No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament.It is obvious with this statement that you have not studied much history. There are civilizations existing before the biblical stories were written with tons more evidence AND more historical accuracy. Well please, let us in on these civilizations with tons more manuscript evidence and historical accuracy! Who are they and where are the manuscripts? "Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Rylands manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century... "In reference to the textual evidence for the New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger wrote, 'In evaluating the significance of these statistics...one should consider, by way of contrast, the number of manuscripts which preserve the text of the ancient classics. Homer's Iliad...is preserved by 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. Among the tragedians the witnesses to Euripides are the most abundant; his extant works are preserved in 54 papyri and 276 parchment manuscripts, almost all of the later dating from the Byzantine period...the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant which were copies within a century or so after the composition of the original documents.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
I believe one can ask some questions which are not provocative in themselves, yet force the other (fundamentalist) person to seriously think about it. I have posed this question myself to OT adherents and it never failed to take them aback just a little. a) At what point do "God's mysterious ways" (such as a natural disaster, killing thousands of people), become works of the Devil?In Christian teaching natural disasters and death are a result of sin. We will all die. The works of the devil stem from disobedience to God's commands.
b) If God make a Commandment :"thou shalt not kill", why would He himself break that Law? Or order His children to break that Commandment and kill in His name?The command to Israel not to kill is a command not to commit murder. Israel took a person's life when the civil law required it as punishment or in war, just as we do today in our law. We have the death penalty for certain crimes and we authorize soldiers to kill on behalf of the nation in war. In fact, God's law to all nations is that if a man murders another person, his life should be taken. “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." Genesis 9:6
No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament.It is obvious with this statement that you have not studied much history. There are civilizations existing before the biblical stories were written with tons more evidence AND more historical accuracy. Well please, let us in on these civilizations with tons more manuscript evidence and historical accuracy! Who are they and where are the manuscripts? I admit I can’t find numbers that refute the ones you provided. Have you considered that is not how history is done? Do you think a scholar would simply count up how many times something was copied and conclude it’s authenticity? Read between the lines of your own quote, the larger numbers include copies from 125 to the 15th century. No statements on the accuracy of the copy or quality of translations is made. This is only a statement on the popularity of Christianity and the monastic orders that felt making those copies was important. It says nothing about the truth of any of it. The only truly important fact is that we are lacking verifiable witnesses. This is true of most history. In addition for Christianity, we are lacking evidence outside of the events in dispute. For example, we don’t have a verifiable witness for Ceasar crossing the Rubicon, but we do have evidence of changes in Rome that resulted from that event. Jesus seems to have gone unnoticed to the rest of the world. Those who were affected by him were affected by the story. This doesn’t disprove the existence of Jesus, but it shows how lacking the historical evidence of his existence is.
Michelle,
there's one thing I have not yet been able to get through to [a friend]: Old Testament atrocities.
No, of course I'm not worried about my friend going that overboard . . . . I brought up the atrocities, but not to argue him out of his faith.I am a Christian, a Catholic even. But I'm not interested in defending that, partly because I'm just not a good apologist. You question however isn't really directly about apologetics, but: How convince someone, especially a friend, that he's defending the indefensible? Is that a decent summation of your original question? Specifically, you think the Old Testament is full of what seem to be obvious atrocities against others, and your friend seems caught defending them. What I have to say is very general, and is more about how to conduct dialogue with someone, not specifically about attacking or defending Christianity. Ask yourself what's so important to *you* about certain Old Testament stories. Do they *really* animate your atheism? Do they really animate your interlocutor's Christianity? If they don't animate either of you either way, then you have to admit you're discussing something of only secondary importance to both of you. And a debate about a subject neither interlocutor is truly interested in is tailor-made for a crappy discussion. Ask yourself what's animating you to discuss something of secondary importance; that's the primary thing. Be honest enough to say 'okay, what's *really* eating me is . . . .' You