Og Of Borg

I answered this elsewhere, I think:

I believe that the Bible expresses what God wants us to know about His interactions with us, and as such is inerrant on that topic. It is not a science book, nor even really a history book. For its purpose, it is inerrant. And its purpose is to teach us there is a barrier between ourselves and God, and how to remove that barrier.

As to why I trust the reliability of the Bible: Well, as to the OT, we know by comparison of the manuscripts of the Essenes, found in the caves at Qumran in 1947/8, that the OT as we have it is the OT as it existed in Jesus' day. Jesus (if the NT is to be believed) expressly endorsed the OT as rec'd at that time.

So the OT stands upon Jesus' endorsement, and
Jesus' endorsement stands upon the NT's reliability.

To judge an ancient manuscript, for the purpose of asking, "Does this accurately reflect the original 'autograph' (what the writer wrote with his own hand)" we look to two main characteristics: The time lapse between the autograph and the oldest known manuscript (hand copy), and the number of manuscripts available for cross-comparison (because, obviously, if one manuscript says "Teh" and eleven say "The," then the one is wrong, etc.). Obviously, as copies are made of copies over time, more potential for error exists, and a broader sample invites comparison.

The second best ancient document is Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, with 12 manuscripts dating about 1000 years after the autograph.

For the New Testament, we have 35,000 manuscripts and fragments, some dating to as little as 30-40 years after the autograph.

So we can reasonably say that the NT we have is the NT that the apostles (and associates of the apostles, in the cases of Mark, Luke, Barnabus...) wrote. Now, were they telling the truth, or lying?

Well, since the vast majority of the NT was written by Paul, a case study of Paul's life is in order. He was born a Jew (Hellenic, and in a town that was a Roman colony, making him also a Roman citizen). He, like his father before him, was a Pharisee, meaning that they believed in the resurrection of the dead, and took a strict and legalistic view of Hebrew scripture. Paul observed Jewish law and tradition, and was accepted as a student of Gameliel, the most noted Jewish scholar of the period.

He at first met Christianity with fierce resistance. He held the coats of those who stoned to death the first Christian martyr, Stephen. He personally worked to see that Christians were persecuted by the authorities, stirring up the Romans against them, and going so far as to travel to other areas to track down and attack Christians.

On one such journey, he experienced what is described as a dramatic encounter with Christ. Paul converted.

Now, consider the choice here. As a Jew, he had his life set. He was an up and coming leader, a student of all the right schools, connected to all the right people. Wealth and power were his for the asking. Within ten or twenty years, he would have been on the Sanhedrin, making decisions of life or death, and being looked to as the unquestioned authority in matters of law.

Instead, he became a Christian. He documents the things that he endured as a result, including being beaten several times within an inch of his life, and once being stoned and left for dead outside Derbe. He also was arrested by the Romans on the insistence of Jewish leaders at Jerusalem, and was taken to Rome in chains, to be judged and ultimately executed by Nero.

Was he insane, or telling the truth? If neither, he could have said, "Hey guys, just kidding, sorry about that, I was wrong..." and the Jews would have had a great trophy to hold up to show that Christianity wasn't all that great. Felix, Festus, or Agrippa would probably have accepted his apology, had him beaten, and let him go.

So I have to think that he was insane, or else telling the truth. And I've read his writings. Romans makes a strong argument. It's well reasoned, not a rambling of a madman. And likewise his other writings. The account in Luke of his missionary journeys and trip to Rome (Luke went also) support the idea that he was telling the truth. Et c.

So on the basis of Paul, alone, I have to conclude that the NT is authentic. And on the NT stands the words of Christ, and on the words of Christ stands the OT. And on that, I stand.

Deus Ex

The story is written that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament, but we cannot know for sure what Jesus truly said or did - or if he even existed at all. There is no way to check the credibility of the gospel authors since they were written anonymously.

No one can say for sure when the autographs were written. I believe that there is evidence that the canonical gospels all belong to the early second century. In other words, they were written a considerably long time after the events they profess to describe. Even if what we now have is an almost exact match for the autographs, it still does not mean that the originals were correct!


There is no good evidence that ANY disciple of Jesus penned a gospel. The names attached to the gospels are late second century guesses. The gospels were never signed.

Many of your "facts" concerning Paul are coming from the Acts of the Apostles - a book that was not authored by Paul. We cannot say if Paul was truly born in Tarsus, if he was a Roman citizen, or that he ever studied under Gamaliel. I consider Paul's seven genuine letters as the best source of information on the historical Paul. Acts tends to contradict some of Paul's letters, so I do not consider the text reliable. Six of "Paul's" letters were almost assuredly not written by him. Pseudepigraphy was rampant in that time period.

I have no doubt that Paul the zealot did persecute some early "Christians". (I doubt these earlier cultists shared the same faith as modern Trinitarian Christians)

You are drawing from the unreliable story found in Acts. Paul himself claimed to have been caught up to the "third heaven" and shown things that he could not utter. Sounds like the ecstatic visions of a mystic. Never did he meet Jesus, the man.

Pure speculation.

