' You talk about double & same standards when standard is the very problem U have.By your st.Achilles can't be killed(only heel) by My/historian standard,city of Troy,actualy existing,is not established
So accurate transcmistion makes all other scriptures right? That their god is real? We are not talking about the same standard whith Illiad...If I would accept Zeus & poseiden as real you could say that ''especially for skeptics who deny that it is inspired'' Oh it is inspired all right. Very much an inspiration. Just not by creator of the universe
So,you don't argue resurrection or miracless, just that Jesus is god.Applying the same standards,there's no other antient document? There isn't any-which could be evidence for divinity.You make 3choices as if legend must be non existent person. Legends are made out of real people just as much if not more. So there's your 4-th option. I'd say combination with 2-nd.Cult leader,becoming a legend. Please U consider: Natives of amason jungle & millions that never knew Jesus,how is loving god saving
No, accurate transmission does not imply that the document is historically accurate. I said that in the talk. Accurate transmission means that the document has been copied accurately through the centuries so that the version we have now is a reliable representation of what was originally written. To know whether the document in question (whether the NT or the Iliad) is historically reliable we have to turn to other evidence, like archaeology or onomastics. And apply a consistent standard.
" There's no such thing as historical evidence for resurrection"
I didn't discuss evidence for the Resurrection in this talk. My argument was about the general historical reliability of the gospels with regard to the person of Jesus. My argument is that you must apply the same standards to the NT that you apply to any other ancient document purporting to be history. You do not. If you did, you would have to either accept the NT or dismiss 100% of ancient history.
"how is loving god saving"
This is very important because it highlights the fact that your problems with Christianity go beyond mere intellectual skepticism about Jesus. I highly recommend Tim Keller's 'Reason for God'. If you Google "Reason For God sermons" you will find a number of free sermons which may help to answer many of your questions.
C.S. Lewis had a helpful insight here: "[Jesus] produced mainly three effects - Hatred - Terror - Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval." I've said before that I think of all the four Horsemen, Christopher Hitchens had the most honest reaction to Jesus: extreme dislike. That's a genuine response. I may disagree with it, but at least he was engaging the real Jesus.
"we can relay on accurate translation & transmition /hand copy"
We can rely on accurate transmission to show us what the original documents actually said, not whether they were historically reliable. We then turn to non-Christian sources, archaology and onomastics to tell us whether they are generally historically reliable. If we use the same standards we apply to secular documents, we would conclude that they are. If so, we can learn about the actual, historical Jesus from reading the NT...
"But U don't have to ignore my response as if nothing happened"
I didn't. The comparison to the Iliad was for transmission accuracy not historicity. I stated explicitly in the talk that the accuracy of NT textual transmission does not imply historicity. That's why we turn to non-Christian documentary evidence, archaeology and onomastics.
In other words, we know there wasn't a deliberate, consistent attempt to change the originals because we can tell that the manuscripts were copied independently. Where there were changes (and there are a few), we can detect them precisely because we have so many manuscripts which are so old. We can see when and if scribes made alterations and can reconstruct the original rendering. Even skeptic Bart Ehrman believes this (despite his popular work implying the contrary)
"You can't answer simple question"
I didn't say I couldn't answer the question. I just think my answer wouldn't fit into a UA-cam comment box and would rather have you read a book that talks about it.
" it's reliable,credible to establish existence of people,places,events like war"
Exactly. Or to establish that the sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels are historically accurate. Which is exactly the point I made in my talk. So why not read the gospels and decide whether to reject Jesus or not?
"There's no such thing as historical evidence for resurrection"
See the two talks I mentioned: 'Miracles, materialism, and quantum mechanics' and 'Is there evidence for the Resurrection?'
The NT has been translated one time. It was written in koine Greek and all modern translations translate directly from the Greek text. That is why you can compare transmission accuracy to any other ancient document, be it the Iliad or Tacitus' Annals. The fact that the NT is Scripture and the Iliad is a poem does not affect how we treat the manuscript evidence (especially for skeptics who deny that it is inspired!) All I ask is that you apply the same standard to the NT and all other texts.
