IS JESUS GOD ?
PART SIX
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Could Jesus have been lying ?
Even Jesus' harshest critics rarely have called Him a liar. The label certainly does not fit with Jesus' high moral and ethical teaching. But if Jesus isn't who He claimed to be, we must consider the option that He was intentionally misleading everyone.
One of the best-known and influential political works of all time, was written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1532. In his classic, The Prince, Machiavelli exalts power, success, image and efficiency above loyalty, faith and honesty. According to Machiavelli, lying is okay if it accomplishes a political end.
Could Jesus Christ have built His entire ministry upon a lie just to gain power, fame or success? In fact the Jewish opponents of Jesus were constantly trying to expose Him as a fraud and liar. They would barrage Him with questions in attempts to trip Him up and make Him contradict Himself. Yet Jesus responded with remarkable consistency.
The question we must deal with is; what could possibly motivate Jesus to live His entire life as a lie?
He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so He wouldn't have been doing it to please His Father. He certainly didn't lie for His followers benefit, since all but one were martyred rather than renouncing His Lordship. (See Did the apostles believe Jesus is God?)
And so we are left with only two reasonable explanations, both of which are problematic.
next post tomorrow 1st August
IS JESUS GOD ?
PART FIVE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Did Jesus Claim To Be The God
Of Abraham And Moses ?
Jesus always referred to Himself in ways that confounded His listeners. As Piper notes: Jesus made the audacious statement, "Before Abraham was I AM. " He told Martha and others around her " I AM the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he is dead, yet shall he live.
Likewise Jesus would make statements like, "I AM the light of the world." "I AM the only way to God." I AM the truth." These and several other of His claims were preceded by the sacred words for God I AM. What did Jesus mean by such statements and what is the significance of the term "I AM "?
Once again, we must go back to context. In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God His Name at the burning bush, God answered,
"I AM." He was revealing to Moses that He is the one and only God Who is outside of time and has always existed. Incredibly, Jesus was using these same holy words to describe Himself. The question is "Why?"
Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself as "I AM." As a result, Jesus' "I AM" claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill Him. "Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God.
Jesus' usage of God's name greatly angered the Jewish leaders. The point is that these Old Testament scholars knew exactly what He was saying - He was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by His words, but also their reaction to those words.
C.S. Lewis initially considered Jesus a myth. But this literary genius, who knew myths well, concluded that Jesus had to have been a real person. Furthermore, as Lewis investigated the evidence for Jesus, he became convinced that not only was Jesus real, but that He was unlike any man who had ever lived. Lewis writes:
"Then comes the real shock," wrote Lewis; 'Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.
To Lewis, Jesus' claims were simply too radical and profound to have been made by an ordinary teacher or religious leader. ( For a more in-depth look at Jesus' claim to deity - see "Did Jesus Claim to be God?)
next post 29th July
IS JESUS GOD ?
PART FOUR
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Did Jesus Claim To Be God ?
So what is it that convinces many scholars that Jesus claimed to be God? Author John Piper explains that Jesus claimed power which uniquely belonged to God.
" .... Jesus' friends and enemies were staggered again and again by what He said and did. He would be walking down the road, seemingly like any other man, then turn and say something like, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' or 'If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.' or very calmly after being accused of blasphemy, He would say 'The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins.' To the dead He might simply say 'Rise up' or 'Come Forth,' and they would obey. To the storms on the sea He would say, 'Be Still,' and to a loaf of bread He would say 'Become a thousand meals, ' and it was done immediately.
But what did Jesus really mean by such statements? Is it possible that Jesus was merely a prophet, like Moses, or Elijah, or Daniel ? Even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals Jesus claimed to be something more than a prophet. No other prophet had made such claims about himself, in fact, no other prophet put himself in God's place.
Some argue that Jesus never specifically said
"I am God." It is true that He never stated the exact words, "I am God," however, Jesus also never explicitly said, "I am a man," or "I am a prophet," yet Jesus was undoubtedly human, and His followers considered Him a prophet, like Moses and Elijah. So we cannot rule out Jesus being divine just because He didn't say those exact words, any more than we can say He wasn't a prophet.
