Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[eccles]

That's what happens when your religion is founded 1800 years after the original (which was founded before the invention of paper or the printing press).

And it has already been pointed out that because of the large number of manuscripts (over 5000 in Greek) which can be crossed checked, the text of the Bible is very accurate to the original and none of any possible errors deal with major dogma.

What original DOC? You know (or should know) that there are NO authored original manuscripts of any part of the Bible, or the Apocrypha. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies.



Robert

 

[paximperium]

You know (or you should know) that the earliest manuscripts of the NT are much closer to the original writings than almost all other ancient writings. So what is the point of your question?

How do you know that again?

So that's a no, on 1st century copies of the New Testament?

 

[wollery]

And waaay more copies of Quotations from Chairman Mao.

Did you have a point?

Apparently not.

 

[Simon39759]

What tomb?
Paul never mentioned a tomb.
Nor did any of the NT epistles.

Paul mentions Jesus was risen from the dead

Which says nothing about a tomb, especially if the author was referring, as sometime suggested, to a resurection 'in the spirit' rather than a physical one.

and Matthew mentions Jesus was placed in a tomb in Mat 27:60. Also Luke 24:2 mentions Jesus was placed in a Sepulcher (which can be a tomb) with a large stone rolled over the entrance.

Which says nothing of Paul or his epistles, which was the point of the post you were answering too.

No Christian writer shows any knowledge of the empty tomb until early-mid 2nd century.

And your statement about early-mid 2nd century is false.

There I agree with you, the empty tomb is referred to as early as the gospel of Mark. Maybe Kapyong dates the writing of the gospels later than scholars usually do, but he would need some more justification.
And the plural 'Christian writers' would be weird then as all the Christians text predating the gospels are attributed to Paul (sometime wrongly).

Kapyong might have made a mistake on that particular subject.

I don't know what your last sentence means.

What's so difficult to understand? They are four different and conflicting hypothesis regarding whereas the tomb is actullay supposed to be located, two of these hypothesis place it somewhere in Jerusalem (the second one being the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Tomb'}Garden tomb[/url].


It is actually not an unusual phenomenon...

 

[Kapyong]

For example the earliest manuscript we have of Plato is dated over 800 years after the original writings. Whereas the earliest manuscript of a New Testament writing is under 100 years after the original.

The earliest manuscripts of the Book of Mormon are the originals!
Must be MUCH more true than the NT.


K.

 

[amb]

I went around to the theology site.
Can you believe it?
Sir William Ramsay's opinion of Luke's accuracy is actually considered proof of said accuracy.
The lists are simply embarrassing, piled up details which prove nothing at all.

I find it really sad that this could possibly be considered proof of the NT's fidelity to the truth.
So. No evidence and back to Geisler and cie.

Sir William Ramsay wouldn't know if his neighbor is a Jew or a Muslim.
The man lives in fantasy land, not a source of anything.

 

[Akhenaten]

For example the earliest manuscript we have of Plato is dated over 800 years after the original writings. Whereas the earliest manuscript of a New Testament writing is under 100 years after the original.

The earliest examples we have of the words of Akhenaten were carved in stone at the time they were spoken and by his direct command, and they're still there. Therefore Atenism is truth and the NT writers lied.

Will there be prizes?

 

[Wally]

The earliest examples we have of the words of Akhenaten were carved in stone at the time they were spoken and by his direct command, and they're still there. Therefore Atenism is truth and the NT writers lied.

Will there be prizes?

And,when his tomb was found, it was empty!

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

"Now, there are 4 alleged 'tombs' of Jesus - two in Jerusalem. "

I don't know what your last sentence means.

It's quite a simple sentence really.

It means that nowadays, there are four different tombs claimed to be the tomb of Jesus, and two of those claimed tombs are in Jerusalem.
http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/where_was_jesus_buried


One more is in Kashmir, and the other is in Japan
http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/
http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm

K.

 

[Akhenaten]

And,when his tomb was found, it was empty!

