Gods Word - The Bible II

[Guyver]

In my former topic I threw in the towel on being able to prove the Bible as a valid and accurate piece of historical literature. This wall I ran into dealt with being able to validate the New Testament as an accurate piece of historical first century literature. Inspired by Brahmana; I researched the topic. It seems there is ample evidence to support the New Testament as a historically valid piece of first century work; this in spite of numerous attempts to squelch or destroy it’s important message of Jesus the Christ, not the least of which were the persecutions of Marcus Aurelius, and Diocletian.

The evidence I now present is in the form of the testimony of the church fathers.

I am now quoting exclusively from the work of Josh McDowell; The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Publishers 1999.

Clement of Rome (AD 95) Origen, in De Principus, Book II, Chapter 3 calls him a disciple of the apostles. Tertullian in Against Heresies, Chapter 23 writes that Clement was appointed by Peter.

Irenaeus continues in Against Heresies Book III that he still has the preaching of the apostles ringing in his ears. He quotes from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.

Ignatius (AD 70-110) was Bishop of Antioch and was martyred. He knew well the apostles. His seven epistles contain quotations from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter.

Polycarp (AD 70-156) martyred at eighty-six years of age, was Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John.

Among others who quoted from the New Testament were Barnabus (AD 70), Hermas (AD 95), Tatian (AD 170), and Irenias (AD 170).

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-212) 2,400 of his quotes are from all but three books of the New Testament.

Tertullian (AD 160-220) quotes the New Testament 7,000 times; 3,800 of which are from the Gospels.

Hippolytus (AD 170-235) 1,300 references.

Justin Martyr (AD 133) wrote 18,000 New Testament quotes. Linked

To Be Continued.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Guyver

[Guyver]

Origen (AD 185-253 or 234) 18,000 New Testament quotes.

Cyprian (died AD258) Bishop of Carthage 1,030 New Testament citations.

McDowell goes on to quote two Bible scholors, Geisler and Nix who conclude that in all there were 32,000 quotations from the New Testament prior to the Council of Nicea in 325.

Dr. Gleason Archer writes a forward in his work Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and testifies to the internal consistency of the Bible after many years of devoted study.

"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaelology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself - or else by objective archaeological information. The dedcuctions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion."

Edited September 5, 2009 by Guyver

[MysticOnion]

Hi Guyver.

Can I ask what message is it you get from the Bible? It is different for everyone and I want to know what you see in it.

[Guyver]

Hi Guyver.

Can I ask what message is it you get from the Bible? It is different for everyone and I want to know what you see in it.

Hello Seven of Zero. That's a big question. Chiefly; there is a God, he loves and cares for us, a person has a soul or spirit, this world is a shadow of that which is to come, and Jesus is the Christ; the Savior of the world.

[MysticOnion]

oh okay.

What about Everlasting life?

[Guyver]

oh okay.

What about Everlasting life?

That's one of the best parts of having faith in Christ. Not just everlasting life, but in a state of perfection and in a world devoid of corruption, pain, suffering and all of the ills we now underdstand. Do you not wish to live forever under those circumstances?

[Tiggs]

You'll note that your first witness, Clement, is from 95AD. That's over 60 years after the supposed Death of Christ.

[Guyver]

You'll note that your first witness, Clement, is from 95AD. That's over 60 years after the supposed Death of Christ.

Yes, and he was a disciple of the Apostles. So he was a first hand witness of the first hand witnesses of Christ. So, he personally knew the apostles himself. That makes him a credible witness to record the writings that the Apostles considered divine scripture. He's attesting to the works that the Apostles considered divine.

[MARAB0D]

Gyiver, but historical is a document like your birth certificate, or a record in the deed poll, confirming your existence; or a fine, you were issued by cops for riding a wtite donkey in a city centre or something else, confirming your current existence and available after you are no longer with us. Say, Harry Potter has no such records, only a description of his life. Same as Jesus.

[Guyver]

Gyiver, but historical is a document like your birth certificate, or a record in the deed poll, confirming your existence; or a fine, you were issued by cops for riding a wtite donkey in a city centre or something else, confirming your current existence and available after you are no longer with us. Say, Harry Potter has no such records, only a description of his life. Same as Jesus.

Marabod - the New Testament is the historical document that records Jesus Christs existence and entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on a colt - thus fulfilling the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel and verifying the scriptures as divine in origin. The first century writers that I've listed are the corroborating historians that you need to authenticate the New Testament as a reliable historical document.