In fact, Jesus' statements about Himself contradict the notion that He was simply a great man or a prophet. On more than one occasion, Jesus referred to Himself as God's Son. When asked whether he thought it far-fetched for Jesus to be the Son of God, lead singer of U2, Bono, answered:
"No, its not far-fetched to me. Look the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: He was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, ..... But Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off the hook. Christ says No I am not saying I'm a teacher, don't call Me a teacher, . I'm not saying I'm a prophet ... I'm saying I'm God incarnate." And people say , No, No, please just be a prophet, a prophet we can take."
Before we examine Jesus' claims, it is important to understand that He made them in the context of the Jewish belief in one God (monotheism). No faithful Jew would ever believe in more than one God. And Jesus believed in the one God, praying to the Father as the only true God.
But in that same prayer, Jesus spoke of having always existed with His Father. And when Phillip asked Jesus to show them the Father, Jesus said "Phillip, I have been with you so long and you don't know Me? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father."
So, the question is; Was Jesus claiming to be the God Who created the universe?
next post tomorrow 29th July
IS JESUS GOD ?
PART THREE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Great Religious Leader ?
Strangely, Jesus never claimed to be a religious leader. He never got into politics, or pushed an ambitions agenda, and He ministered almost entirely outside the established religious framework.
When one compares Jesus with the other religious leaders, a remarkable distinction arises. Ravi Zacharias has studied world religions and observed a fundamental distinction between Jesus Christ and the founders of other major religious leaders. All religions provide instruction for a way of living. But it is only Jesus Who offers deliverance, forgiveness for sin and transformation. " Jesus did not only expound His message, He was identical with His message."
The truth of Zacharias' point is underscored by the number of times in the gospels that Jesus teaching message was simply "Come to Me" or "Follow Me" or "Obey Me." Also Jesus made it clear that His primary mission was to forgive sins, something only God could do.
In the world's Great Religions, Huston Smith observed that of all religious leaders only Jesus claimed to be divine.
And that leads us to the question of what Jesus really did claim for Himself, specifically did Jesus claim to be God ?
next post tomorrow 28th July
IS JESUS GOD ?
PART TWO
(copied from
Y-Jesus. com)
Great Moral Teacher
Even those from other religions acknowledge that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Mahatma Gandhi spoke highly of Jesus righteous life and profound words. Likewise Jewish scholar, Joseph Klausner, wrote .."It is universally admitted that .... Christ taught the purest and sublimest ethics .... which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade.
Jesus' Sermon on the Mount has been called the most superlative teaching of human ethics ever uttered by an individual. In fact, most of what we know today of "equal rights" actually is the result of Jesus' teaching. Historian Will Durant,a non-Christian, said of Jesus that "he lived and struggled unremittingly for 'equal rights'; in modern times He would have been sent to Siberia.
'he that is greatest among you let him be your servant' - this is the inversion of all political wisdom, of all sanity."
Many, like Gandhi, have tried to separate Jesus' teachings on ethics, from His claims about Himself, believing that He was simply a great man
Who taught lofty moral principals. This was the approach of one of America's Founding Fathers, President Thomas Jefferson, who cut and pasted a copy of the New Testament, removing sections he thought referred to Jesus' deity, while leaving in other passages regarding Jesus' ethical and moral teaching. Jefferson carried around his cut and pasted New Testament with him, revering Jesus as perhaps the greatest moral teacher of all time.
In fact, Jefferson's memorable words in the Declaration of Independence were rooted in Jesus' teaching that each person is of immense and equal importance to God, regardless of sex, race, or social status. The famous document sets forth: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."
But one thing Jefferson didn't answer : If Jesus falsely claimed to be God, He couldn't have been a good moral teacher. But did Jesus really claim deity? Before we look at what Jesus claimed, we need to examine the possibility that He was simply a great religions leader.
next post tomorrow
IS JESUS GOD?
PART ONE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Have you ever met a man who is the center of attraction wherever he goes? Some mysterious, indefinable characteristic sets him apart from all other men. Well, that is the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ. But it wasn't merely Jesus personality that captivated those who heard Him. Those who witnessed His words and life tell us that something about Jesus of Nazareth was different from all other men.
Jesus' only credentials were Himself. He never wrote a book, commanded an army, held a political office, or owned property. He mostly traveled within a hundred miles of His village, attracting crowds who were amazed at His provocative words and stunning deeds.
Yet Jesus' greatness was obvious to all those who saw Him and heard Him. And whilst most great people eventually fade into history books, Jesus is still the focus of thousands of books and unparalleled media controversy. And much of that controversy revolves around the radical claims Jesus made about Himself - claims that stunned both His followers and His adversaries.