I argue that the evidence we have for the reliability of the NT (archaeology, non-Christian documents, onomastics) is greater than for comparable ancient historical documents. So if we apply the same standards, we'd conclude that we can read the NT to obtain a reliable portrait of Jesus. Then we have a choice: call him an evil megalomaniac or God. I gave reasons at the end of the talk why you should personally read the gospels and let Jesus challenge your atheism. Please consider doing this.
Could you provide some archaeological evidence confirming the historical existence of characters in the Iliad/Odyssey (Odysseus, Hector, Helen, etc...) as I did for the NT?
Yes, hell is real. Two very quick thoughts:
1. My father-in-law is a missionary and has incredible stories about God reaching people with little or no 'normal' access to Christianity. Those who seek find.
2. If the primary obstacle to Christianity were information, everyone in the West would be Christian. They are not. So before we impugn God for not giving other people a chance to hear, we should ask 'What am I doing with the thousands of chances I've been given to hear and believe?'
I realize that that last comment sounded sarcastic, but it wasn't intended to be. I really think you should check the book out because you'd find it interesting. I'd post the link to Amazon, but UA-cam won't let me.
You should watch the rest of the video.I display the quotes on the screen and have the books on my desk. Here, Dawkins seems agnostic about whether the teachings found in the Bible actually come from Jesus. But elsewhere (in his essay 'Atheists for Jesus', for instance), he assumes they do. Dennet (and Sam Harris, by the way) both seem to as well. But the whole purpose of the rest of the video was to present evidence that the biblical portrait of Jesus is indeed generally historically reliable.
TEZ, I think you misunderstood my statement. I am asserting that the primary obstacle to the Christian faith is not lack of information. We have incredible access to the gospel here in the West, but not everyone is a Christian. So it is naive to think that having access to the gospel is the only problem. Our problem is that we hate God and reject him. External exposure to the gospel does not change that; only God can change that.
Definitely, definitely watch the video.
TEZ, the time scale is not thousands of years but decades. Remember, we have physical copies of manuscripts from the 2nd century. Even skeptical textual critics agree that our modern Bible reproduces the original documents written ~80A.D. with 99.99% accuracy. So we need only show that Jesus' teaching was preserved for the ~50 years that elapsed between his life and the writing of the gospels.I think that the archaeological and onomastic evidence shows that the gospel authors were very reliable.
" as if legend must be non existent person"
The evidence presented shows not only that Jesus was a real person but that the gospels are historically accurate in preserving his teaching and claims about himself. You cannot claim that the stories and sayings recorded are not later fabrications, unless you are willing to apply a different standard of historicity to the NT than to all other ancient document purporting to be history.
The fact that some holy texts were altered does not mean that all holy texts were altered, just as the fact that some secular texts have been altered (Shakespeare) does not mean that all secular texts have been altered.
"Doesn't make it true."
No. Transmission accuracy doesn't make it true. But archaeology, non-Christian documents and onomastics provides evidence that it is true. Apply the same standards to the NT as to Tacitus.
"Teachings could easily have been misinterpreted/altered over time, except for those aspects that had historical accuracy"
I would need to see some evidence of this. Given all the evidence we have for the historical reliability of the gospels, I think a tremendous burden of proof falls on the person who wants to claim that everything was altered _except_ all of the claims we have confirmed through archaeology, onomastics, etc...
I presented three lines of evidence that the NT is historically reliable. Could you provide examples of a few other ancient documents for which we have similar evidence which you dismiss as fictional?
"I don't se how ''decentralized, uncontrolled and geographically dispersed'' would prevent that."
Imagine trying to get all the scribes to make the same changes to the manuscripts to suppress the original content. That's possible if the Church is organized, centralized, and local. It doesn't work for the first three centuries of Christianity (which is where the earliest manuscripts come from), when the Christians are persecuted and spread all over the Mediterranean.
Alek, the comparison to the Iliad is with regard to transmission accuracy, not historicity. If you think that the Iliad has been transmitted accurately, then you need to affirm that the NT has been transmitted accuracy, because it is better attested by at least a factor of three. But use Tacitus' Annals or Josephus' Jewish Wars, if you want.
...But if that's true, then we face the dilemma I presented in the talk. Jesus is either God or an evil megalomaniac. I suggest reading the gospels yourself and making the choice. Don't just say "Oh, I'm sure he's just an evil megalomaniac because I'm an atheist." Let Jesus challenge your worldview. Especially in light of the four issues I listed: his impact, his teaching, his Resurrection, and his message. See my talk 'Is there Evidence for the Resurrection?' for more on that issue.