[MARAB0D]

Marabod - the New Testament is the historical document that records Jesus Christs existence and entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on a colt - thus fulfilling the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel and verifying the scriptures as divine in origin. The first century writers that I've listed are the corroborating historians that you need to authenticate the New Testament as a reliable historical document.

Technically it does not "record", it only "tells" about all this, and tells many years after it happened. Records are done by some specially appointed independent clerks in some authorised bureau. It means there has to be some official note of the time, mentioning Jesus. Each human is only "existing" when a society admits their existence. It is not enough to be borne in order to exist. Imagine a person in US having no birth certificate - then there would be no passport, no social security number, no tax file number, no bank account, no job and no right to stay within US borders at all. Such person exists de-facto but does not exist de-jure. Jesus never existed de-juro, so without physically touching him we cannot talk of his de-facto existence too. SOMEONE may have been existing who created the teaching, attributed to Jesus, no more. Pretty much like we are unsure that it was Shakespeare who was signing the famous plays of unclear authorship with the name "Shaksper", but still attribute them to him. But in the latter case we at least have historical documents that such person Shaksper existed, while with Jesus we do not. Compare with Julius Caesar - in this case we do not only know he existed, but we also know he himself accomplished all what was attributed to him, because we have proofs.

[Jor-el]

Marabod - the New Testament is the historical document that records Jesus Christs existence and entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on a colt - thus fulfilling the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel and verifying the scriptures as divine in origin. The first century writers that I've listed are the corroborating historians that you need to authenticate the New Testament as a reliable historical document.

Hi Guyver,

As you know, that is the real reason why so many people have attempted to destroy the authorship and accuracy of the book of Daniel. This prophecy is something they can't accept as real so they state that Daniel could only have been written or tampered with in the 1st century, so that the prophecy would become legitimate.

They state that the prophecy itself was added in at a later date...

It's BS, but that is what they state....

[MysticOnion]

Did people really rise from the dead and walk the streets when Christ died on the cross?

[Jor-el]

Technically it does not "record", it only "tells" about all this, and tells many years after it happened. Records are done by some specially appointed independent clerks in some authorised bureau. It means there has to be some official note of the time, mentioning Jesus. Each human is only "existing" when a society admits their existence. It is not enough to be borne in order to exist. Imagine a person in US having no birth certificate - then there would be no passport, no social security number, no tax file number, no bank account, no job and no right to stay within US borders at all. Such person exists de-facto but does not exist de-jure. Jesus never existed de-juro, so without physically touching him we cannot talk of his de-facto existence too. SOMEONE may have been existing who created the teaching, attributed to Jesus, no more. Pretty much like we are unsure that it was Shakespeare who was signing the famous plays of unclear authorship with the name "Shaksper", but still attribute them to him. But in the latter case we at least have historical documents that such person Shaksper existed, while with Jesus we do not. Compare with Julius Caesar - in this case we do not only know he existed, but we also know he himself accomplished all what was attributed to him, because we have proofs.

Yet we do know that there are many records now lost that were available to the early christian writers. Records in the temple that was later destroyed as well as records in other cities that survived into the 1st century and were available to the apostolic fathers.

They mention these records any number of times.

We also have to take into account that the records we do have are sketchy about many things in that era. For example the date of Herods death, the Roman provincial governers of the time etc, etc...

[eight bits]

Howdy, Guyver

Your problem in the first thread was the fundamentally non-historical nature of so much of what you wish to claim. The nub of your beliefs cannot be resolved by historical methods.

For example, and I appreciate that it annoys you that people like me often reach for this subject first, whom do you nominate as our witness to Mary's virginity? Certainly not the Gospel writers. Nor people who knew the apostles, some of whom, in their turn, knew the gospel writers. How would any of them know?

So, historians cannot know, either. It is not a historical question.

Having quotations from a document means that a version of the document existed, not that what the document says is true. There is very little controversy that there was an active, organized, and partly literate Christian community by about 100 CE. So what?

You bring up the epistles, about which the prime historical controversy is often authenticity of authorship. Being quoted years later is unhlepful with that, too.

And even if there were no questions about the authenticity about any of the epistles of Paul, there would remain questions about Paul's qualifications to write epistles, which exceed historical methods for resolution. Luke's story in Acts is that Paul had a vision in the desert, Ananias of Damascus had a vision about Paul, and Paul had a reciprocal vision about Ananias.

