Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-07-2002, 10:11 PM

{audience pelts King Arthur with ripe fruit, knocking off the crown he got at Burger King}

Well, that was a desparate attempt to save your point that didn't quite work. It's easy for you to claim that there's just no evidence of interpolation because it doesn't look like it to you. Do you have as many degrees as Robert Price?

While I'm researching something else, can you and other proponents of Biblical consistency tell me how Christians reconcile these two passages (taken from <a href="http://www.metalog.org/paul_p1.html" target="_blank">this page</a>:

Acts 1:15
[this is after Jesus appeared to his disciples, hung out for 40 days and ascended to Heaven]
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) . . .

versus

1 Corinthians:5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, . . .

So in Acts, there are about 120 believers after the Ascension. But Paul refers to Jesus appearing to 500. Did this happen after the Ascension, in which case it would be counted as a spiritual appearance? Or what?

Steven Carr · 08-07-2002, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:


Oh yes, and an atheist scholar whom I respect very much and is a very reputable textual scholar - Bart Ehrman, doesn't even list these verses in his book on the Orthodox corruption of the Scriptures!

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

Evidence that Bart Ehrman is an atheist please.

CX · 08-08-2002, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:


One thing somewhat misrepresented by the number of manuscripts is the fact that they are all fragments. There are very few complete manuscripts of any one biblical book. There are a few, but the vast majority of the thousands quotes are merely fragments, some only being a verse or two, some just a chapter.

I wanted to touch on one thing here. It is incorrect to say that all or most of the MSS we have are fragments. The fact is, 85-90% are codices, lectionaries, versions(Latin, Syriac and other translations) and other copies, largely complete from the 9th century up until the advent of the printing press. The problem is actually the number and quality of early MSS. Which I've discussed at length before. Perhaps I should write an article and post it somewhere on the web for people to refer to so I don't keep tediously repeating the same discussion.

FreeToThink · 08-08-2002, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
Perhaps I should write an article and post it somewhere on the web for people to refer to so I don't keep tediously repeating the same discussion.

I would find such a reference to be very helpful.

Kosh · 08-08-2002, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:

Perhaps I should write an article and post it somewhere on the web for people to refer to so I don't keep tediously repeating the same discussion.

Yes, and we should host it (or link to it) from the SecWeb lib.

CX · 08-08-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


Yes, and we should host it (or link to it) from the SecWeb lib.

Well I've been working on such an essay sort of haphazardly for the last few months, but I never put any real effort into it. Maybe now I will. I start grad school in a month and will hardly have the time after that.

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-09-2002, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:
largely complete from the 9th century up until the advent of the printing press.

700, 800 years after the fact? I'd consider that dubious at best.

And what about all the stuff about Jesus that isn't considered canonical, because men decided it must not be accurate or real? Who were they to make that decision? They weren't there in the 1st century.

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

CX · 08-09-2002, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:


700, 800 years after the fact? I'd consider that dubious at best.

And what about all the stuff about Jesus that isn't considered canonical, because men decided it must not be accurate or real? Who were they to make that decision? They weren't there in the 1st century.

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

Hmmmm...I fear you are missing my point. I'm clearly not saying that the MSS evidence for the NT is strong. I was simply pointing out that your statement regarding the MSS was incorrect. I'll have to find one of my other posts on the subject.

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-09-2002, 09:05 AM

My bad....sorry.

I was quoting comments from other criticisms about biblical writings I had read.
I've read so much on these subjects over the last few months, I'm starting to get dizzy!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2002, 10:11 PM	#81
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	{audience pelts King Arthur with ripe fruit, knocking off the crown he got at Burger King} Well, that was a desparate attempt to save your point that didn't quite work. It's easy for you to claim that there's just no evidence of interpolation because it doesn't look like it to you. Do you have as many degrees as Robert Price? While I'm researching something else, can you and other proponents of Biblical consistency tell me how Christians reconcile these two passages (taken from <a href="http://www.metalog.org/paul_p1.html" target="_blank">this page</a>: Acts 1:15 [this is after Jesus appeared to his disciples, hung out for 40 days and ascended to Heaven] In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) . . . versus 1 Corinthians:5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, . . . So in Acts, there are about 120 believers after the Ascension. But Paul refers to Jesus appearing to 500. Did this happen after the Ascension, in which case it would be counted as a spiritual appearance? Or what?

08-09-2002, 09:05 AM	#89
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	My bad....sorry. I was quoting comments from other criticisms about biblical writings I had read. I've read so much on these subjects over the last few months, I'm starting to get dizzy!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.