mentioned 'other people'. Avoid worrying about *other people* when there's a person right in front of you - unless that person is somehow directly responsible for those other people's actions. I am truly not responsible for the several billion Christians out there, and you're not responsible for the many atheists out there. You want to bend the ear of a pastor about the actions of his flock, that's legitimate; you want to argue with the head of CFI over the behavior of his officers, cool. If you argue about other people, they aren't there to defend or explain themselves: that's a situation ripe for grandstanding, speculation, straw-man arguments. One big exception is what other public figures or professionals have written. by all means sit down and comb through what Dawkins claims about religion being abuse, or Augustine on the argument against God from evil. Related to this, avoid arguing with the person next to the one in front of you. I frankly don't care what happened to the Amorites or the Huzzah-ites, I'm not even sure if anything happened to them at all except the usual awful things that befell people around 1000BC, and if you began arguing with me 'what about those poor bastards', I'd just be at a loss. Would you have succeeded? Well, succeeded at what? You just have an abortive discussion. Not every Christian - or atheist - is ready with a good argument for everything that could fall under their purview. That doesn't reflect badly on either of them *at all* - unless they were claiming to be experts on it. 'Of the learning of books, there is no end' or something like that, goes the proverb. Be charitable. It's a hard thing to describe, but with friends it's more obvious. I was never good at school debating; I won't diss it entirely, but I don't think it's the true spirit of philosophy, the pursuit of wisdom, that we find for example in the Socratic dialogues once the mere arguers have left the room (most famously in the *Republic*, where Socrates works hard to enrage Thrasymachus enough to stalk out. At least that's how I see bks I and II.) On a particular: no reasonable person would argue that atrocities aren't atrocities. (Principle of charity.) A reasonable person might defend even certain atrocities if he feels the real aim is someone (or Someone) is under attack, not the atrocities themselves. (a consequence of not being honest with each other about the real things animating a discussion). A reasonable person might claim that some acts that look atrocious weren't so atrocious under these circumstances, at this time, under this cultural milieu. And note that for some of the Old Testament atrocities, there are two stories, and one set claims they didn't happen. Try discussing things you have *real* difficulties about. Face it, you don't have a real difficulty understanding the stories in the Old Testament, and you don't have a real puzzle about some people's defense of them. You (think you) have a pretty good bead on it. So instead, ask questions about things you really don't know about but are interested in. What's up with calling God 'simple'? How *do* you, my interlocutor, decide what in the Bible to take literally and what to take figuratively? And so on. This list is rather random. Chris
Oh - and careful of the ‘bitch fest’. ‘You know what I hate (about those idiots over there) . . . .’ Avoid that if you’re looking for a real discussion. Not never; sometimes you’re just really unhappy about other people, and your friend, if he’s a friend, will be willing to hear you out. Otherwise you run the risk of either shoving your friend into a false opposition, or setting you both to straw-manning Those Idiots.
I was new to the area here (Tacoma), and in the gloom of a rainy winter morning on the train-station saw a sign ‘HATE CPAP?’ (an uncomfortable device to help some people with sleep apnea). I thought it said ‘HATE CRAP?’ and the feeling spontaneously welled up in me ‘O boy do I!’ Avoid tickling that ‘O boy do I!’ feeling too much.
Chris
Ask yourself what's so important to *you* about certain Old Testament stories. Do they *really* animate your atheism? Do they really animate your interlocutor's Christianity? If they don't animate either of you either way, then you have to admit you're discussing something of only secondary importance to both of you. And a debate about a subject neither interlocutor is truly interested in is tailor-made for a crappy discussion.Being charitable is a good position to begin any discussion. Let’s not forget that the report of these conversations has occurred over weeks, allowing ample time for checking facts or reading entire books. Michelle can speak for herself, but I believe she does have a problem with the atrocities and has a problem that her friend dismisses them. Just as I have a problem that you don’t care what happened to the Amorites. It is not a question of what actually happened to them, or what was morally accepted when it happened, the problem is that the God character in the Bible is saying it is moral and that Michelle’s friend, or anyone, is claiming a moral God based on that actual character. The most generous interpretation I have of the Bible is that, at the time of its writing, some of the stories are an attempt to lead people to a higher standard of moral behavior (using today’s definition of moral). These are always small, incremental steps, like treating slaves slightly better. These are hardly words that can be claimed to be from an ultimately morally superior being worthy of worship.