It was primarily Jesus claims that caused Him to be viewed as a threat, by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although He was an outsider with no credentials or political power base, within three years Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact - but nothing like that unknown carpenter's son from Nazareth.
What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference ? Was He merely a great man, or something more?
These questions get to the heart of who Jesus really was. Some believe He was merely a great moral teacher, others believe He was simply the leader of the world's greatest religion. Christians believe that God has actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up.
After carefully examining Jesus' life and words, former Cambridge Professor, and skeptic C.S. Lewis came to a startling conclusion about Him that altered the course of his life.
So, Who is the real Jesus? Many will answer that Jesus was a great moral teacher. As we take a deeper look at the world's most controversial Person, we begin by asking, could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?
next post tomorrow 26 July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART TEN
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
External Evidence Test
The third and final measurement of a documents reliability is the external evidence test, which asks:
"Do historical records outside the New Testament confirm its reliability? So, what did non-Christian historians say about Jesus Christ?
"Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the early church. This is astounding, considering the lack of other history we possess from this time period. Jesus is mentioned by more sources than the conquests of Caesar during this same period. It is even more astounding since these confirmations of New Testament details date from 20 to 150 years after Christ, "quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.
The reliability of the New Testament is further substantiated by over 36,000 extrabiblical Christian documents ( quotes from church leaders of the first three centuries) dated as early as ten years after the last writing of the New Testament. If all the copies of the New Testament were lost, you could reproduce it from these other letters and
documents with the exception of a few verses.
Boston University professor emeritus, Howard Clark Kee, concludes, "The result of the examination of the sources outside the New testament that bear .... on our knowledge of Jesus is to confirm His historical existence, His powers, the devotion of His followers, the continued existence of the movement after His death.... and the penetration of Christianity... in Rome itself by the later first century.
The external evidence test thus builds on the evidence provided by other tests. Despite the conjecture of a few radical skeptics, the New Testament portrait of the real Jesus Christ is virtually smudgeproof. Although there are a few dissenters, such as the Jesus Seminar, the consensus of experts, regardless of their religious beliefs, confirms that the New Testament we read today faithfully represents both the words and events of Jesus' life.
Clark Pinnock, professor of interpretations at McMaster Divinity College, summed it up well when he said: "There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent set of textual and historical testimonies .... An honest (person) cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational basis.
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?
The greatest question of our time is "Who is the real Jesus Christ? " Was He just an exceptional Man, or was He God in the flesh, as Paul, John and the other disciples believed?
The eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ actually spoke and acted like they believed that He rose from the dead after His crucifixion. If they were wrong then Christianity has been founded upon a lie. But, if they were right, such a miracle would substantiate all Jesus said about God, Himself and us.
But must we take the resurrection of Jesus Christ by faith alone, or is there solid, historical evidence? Several skeptics began investigations into the historical record to prove the resurrection account false. What did they discover?
next post tomorrow 24th July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART NINE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Several aspects of the New Testament help us to determine its reliability based on its own content and qualities.
Consistency
Phony documents either leave out eyewitness reports or are inconsistent. So, outright contradiction among the Gospels would prove that they contain errors. But, at the same time, if each Gospel said exactly the same thing, it would raise suspicions of collusion. It would be like co-conspirators trying to agree on every detail of their scheme. Too much consistency is as doubtful as too little.
Eyewitnesses to a crime or an accident, usually get the big events right but see it from a different perspective. Likewise, the four Gospels describe the events of Jesus' life from different perspectives. Yet, regardless of these perspectives, Bible scholars are amazed at the consistency of their accounts, and the clear picture of Jesus and His teaching they put together with their complementary reports.
Details
Historians love details in a document, because they make it easy to verify reliability. Paul's letters are filled with details. And the Gospels abound with them. For example, both Luke's Gospel and his Book of Acts, were written to a nobleman named Theophilus, who was undoubtedly a well-known individual at the time.
If these writings had been merely inventions of the apostles, phony names, places and events would have been quickly spotted by their enemies, the Jewish and Roman leaders. This would have become the Watergate of the first century. Yet many of the New Testament details have been proved true by independent verification. Classical historian, Colin Hemer, for example, "identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts which have been confirmed by Archaeological research.