That's it. There is no historical method to establish that these visions occurred as reported. They are as private an experience as a lady's virginity. So, historians cannot know these things, either.

Guyver, there is a reason why it is called the Christian Faith. The New Testament is an invitation to belief, not a verifiable account of past accomplished facts. There is no magic by which historians can make it one.

[Lt_Ripley]

Marabod - the New Testament is the historical document that records Jesus Christs existence and entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday on a colt - thus fulfilling the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel and verifying the scriptures as divine in origin. The first century writers that I've listed are the corroborating historians that you need to authenticate the New Testament as a reliable historical document.

historical document ? no. let's not forget a great deal of Danial is said by most scholars to be predated.

Jay G. Williams writes: "When the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Antiochus did not die as he said nor did his kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, he was right about one thing. Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (the 'little help' mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to a few moments of glory before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet. He knew, however, that what his people needed was not general platitudes but a specific hope to which to cling. This he provided even at the risk of being wrong. Furthermore, his central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people. Daniel teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand." (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 316)

My link

many messiahs/saviors happened over the course of a few hundred years. some stuck some didn't. Some did more than 'Jesus ' did . Jesus may have existed or may not have but is instead an amalgamation of a various few characters that the Jews hoped for.

to state the bible proves anything is .. well , wrong. sorry. but it doesn't not as far as a messiah or savior goes. it may have some geology and some history , but the city of London exists in the fiction of Harry Potter. Lot's of fiction/fantasy revolves around real events and places.

How many Jews may have ridden on a colt ? Is it fulfilling a prophesy if one does it knowingly like Jesus would have ? why are there prophesies Jesus didn't fulfill ? why are those ignored ? Jesus wouldn't have .

He would have believed as the Jews did. He would have thought as they did that the end days were upon them which is why he told those he was speaking too he'd be back during their lifetime. and yet he didn't return. That really seems like it would be concrete. factually happening. Because the early believers gave up on his return .

[Tiggs]

Yes, and he was a disciple of the Apostles. So he was a first hand witness of the first hand witnesses of Christ. So, he personally knew the apostles himself. That makes him a credible witness to record the writings that the Apostles considered divine scripture. He's attesting to the works that the Apostles considered divine.

No.

Clement didn't exist. Clement's first epistle is as much of a forgery as his second epistle.

[MysticOnion]

Are you saying the entire Bible is absolutely true just because the geography and the history are factual?

[MARAB0D]

Yet we do know that there are many records now lost that were available to the early christian writers. Records in the temple that was later destroyed as well as records in other cities that survived into the 1st century and were available to the apostolic fathers.

They mention these records any number of times.

We also have to take into account that the records we do have are sketchy about many things in that era. For example the date of Herods death, the Roman provincial governers of the time etc, etc...

Jor-el, there is no direct evidence, belonging to the same time period. This means there is no proof. This is not my personal position or a personal position of Jesus' deniers, as you are trying to present it, but the objective fact of the absence of evidence. Roman Pope is not a Jesus' denier, but he also has no such evidence in view - as otherwise he would've published it.

[Jor-el]

Howdy, Guyver

Your problem in the first thread was the fundamentally non-historical nature of so much of what you wish to claim. The nub of your beliefs cannot be resolved by historical methods.

For example, and I appreciate that it annoys you that people like me often reach for this subject first, whom do you nominate as our witness to Mary's virginity? Certainly not the Gospel writers. Nor people who knew the apostles, some of whom, in their turn, knew the gospel writers. How would any of them know?

So, historians cannot know, either. It is not a historical question.

Having quotations from a document means that a version of the document existed, not that what the document says is true. There is very little controversy that there was an active, organized, and partly literate Christian community by about 100 CE. So what?

You bring up the epistles, about which the prime historical controversy is often authenticity of authorship. Being quoted years later is unhlepful with that, too.

And even if there were no questions about the authenticity about any of the epistles of Paul, there would remain questions about Paul's qualifications to write epistles, which exceed historical methods for resolution. Luke's story in Acts is that Paul had a vision in the desert, Ananias of Damascus had a vision about Paul, and Paul had a reciprocal vision about Ananias.

That's it. There is no historical method to establish that these visions occurred as reported. They are as private an experience as a lady's virginity. So, historians cannot know these things, either.

Guyver, there is a reason why it is called the Christian Faith. The New Testament is an invitation to belief, not a verifiable account of past accomplished facts. There is no magic by which historians can make it one.