"Also did Jesus actually support or recognize the horrendously unethical old testament?"
Yes, he did and this is certainly something that I wrestled with as a young Christian. However, I would point out two things:
1. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then his view of the OT God as a God of love is correct and it is our understanding or intuition that is wrong
2. You should get an ESV Study Bible. A lot of my beliefs about what the OT taught were simply wrong
But the key issue is: Who is Jesus?
UA-cam won't let me post links. If you Google 'Resurrection and Worldview' and you'll find an essay I wrote on the Resurrection that links to Lowder's essay and even uses it as a framework. See also my video 'Is there evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?' I'm going to sign off now. Goodnight!
Pretty good opening for Christianity. It is rather striking to think how on point the moral teachings of Jesus are. Pretty big coincidence ;)
Volmire1 Mmmmm...!
My argument is that the 'legend' option is not historically plausible. Even if you take a radically skeptical approach and attribute to Jesus only material found in Q, you're still left with very audacious claims. So Jesus is either the only person with the authority to make such claims (God) or a cult leader.
It never argue that it is impossible to choose 'cult leader'. You can. I think that is the most dangerous thing a person can do. But it is a genuine response to the historical Jesus.
".Btw,You know that authors are anonymous,that it wasn't actually Mark,Luke,John,Mathew."
It is true that the gospels don't name their authors explicitly (although Luke and John allude to it). I think a good case can be made for traditional authorship, but that is irrelevant to this talk. Whether they are historically accurate does not depend on whether we know the names of the authors.
@CoffeeInPlenty, what did you think was dishonest?
''I didn't discuss evidence for the Resurrection.It's about the general historical reliability of the gospels with regard to the person of Jesus''
?What historical reliability are we talking here? That I should accept by the same standards? Miracles aside,I don't deny existence of a person. Or cult members that believed & followed him. Btw,''to death'' proves only that they believed -doesn't mean it is
"The gospels were written decades, if not centuries, after Jesus time"
Are you aware that we have numerous physical fragments of the gospels dating to within a few decades of their composition? Would you mind if I recommend a book that I think you'll find helpful? It's called 'The Historical Jesus: Five Views.' Check it out.
Alek, are you getting this from academic sources or just atheist websites? Textual transmission was totally decentralized, uncontrolled and geographically dispersed. Suppression like you're suggesting was not possible even if we ignore the fact that we have manuscripts from hundreds of years before Constantine.
You don't need miracles to force the dilemma I mentioned. Just generally historical reliability on the person of Jesus. But see my talk 'Miracles, Materialism, and Quantum Mechanics'
"How is quantity of manuscripts relevant?"
Because skeptics constantly make the assertion that the Bible is unreliable due to copying. You're even doing it yourself. My point is that if we apply the same standards of manuscript reliability to the Bible that we apply to any other ancient document, we must conclude that it has been transmitted accurately. Or are you willing to throw out the Iliad?
"But-non christian historians? Archaeology ? A box with most popular/common Jewish names of that time-gospel writers used those names.& that's strange?"
Again, I'm only asking that we apply the same standards of historicity to the NT that we apply to any other ancient historical work. No double standards. I'm arguing that you either have to use the same standards and also accept the NT as generally reliable or throw out everything (Josephus, Tacitus, Thucydides, etc...). Which is it?
TEZ, thanks for the compliment! But if it is sincere, then you definitely need to interact with the work of Christian apologists and philosophers like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zacharias, etc.. who are far more logical and intelligent than me.
".You probably know about Dead see scrols.That's clear indication of changing,destroying,adding"
The Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any NT manuscripts! They only include parts of the OT and other Jewish religious writings. How would this have any relevance to whether the NT was transmitted accurately?
"Your arguments would hold substantially more credibility without all the fact-less hypothesis, misquotings, scripture hoopla and biased opinions."
It's hard to contest 'biased opinions' or 'Scripture hoopla'. But could you cite some examples of 'fact-less hypotheses' and 'misquotings'? I can provide references to all of my sources, if you'd like to see them.
ShockOfGood, what made you nauseous?