Well, my fourteen million (approx) posts are out there and they speak for themselves. There is no evidence whatsoever for my Pharaoh's deadness

 

[pakeha]

Manuscripts are hand written copies which was the only way to copy something before the invention of the printing press. The copies of the Book of Mormon were done on a printing press. And for the record there are many more copies of the bible then there are of the book of Mormon.

As far as I know we've gone over this a number of times with DOC.
We've explained how Josh's 24,000 manuscript claim is an example of intellectual dishonesty performed before your very eyes.
Still, for some reason DOC continues to use this source.
Odd.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

And your statement about early-mid 2nd century is false.

Well, perhaps I should have said, outside the Gospels. But even IF the Gospels were 1st century, no 1st C. Christian writer shows knowledge of the Gospels, or the empty tomb story.

We don't see any references to the Gospels, OR the empty tomb story, until early-mid 2nd century :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~desmodeu/Christianity/Table.html

Knowledge of the Jesus of Nazareth story follows knowledge OF the Gospels - this shows later Christians learnt about Jesus only from the Gospel stories. The earliest layers - Paul, and the Catholic epistles, show no knowledge of the empty tomb or many other details.

James and Jude both wrote letters and both were supposedly Jesus' brothers - but neither of them mention being a brother, or mention the other brother, or mention meeting Jesus, or even show any knowledge of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, or mention the empty tomb.

No-one ever claimed to have met Jesus(*), and there is no historical evidence for him. It's all 3rd-hand legends.

* not counting the forged 2 Peter.


K.

 

[amb]

Only rich dudes or families had tombs in those days. Most commoners and especially criminals and trouble stirrers were buried in a huge hole just outside of Jerusalem. They became food for wild scavenging dogs.
The tale of Joseph of Arithima's [spel] tomb is not historical.

 

[Akhenaten]

Gday,

"Now, there are 4 alleged 'tombs' of Jesus - two in Jerusalem. "


<snippy>

One more is in Kashmir, and the other is in Japan


K.

Joyous happy fun-time Jesus has endless potential. The 12 Apokemostles would be a cute addition for the little ones.

 

[pakeha]

That's what happens when your religion is founded 1800 years after the original (which was founded before the invention of paper or the printing press).

And it has already been pointed out that because of the large number of manuscripts (over 5000 in Greek) which can be crossed checked, the text of the Bible is very accurate to the original and none of any possible errors deal with major dogma.

That's good.
Now DOC has access to the originals of the Gospels?

 

[pakeha]

Gday,
...Knowledge of the Jesus of Nazareth story follows knowledge OF the Gospels - this shows later Christians learnt about Jesus only from the Gospel stories. The earliest layers - Paul, and the Catholic epistles, show no knowledge of the empty tomb or many other details. ...
K.

My bolding.
Thanks for a most thought provoking post, Kapyong.

 

[AdinDraco]

For example the earliest manuscript we have of Plato is dated over 800 years after the original writings. Whereas the earliest manuscript of a New Testament writing is under 100 years after the original.

No-one is demanding that everybody has to believe in Plato and follow his orders without evidence. Tell me Plato did or did not exist - so what? Plato is judged by his writings and whether he's real is irrelevant. I am ok with applying the same standard to God.

 

[DOC]

What original DOC? You know (or should know) that there are NO authored original manuscripts of any part of the Bible, or the Apocrypha. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies.

This is normal for ancient writings. We don't even have any signatures of Julius Caesar. But since there are 5700 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato, 643 for Homer's Illiad, and 20 for Tacitus; and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.

I got the above figures from Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" Pg. 199.

Here is a quote from him on page 199:

"It is apparent the New Testament stands head and shoulders above all other major books of antiquity in 1) the number of corroboratory copies and 2) the proximity of the copies to the original writing. This is of great significance. We readily accept other books of history written by such authors listed above even though documentary confirmation is less substantial and copies are much further removed from the original autographs. We should have significantly greater confidence in accuracy of the transmission over time of the New Testament."

 

[DOC]

HOw are yo making this judgement? How can anyone make this comparison.

I mean, given the fact that we don't have COPIES of the original text, How can you possibly make this statement.

See the above post -- 6118.

 

[joobz]

See the above post -- 6118.

nope.