Actually the only reason why there is doubt regarding the validity of the testimony given by the apostles is not that they had visions, but rather that this is merely the simplest way of having their validity as good witnesses, cast into doubt.

If one can determine that a witnesses testimony is false or at least doubtful, you can effectively throw out the entire testimony.

This doesn't mean that just because one can cast doubt on a single issue, that the whole testimony is doubtful too, but it weakens the overall validity of the witness.

To this effect many attempts are constantly being made to cast doubt on the gospels. Since the gospels affirm categorically that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus conception, it stands to reason that if we believe the witness we will also accept this statement of Mary's virginity.

That is why so many try to cast doubt on this issue among many others, like Jesus birth, his death dates and many more items.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Jor-el

[MARAB0D]

Hi Guyver,

As you know, that is the real reason why so many people have attempted to destroy the authorship and accuracy of the book of Daniel. This prophecy is something they can't accept as real so they state that Daniel could only have been written or tampered with in the 1st century, so that the prophecy would become legitimate.

They state that the prophecy itself was added in at a later date...

It's BS, but that is what they state....

Jor-el. The book of Daniel is the most ambiguous and incomplete book in the Bible. First of all technically it is not a book og Daniel, but a book ABOUT Daniel, written by someone who allegedly witness the events. As such the author does not assume responsibility for any prophecy in it.

The proofs that the book was edited in later times is the absence of its single canonical form, as it appears in two forms, long and short. English reader knows it in a short form of 12 chapters, as it is given in KJV, translated from Latin Vulgate, so its last words are 13But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.. Russian Synodic Bible is translated from the Hebrew Bible, and the book of Daniel there has 14 chapters, not 12. The book ends with the story of Abbacum being sent by God to deliver the dinner to Daniel, after he survives being thrown in the lions den and release of Daniel and execution of his enemies. This difference is silently accepted as "non-contradictive" by both Orthodox Church and RCC on official level.

[Jor-el]

Jor-el, there is no direct evidence, belonging to the same time period. This means there is no proof. This is not my personal position or a personal position of Jesus' deniers, as you are trying to present it, but the objective fact of the absence of evidence. Roman Pope is not a Jesus' denier, but he also has no such evidence in view - as otherwise he would've published it.

What I'm stating is that although the evidence itself doesn't exist now, it once did exist. So much so that there are many of that time that did have access to official records. Now you can disbelieve them if you like, but on the whole I don't think there is any reason why we should diregard their testimony on these issues...

Edited September 5, 2009 by Jor-el

[MARAB0D]

What I'm stating is that although the evidence itself doesn't exist now, it once did exist. So much so that there are many of that time that did have access to official records. Now you can disbelieve them if you like, but on the whole I don't think there is any reason why we should diregard their testimony on these issues...

I do not "disbelive", I do not see any credibility in these statements. Because they are not anyhow supported by the evidence, they are only words, not even a report of some commission, appointed to find these missing evidences. They are simply saying that there is no documents - of which I am aware even without these testimonies!

[MARAB0D]

Jor-el, you can compare these missing documents with the missing secret clause to Molotoff-Ribbentropp pact. As soon as Europe was divided, both Germany and USSR thoroughly destroyed the evidence that this division was agreed on paper in advance. After the war for 50 years they both were in denial of this ever taking place, and presenting only the official test of the Pact as a proof that it was talking only about security guarantees between the countries. However the research of 1980s managed to discover the photocopies of the destroyed pages, kept in case a historical need would arise to substantiate the legality of partition of Poland, Romania etc. Thus the secret clause became proven and started to be a legal document again.

If you prefer to believe in the documents in the absence of evidence of their existence, you have no moral right to crack down on those who choose not to believe, as you cannot enforce your personal choice onto the others. And certainly you cannot use your belief as an objective proof instead of the fact.

[eight bits]

To this effect many attempts are constantly being made to cast doubt on the gospels. Since the gospels affirm categorically that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus conception, it stands to reason that if we believe the witness we will also accept this statement of Mary's virginity.

There are no witnesses to Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus' birth, except her. She didn't write a gospel.

Those who were gospel writers probably never met her. The Apostles would have met her only decades after the fact.

This thread isn't about whether the New Testament is true, but whether it is a historical document, whether a historian could form an affirmative opinion about its truth within the scope of his or her professional expertise.

If no witnesses to a fact claim leave written records, and those who wrote the claim are not witnesses, then the answer is no.

Not "no, she wasn't a virgin," but "no, this is not a historical question." At least in this thread.