There is no doubt that Paul became a zealot for his own antinomian beliefs, and I consider it very probable that Nero had him executed.

Many zealots are willing to die for there beliefs - look no further than radical Islam. Paul could have seriously believed that he had visions from heaven.

Again, I do not accept the reliability of the book of Acts. I also think that there is a third option other than insanity or truth: Paul was simply mistaken.

On the basis of Paul's actual letters, I am convinced that he had nothing other than "visions". A person, today, making the same claims would be told to seek professional help. So why should I believe Paul's visions were real while rejecting Muhammad's?

Earl IV

I'd still like an answer to my quiz

Oh yea, there's this too...

Revelation 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.

Comments?

Deus Ex

This particular warning applies only to the book of Revelations. The original author surely knew how scribes could inadvertently - and sometimes deliberately - add or change words in a text. The author was placing a curse on anyone who did such a thing. It does not apply to the complete bible despite fundamentalist's belief that it does.

Imnotspecial

Add to this the fact that this book was not accepted into the bible until around 400 AD.

show_no_mercy

This is false. The earliest fragments we have are from the 2nd century; unless you are implying that the autographs were written in the 2nd century!

None of the NT was written by any eyewitnesses. The gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were all written anonymously. They first get their names in the late 2nd century. Prior to that, no Christian knows of any person who wrote any of the gospels. They were just floating around namelessly.

The vast majority of the NT was written in the name of Paul. Only seven of Paul's letters have a near scholarly consensus that they were written by Paul. Three have no consensus, and three have a near scholarly consensus that they weren't written by Paul. Even the seven authentic Pauline epistles have (anti-Marcionite) interpolations in them.

At the most, you could say that the Pauline epistles were written by a Pauline "school".

The only thing we can gather from Paul's letters was that he was some sort of Hellenistic Jew. Paul did not know Hebrew, so his claim about being a Pharisee might just be him posturing.

All of this information is from Acts of the Apostles. Which is a 2nd century work and of no use for the history of Christian origins. AoA was written as anti-Marcionite polemic to steal the "Apostle of the Heretics" (Paul) from the Marcionites and make him a good Catholic. Marcionism was probably the most popular form of Christianity in the 2nd century, and was the first iteration of Christianity to put together an official canon and declared Paul the only apostle who got it right.

Marcion is the first witness to any collection of Pauline epistles; curiously Marcion's canon didn't include the Pauline epistles that the majority of scholars say weren't written by Paul. An odd coincidence. The Catholics claimed to simply present the "original" Pauline epistles to combat Marcion, but who knows what the truth is. It's more likely that the Catholics, wanting to gain recruits, simply redacted the Marcionite Pauline epistles as part of their Catholocizing.

Of note is to point out that the earliest Roman writings about Jesus don't refer to him as "Jesus" but as "Chrestus" (pronounced Chreestus). Chrestus was the title given to Jesus by the Marcionites, since they agreed with the Jews that Jesus was not the "messiah" or "christ".

And "Chrestus" means "the good".

The earliest surviving Christian church inscription, also, is Marcionite.

And where do you get all of this from?

Again, this is from Acts of the Apostles. It has no more or less credibility than the other myriads of "Acts of..." type literature written by Christians also written in the 2nd century, such as Acts of Thomas, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter and Paul, Acts of John, Acts of Pilate, etc.

"Praxes" (Acts) is a genre of Christian literature that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Logically, Acts of the Apostles fits into this genre as well and isn't a first century work. The earliest witness to "Acts of the Apostles" is in the late 2nd century.

We don't have any writings from his companion called "Luke".

That's an incredibly slender reed to hang your faith on. I tend to agree with the Ebionites and the Pseudo-Clementines that Paul was an apostate and a fraud.

show_no_mercy

Judaism as we know it began sometime during the Persian era (c. 500 BCE). Some argue that the most recognizable form began during the Hellenistic era (c. 300 BCE - 49 BCE). One point of evidence for that is that Daniel was written during the Maccabean Revolt (167 - 164 BCE). Before the Persian era, "Judaism" didn't exist since the name "Judaism" derives from the province of Judah, which itself isn't extant in the archaeological record until sometime c. 700 BCE. While that is a bit pedantic, the religion of the Israelites/Judahites was polytheistic prior to Zoroastrian (the monotheistic religion of the Persians) influence.

Would you recognize a "Judaism" that revered Jehovah and his consort Asherah? That was the religion of the Hebrews/Canaanites/Israelites/Judahites prior to Assyrian/Babylonian conquest. Sure, there might have been traditions that existed prior to the Assyrian conquest (where we get the four authors JEDP), but you probably wouldn't recognize any of it as "Judaism".

Imnotspecial

From this discussiion alone it shoud be obvious that nobody ought to rely on the scriptures as a source of truth. Christain claims need only be examined whether they correspond with reality. They don't.
We cannot verify whether there were miracles and a virgin birth and a resurrection etc. and whether there is a heaven or hell. That ought to be enough to forget about the whole story. Include evolution and the goose is cooked.

Earl IV

I'd like to see all this moved to Biblical Criticism & History for further discussion (I am interested - not trying to kill the derail)