In the previous few centuries, skeptical Bible scholars attacked both Luke's authorship and its dating, asserting that it was written in the second century by an unknown author. Archaeologist,
Sir William Ramsey was convinced they were right and he began to investigate. After extensive research, the archaeologist reversed his opinion. Ramsey conceded, "Luke is a historian of the first rank.... this author should be placed along with the greatest historians... Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."
Acts chronicles Paul's missionary voyages, listing places he visited, people he saw, messages he delivered, and persecution he suffered. Could all these details have been faked? Roman historian,
A.N. Sherwin-White wrote: "For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming ... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
From the Gospel accounts to Paul's letters, the New Testament authors openly described details, even citing the names of individuals who were alive at the time. Historians have verified at least thirty of these names.
Letters To Small Groups
Most forged texts are from documents, both general and public in nature, like this magazine article (no doubt countless forgeries are now circulating on the black market). Historical expert Louis Gottschalk notes that personal letters intended for small audiences have a high probability of being reliable. Which category do the New Testament documents fall into?
Well some of them were clearly intended to be circulated widely. Yet large portions of the New
Testament consist of personal letters written to small groups of individuals. These documents, at least, would not be considered prime candidates for falsification.
Embarrassing Features
Most writers don't want to publicly embarrass themselves. Historians have therefore observed that documents containing embarrassing revelations about the authors are generally to be trusted. What did the New Testament authors say about themselves.
Surprisingly, the authors of the New Testament presented themselves as all too frequently dimwitted, cowardly, and faithless. For example, consider Peter's three-fold denial of Jesus, or the disciples arguments over which of them was the greatest - Both stories recorded in the Gospels. As respect for the apostles in the early church was crucial, inclusion of this type of material doesn't make sense, unless the apostles were reporting truthfully.
In the story of Civilization,. Will Durant wrote about the apostles: "These men were hardly of the type one would have chosen to remold the world.
The Gospels realistically differentiate their characters and honestly expose their faults.
Counterproductive Or Irrelevant Material
The Gospels tell us that the empty tomb of Jesus was discovered by a woman, even though in Israel, the testimony of women was considered to be virtually worthless and was not even admissible in court. Jesus' mother and family are recorded as stating their belief that He had lost his mind. Some of Jesus' final words on the Cross are said to have been "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" And so goes the list of incidents recorded in the New Testament that are counterproductive if the intent of the author were anything but the accurate transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Lack of Relevant Material
It is ironic (or perhaps logical) that few of the major issues facing the first century church - the Gentile mission, spiritual gifts, baptism, leadership - were addressed directly in the words of Jesus. If His followers were simply generating the material to encourage the growing church, it is inexplicable why they would not have made up instructions from Jesus on these issues. In one case, the apostle Paul flatly stated about a certain subject : "On this we have no teaching from the Lord."
next post tomorrow 21st July
ARE THE GOSPELS
RELIABLE ?
PART EIGHT
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Internal Evidence Test
Like good detectives, historians verify reliability by looking at internal clues. Such clues reveal motives of the authors and their willingness to disclose details, and other features that can be verified. The key internal clues these scholars use to test for reliability are the following:
* consistency of eyewitness reports
* details of names, places, and events
* letters to individuals or small groups
* features embarrassing to the authors
* the presence of irrelevant or counterproductive
material
* lack of relevant material
Let us take as an example the movie Friday Night Lights. It purports to be based on historical events, but like so many movies, loosely based on
actual events, it leaves you constantly questioning. "Did things really happen that way?" So how would you determine its historical reliability?
One clue would be the presence of irrelevant material. Let's say that in the middle of the film the coach, for no apparent reason gets a phone call informing him that his mother has brain cancer. The event has nothing to do with the plot and is never mentioned again. The only explanation for the presence of this irrelevant fact would be that it actually happened and that the director had a desire to be historically accurate.
Another example, same movie. Following the flow of the drama, we want the Permian Panthers to win the state championship. But they don't. This feels counterproductive to the drama, and immediately we know it's there, because in real life Permian lost the game. The presence of counter-productive material is also a clue to historical accuracy.
Finally, the use of actual towns and familiar landmarks, such as the Houston Astrodome leads us to take as history those elements of the story, because they are too easy to corroborate or falsify.
These are but a few examples of how internal evidence leads either toward of away from the conclusion that a document is historically reliable. We will look briefly at the internal evidence for the historicity of the New Testament.
next post tomorrow 20th July
ARE THE GOSPELS
RELIABLE ?