"Even if jesus existed, there is no evidence he was anything but a normal human being"
This is where I would encourage people to look at the evidence for the Resurrection. You can check out my video 'Is there evidence for the Resurrection?' if you'd like. Or Google 'Resurrection and Worldview' for an essay I wrote.
'The Historical Jesus: Five Views.'
''comparison to the Iliad is with regard to transmission accuracy, not historicity''
Every translation from one language to another,inevitable has some changes.Small or/and significant.U know how accurate is telephone game.Or how reliable is oral tradition.Before even starting stranslating from aramaic to greek to latin to english.More important one is poem the other is holy text, where different man have interes,agenda,to change,destroy,add.
"Devine inspiration of the Bible." What exactly does that mean? That each person who contributed to the Bible as we know it now was given the words by God? But that all of the people who wrote books in the Bible that people later decided to leave out were not given their words by God?
''your problems with Christianity go beyond mere intellectual skepticism''
What? This is pure logic !! Your ''mysterious ways'' is go read this book.You can't answer simple question & you think Tim Keller has the answer? How this mystery works?
Only believers go to heaven & people that never had a chance to hear /reject or accept Jesus go to hell. I kinda preffer the lame ansewer ''I don't know,but I believe it anyway that god has some extra plan for them''
Sure..it was mentioned as Btw
Talk about standards,Historic evidence-beside more/different sources,there's methodology involved (like disinterested remarks) & it's reliable,credible to establish existence of people,places,events like war,etc.-definitely not to confirm walking dead.Testimonial,anecdotal is not just sub-standard,utterly unscientific,it's not at all evidence that zombies are real. There's no such thing as historical evidence for resurrection -if you have any standards
Dead see scrolls are just physical evidence that holly texts were hidden,included,excluded. But You don't need phisical evidence to know that people change,add, destory. If from the first pope to King James, people were skimming You don't think in bronz age palestine happened? I don't understand how...even with originals - couldn't mean more than what they believed. Doesn't make it true.
There isn't any. Hope this helps.
''No, accurate transmission does not imply that the document is historically accurate''
? This is confusing. I thot the whole time yoy claim that we can relay on accurate translation & transmition /hand copy.
But,let's stop repeting & going in circles.I I grant you accuracy,how is antient text evidence for miracles or divine origin.As I said before,there's no agenda,politics,changing,adding,destroying with Illiad.
f I were to have 80 Mexican characters I would have 40 pablos and 40 pedros
Even if jesus existed, there is no evidence he was anything but a normal human being
Your arguments would hold substantially more credibility without all the fact-less hypothesis, misquotings, scripture hoopla and biased opinions.
Then again, if you did that you would only have my first sentence.
TheCareertalk,
You should watch my video 'Is the evidence for the Resurrection?' I give several examples of non-Christians who affirm that there is good evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. among them Jeff Lowder, founder of infidels.org
Iliad? It's a poem ! Full with mythology. Or do you think Poseidon & cyclop is real ?
Again with standards.Befor going to your sub-standards you offer only 3 options.Real person,becoming a legend is 4-th option,which you don't consider. I'm not sure how this qulifies...as cognitive dissonance,compartmentalization or simple ignoring. Ofcourse, another option might make people reconcider
Again?Which is is?
I understand U blew it with Iliad example,usualy it's Cesar or Alexander the great,used for that point.But U don't have to ignore my response as if nothing happened & go on offence (as the best defence) with ''Again,which is it''
You talk about double & same standards when standard is the very problem U have.By your st.Achilles can't be killed(only heel) by My/historian standard,city of Troy,actualy existing,is not established
So accurate transcmistion makes all other scriptures right? That their god is real? We are not talking about the same standard whith Illiad...If I would accept Zeus & poseiden as real you could say that
''especially for skeptics who deny that it is inspired'' Oh it is inspired all right. Very much an inspiration. Just not by creator of the universe
Reading this literally made me nauseous,
So,you don't argue resurrection or miracless, just that Jesus is god.Applying the same standards,there's no other antient document? There isn't any-which could be evidence for divinity.You make 3choices as if legend must be non existent person. Legends are made out of real people just as much if not more. So there's your 4-th option. I'd say combination with 2-nd.Cult leader,becoming a legend.
Please U consider: Natives of amason jungle & millions that never knew Jesus,how is loving god saving