Do you think a scholar would simply count up how many times something was copied and conclude it’s authenticity? Read between the lines of your own quote, the larger numbers include copies from 125 to the 15th century. No statements on the accuracy of the copy or quality of translations is made. This is only a statement on the popularity of Christianity and the monastic orders that felt making those copies was important. It says nothing about the truth of any of it.The most recent discoveries of ancient papyrus dated to a.d. 125 and a complete text of the Gospel of John dated to a.d. 200 squashes the idea that these texts were written later and a gospel other than the one preached by Jesus "evolved" over time. The Bodmer Papyrus of the Gospel of John dating to a.d. 200 is little different from the one in your Bible. It leaves out the story of the adulteress, which we already knew was suspect from other early manuscript evidence. You asked how I could trust the Bible in my hand? How do I know it hasn't been changed? If this evidence doesn't convince you, then you do not want to be convinced. The reality for you now is to understand the Bible you can buy from any store today is 99% accurate in its context to the earliest manuscripts available, many dating back to the 2nd century, and a complete Bible dating to the 4th century. You cannot blame the text. You can reject its teaching, but you can no longer claim it isn't an accurate text.
For example, we don’t have a verifiable witness for Ceasar crossing the Rubicon, but we do have evidence of changes in Rome that resulted from that event. Jesus seems to have gone unnoticed to the rest of the world. Those who were affected by him were affected by the story. This doesn’t disprove the existence of Jesus, but it shows how lacking the historical evidence of his existence is.Do you realize what you just said? You don't think the world has noticed Jesus? Many of the people on this site who claim to be atheist just can't help writing derogatory comments in their signature files against Christ and Christians. Islam is a religion built on the rejection of Jesus as the Son of God. The teachings of Christ overwhelmed Paganism to the point of near extinction. The Gospel of Christ has reached every nation in the world. Two thousand years later we are still talking about Jesus! And you honestly think the world didn't notice him? I'll bet more people in the world know about Jesus than they do about Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
The most recent discoveries of ancient papyrus dated to a.d. 125 and a complete text of the Gospel of John dated to a.d. 200 squashes the idea that these texts were written later and a gospel other than the one preached by Jesus "evolved" over time.The gospels themselves from the earliest written Mark to the later John show a narrative that “evolved". Edit: Actually Paul may have come before Mark, I should have included that.
Do you realize what you just said? You don't think the world has noticed Jesus?I was referring to the world noticing what was going on with Jesus at the time. Your own story has him being executed next to common criminals. There are no major shifts in affairs of empires that are attributed to Christ at the time. There are barely a few disputed references. There is a history of several small groups of followers for a couple hundred years. During that time there were many similar small sects following other narratives. It was Constantine that made Christianity a state religion and led to the large following that he enjoys today. I’m not discounting the quality of the story and claiming Christianity would not have made it without Constantine. But we don’t know what would have happened without that bit of history. A different empire might have won different wars and chosen a different narrative. Who we are talking about from 2,000 years ago has many many factors to consider, not just the magic powers of Jesus. Edit 2: Please note that in the quoted text I said, "Those who were affected by him were affected by the story." This indicates I understand that there were affects of the gospel narratives. Surely you don't think I am unaware of that. This should have clarified that I was talking about the difference between the reality of the messiah and the affects a story can have on history.
The most recent discoveries of ancient papyrus dated to a.d. 125 and a complete text of the Gospel of John dated to a.d. 200 squashes the idea that these texts were written later and a gospel other than the one preached by Jesus "evolved" over time.But you said Jesus was resurrected in 30 A.D.
Jesus rose from the dead around 30 AD.That squashes your idea that the texts were not written later. Ninety-five years is a lot of time for people to rewrite the Gospels according to their ideology. Please try to let the facts get through your worldview. You are not always right.
Well please, let us in on these civilizations with tons more manuscript evidence and historical accuracy! Who are they and where are the manuscripts?Along with the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian writings, there were the Mesoamerican Olmecs and Chinese. Each of these civilizations recorded their history through their writings.
Don’t forget ancient Greece and Rome.