PART SEVEN
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
The Discovery of Sinaiticus
In 1844 the German scholar, Constantine Tischendorf, was searching for New Testament manuscripts. By accident, he noticed a basket filled with old pages in the library of the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. The German scholar was both elated and shocked . He had never seen Greek manuscripts that old.
Tischendorf asked the librarian about them and was horrified to learn that the pages had been discarded to be used as fuel. Two basket loads of such documents had already been burned!
Tichendorf's enthusiasm made the monks wary, and they would not show him any more manuscripts. However, they did allow Tichendorf to take the 43 pages he had discovered.
Fifteen years later, Tichendorf returned to the Sinai monastery, this time with the help of the Russian Tsar Alexander 11. Once he was there, a monk took Tichendorf to his room and pulled down a cloth-wrapped manuscript that had been stored on a shelf with cups and dishes. Tichendorf immediately recognized the reliable remaining portions of the manuscripts he had seen earlier.
The monastery agreed to present the manuscript to the tsar of Russia as protector of the Greek Church. In 1933 the Soviet Union sold the manuscript to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds.
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the earliest complete copies of the New Testament we have,and it is among the most important. Some speculate that it is one of the 50 Bibles the emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to prepare in the early fourth century. Codex Sinaiticus has been of enormous help to scholars in verifying the accuracy of the New Testament.
next post tomorrow 19th July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART SIX
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Time Gap
Not only is the number of manuscripts significant, but so is the time gap between when the original was written and the date of the copy. Over the course of 1,000 years of copying, there is no telling what a text could evolve into - but over 100 years that's a different story.
German critic, Ferdinand Christian Baur,
(1792 - 1860), once contended that John's gospel was not written until about a.d.160, therefore, it could not have been written by John. This, if true, would not only have undermined John's writings, but cast suspicion on the entire New Testament as well. But then, when a cache of New Testament papyri fragments were discovered in Egypt, among them was a fragment of the Gospel of John (specifically P52 John 18:31-33) dated to roughly 25 years after John wrote the original.
Metzger explained: "Just as Robinson Crusoe, seeing a single footprint in the sand concluded that another human being with two feet, was present on the island with him, so P52 (the label of the fragment) proves the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel, during the first half of the 2nd century, in a provincial town along the Nile far removed from its traditional place of composition
(Ephesus in Asia Minor). Find after find, archeology has unearthed major portions of the New Testament, dated to within 150 years of the originals.
Most other ancient documents have time gaps of from 400 to 1,400 years. For example, Aristotle's Poetics was written about 343 b.c. yet the earliest copy is dated a.d.1100, with only five copies in existence. And yet, no one is going in search of the original Plato, claiming he was actually a fireman and not a philosopher.
In fact, there is a nearly complete copy of the Bible called the Codex Vaticanus, that was written only about 250 to 300 years after the apostles' original writing. The oldest known complete copy of the New Testament in ancient uncial script is named Codex Sinaiticus, now housed in the British Museum.
Like Codex Vaticanus, it is dated from the fourth century. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, going back to early in Christian history are like other early Biblical manuscripts, in that they differ minimally from each other and give us a very good picture of what the other original documents must have said.
Even critical scholar,
John A. Robinson has admitted "The wealth of manuscripts and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the early extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world. Professor of law, John Warwick Montgomery affirmed, "To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament Books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.
The point is this: if the New Testament records were made and circulated so closely to the actual events, their portrayal of Jesus is most likely accurate. But external evidence is not the only way to answer the question of reliability. Scholars also use internal evidence to answer this question.
next post tomorrow 18th July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART FIVE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Who Needs Kinko's ?
The original writings of the apostles were revered. Churches studied them, shared them and carefully preserved them. and stored them away like buried treasure.
But alas, Roman confiscations, the passage of 2,000 years and the second law of thermodynamics have taken their toll. So, today, what do we have of those original writings? Nothing. The original manuscripts are all gone
(though each week Bible scholars, no doubt tune into Antiques Road Show hoping one might emerge).
Yet, the New Testament is not alone in this fate; no other comparable document from ancient history exists today either. Historians aren't troubled by
the lack of the original manuscripts if they have reliable copies to examine. But are there ancient copies of the New Testament available and if so, are they faithful to the originals?