That squashes your idea that the texts were not written later. Ninety-five years is a lot of time for people to rewrite the Gospels according to their ideology. Please try to let the facts get through your worldview. You are not always right.So let me see if I get this right. In the last 1850 years, the writings of the New Testament haven't been corrupted, but read remarkably close to those found in 200 AD. Your contention is that between 30 AD and 125 AD, when a small text of John's Gospel was found, someone was working overtime to rewrite the Gospels according to their own ideology. We know that John lived until 90-100 AD, so these nefarious characters actually only had about 25 to 35 years to corrupt John's and Jesus' teaching, and they had to get it past the many followers who learned from John directly. He was an Elder of the church after all. Who would that be, and why is it so important to you that the Gospels do not contain the teachings of John or Jesus, but of Joe and Schmoe who hijacked the teachings? At this point you have to ask yourself: Why is it so important to you that the New Testament doesn't, in fact, contain the teachings of those it claims to contain? Is it too difficult to reject Jesus outright? Do you have to say the teachings of Jesus were corrupted by Joe, and therefore you reject them? You don't believe in God. You don't believe in Jesus. Why do you feel the overwhelming need to discredit the New Testament based on nothing but a desire to do so? That is not scholarship.
Well please, let us in on these civilizations with tons more manuscript evidence and historical accuracy! Who are they and where are the manuscripts?Along with the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian writings, there were the Mesoamerican Olmecs and Chinese. Each of these civilizations recorded their history through their writings. Here's the quote you objected to: "No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the New Testament." I didn't say ancient civilizations didn't record their history through writing. I said no other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscripts as the New Testament. See the difference? You answered a question I didn't ask and refuted a claim I didn't make.
The most recent discoveries of ancient papyrus dated to a.d. 125 and a complete text of the Gospel of John dated to a.d. 200 squashes the idea that these texts were written later and a gospel other than the one preached by Jesus "evolved" over time.But you said Jesus was resurrected in 30 A.D.
Jesus rose from the dead around 30 AD.That squashes your idea that the texts were not written later. Ninety-five years is a lot of time for people to rewrite the Gospels according to their ideology. Please try to let the facts get through your worldview. You are not always right. Ten years would be a long time. With political and religious controversies swirling around the alleged facts, even contemporaneous writings would be suspect. As usual, Ms. Smith adjusts the facts, and her standards, to fit her conclusions. The very fact that there isn't a wealth of immediately contemporaneous verification is evidence that the story isn't true.
I believe one can ask some questions which are not provocative in themselves, yet force the other (fundamentalist) person to seriously think about it. I have posed this question myself to OT adherents and it never failed to take them aback just a little. a) At what point do "God's mysterious ways" (such as a natural disaster, killing thousands of people), become works of the Devil?In Christian teaching natural disasters and death are a result of sin. We will all die. The works of the devil stem from disobedience to God's commands.
b) If God make a Commandment :"thou shalt not kill", why would He himself break that Law? Or order His children to break that Commandment and kill in His name?The command to Israel not to kill is a command not to commit murder. Israel took a person's life when the civil law required it as punishment or in war, just as we do today in our law. We have the death penalty for certain crimes and we authorize soldiers to kill on behalf of the nation in war. In fact, God's law to all nations is that if a man murders another person, his life should be taken. “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." Genesis 9:6 Well, George Carlin said it best, albeit with some crude language. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8
That squashes your idea that the texts were not written later. Ninety-five years is a lot of time for people to rewrite the Gospels according to their ideology. Please try to let the facts get through your worldview. You are not always right.So let me see if I get this right. In the last 1850 years, the writings of the New Testament haven't been corrupted, but read remarkably close to those found in 200 AD. Your contention is that between 30 AD and 125 AD, when a small text of John's Gospel was found, someone was working overtime to rewrite the Gospels according to their own ideology. We know that John lived until 90-100 AD, so these nefarious characters actually only had about 25 to 35 years to corrupt John's and Jesus' teaching, and they had to get it past the many followers who learned from John directly. He was an Elder of the church after all. Who would that be, and why is it so important to you that the Gospels do not contain the teachings of John or Jesus, but of Joe and Schmoe who hijacked the teachings? At this point you have to ask yourself: Why is it so important to you that the New Testament doesn't, in fact, contain the teachings of those it claims to contain? Is it too difficult to reject Jesus outright? Do you have to say the teachings of Jesus were corrupted by Joe, and therefore you reject them? You don't believe in God. You don't believe in Jesus. Why do you feel the overwhelming need to discredit the New Testament based on nothing but a desire to do so? That is not scholarship. Once again, you ignore your erroneous factual claim and fail at your attempt to read my mind. Plenty of scholars have written about how the gospels were manipulated. I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and Christ's Ventriloquist by Eric Zuesse. Your discussion of my unbelief is a red herring in this context.
At this point you have to ask yourself: Why is it so important to you that the New Testament doesn't, in fact, contain the teachings of those it claims to contain? Is it too difficult to reject Jesus outright? Do you have to say the teachings of Jesus were corrupted by Joe, and therefore you reject them? You don't believe in God. You don't believe in Jesus. Why do you feel the overwhelming need to discredit the New Testament based on nothing but a desire to do so? That is not scholarship.I'll let the other references respond to your historical questions. At the time that I was asking these questions as a Christian, I was looking for just what Jesus' teachings were. You have already pointed out the many false teachings, so I hope you can see that as a legitimate goal for a Christian. I could not simply walk into the nearest building with a cross on it and accept whatever the guy in front said. I was not looking for a reason to reject Jesus, I was looking for Jesus. What I found is that he can not be found, except through a personal revelation, that is, he is what one feels he is in your heart. There is no scholarship that can override that. It is true only for the one who has the feeling. I did not use words such as "corrupt" or "discredit". Those are not scholarly words. Scholarship simply looks at the facts. It finds a manuscript that read one way before it was copied by a particular monk and it read a different way afterwards. Again, you acknowledge this happens, but accuse me of making it mean something. Scholarship finds notes from meetings of the people who developed the movement that eventually became Protestantism. It does not have an agenda, other than to present data and ask others to verify or refute it. You and I then decide if there is a message in all this and what that message is. That you say that all of this work is based on nothing more than my desire, my overwhelming need, is a cruel statement that once again shows your lack of compassion. My desire is to leave this place better than I found it. We agree that there have been people who have called themselves Christians that have had a corrupted message and have done a considerable amount of damage. I just take it a little further and say that there is no one message, there is no correct source, and the best, kindest interpretation that there is ain't that great. I wouldn't really say that Jesus' message was corrupted because there was never a single coherent message in the first place. Mythical writings are always an attempt to make a statement and affect change, and they are altered by each successive story teller to fit the situation. I'm suspect you agree with this about every other religion, just not your own. Okay, I'm bored now. Gotta go.
My mother called the bible a ‘pick your own adventure’ book, and it is true. If you want to find a benevolent god or Jesus, just look for the appropriate passages, if you want a vengeful god or Jesus, the passages are there as well. Whatever position you would like to support on nearly anything, you can find a passage to support you. Which gets us back to why there are so many competing christian sects thinking they, and they alone, have the right answer.
We can’t even get WMDs in Iraq straight, and that’s with modern means of communications, including video and audio recordings of events as they transpire. Manipulation of facts needn’t depend on a conspiracy; being self-centered, people’s biases shape the stories they tell. My father used to tell me how FDR withheld weapons from American soldiers in WWII. Why did he say that? Because someone who was in the trenches ran short on supplies, decided that FDR did it deliberately, told Dad what he had experienced and Dad - who didn’t like FDR - thought the worst.
So 2,000 years ago, amid intense upheaval and angst, some people were awaiting a Messiah. They came up with a story. Hello.
Why do any secularists take this argument seriously?
I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and Christ's Ventriloquist by Eric Zuesse.Sadly, Dr. Bart Ehrman put all his faith in having a New Testament without any copying errors, and when he couldn't find it his faith was destroyed. My faith isn't in a perfect New Testament, it's in Jesus Christ. Dr. Ehrman's book is very one sided with many unsubstantiated claims. He uses the Pagan critic Celsus as a source! He ignores excellent work done by other textual critics and over emphasizes spelling and other minor errors by scribes. Textual critics agree that aside from the obvious copying errors, the New Testament text is 99% accurate. The message is there. Men like Bart Erhman who choose to reject the message of Christ will find reasons why, and those who reject Christ will gather around them "scholars" who tell them what they want to hear. The reality is this is not scholarship, but choosing to read men who tell you what you've already decided to believe.