As the number of churches multiplied, hundreds of copies were carefully made under the supervision of church leaders. Every letter was meticulously penned in ink on parchment or papyrus. And so, today scholars can study the surviving copies (and the copy of copies, and the copies of copies, of copies - you get it!), to determine authenticity, and arrive at a very close approximation of the original documents.
In fact, scholars studying ancient literature have devised the science of textual criticism by devising a three-part test to examine documents such as The Odyssey, comparing them with other ancient documents to determine their accuracy. More recently, military historian, Charles Sanders, augmented textual criticism by devising a three-part test that looks at, not only the faithfulness of the copy but also the credibility of the authors. His tests are these:
* The bibliographical test
* The internal evidence test
* The external evidence test (7)
Let us see what happens when we apply these tests to the early New Testament manuscripts.
Bibliographical Test
This test compares a document with other ancient history from the same period. It asks:
* How many copies of the original document are
in existence?
* How large of a time gap is there between the
original writings and the earliest copies?
* How well does a document compare with
other ancient history?
Imagine if we had only two or three copies of the original New Testament manuscripts. The sampling would be so small we couldn't possibly verify accuracy. On the other hand, if we had hundreds or even thousands, we could easily weed out the errors of poorly transmitted documents.
So, how well does the New Testament compare with other ancient writings with regard to both the number of copies and the time gap from the originals? More than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist today in the original Greek language. Many of these manuscripts are mere fragments, while others are virtually complete books. When counting translations into other languages, the number is a staggering 24,000 - dating from the second to the fifteenth century.
Compare that with the second-best-documented ancient historical document, Homer's Iliad, with 643 copies. And, remember, that most ancient historical works have far fewer existing manuscripts as that one does, (usually fewer than ten). New Testament scholar, Bruce Metzger, remarked: "In contrast with these figures (of other ancient manuscripts) the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material. "
next post tomorrow 17th July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART FOUR
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Navigation
Biblical archaeologist William Albright, concluded on the basis of his research that all of the New Testament Books were written while most of the apostles were still alive.
He wrote: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any Book after about 80 AD, two full generations before the date of between 130 and 150 AD given by the more radical New Testament critics of today. " Elsewhere, Albright put the writing of the entire New Testament at somewhere between about 50 AD and 75AD.
The notoriously skeptical scholar, John A. T. Robinson, dates the New Testament even earlier than even most conservative scholars . In Redating the New Testament, Robinson asserts that most of the New Testament was written between 40 AD and 65 AD. That puts its writing as early as 7 years after Christ lived.
If that is true, any historical errors would have been immediately exposed, by both eyewitnesses and the enemies of Christianity.
So, let us look at the trail of clues that takes us from the original documents to our New Testament copies today.
next post tomorrow 16th July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART THREE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
But Is It True ?
In books, magazines, and TV documentaries, the Jesus Seminar suggests the Gospels were written as late as a.d.130 to 150 by unknown authors. If those later dates are correct there would be a gap of 100 years from Christ's death (scholars put Jesus' death between a.d. 30 and 33) and since all the eyewitnesses would have been dead, the gospels could only have been written by unknown, fraudulent authors.
So, what evidence do we have concerning when the gospel accounts of Jesus were really written? The consensus of most scholars is that the Gospels were written by the apostles, during the first century. They show several reasons that we will review later in this article. For now, however, note
that three primary forms of evidence appear to build a solid case for their conclusions:
* early documents from heretics such as Marcion and the school of Valentinus, citing New Testament books, themes, and passages.
(See "Mona Lisa's Smirk")
* numerous writings of early Christian sources,
such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
* discovered copies of Gospel fragments carbon- dated as early as 117 AD.
next post follows
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART TW0
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Lost in Translation
So, what does the evidence show? We begin with two simple questions. When were the original documents of the New Testament written? And who wrote them?
The importance of these questions should be obvious. If the accounts of Jesus were written after the eyewitnesses were dead, no one could verify their accuracy. But if the New Testament accounts were written while the original disciples were still alive, then their authenticity could be established. Peter could say of a forgery in his name: "Hey, I didn't write that. " And Matthew, Mark, Luke or John could respond to questions or challenges aimed at their accounts of Jesus.
The New Testament writers, claimed to be rendering eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The apostle Peter stated it this way in one letter : "We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and His coming again. We have seen His majestic splendor with our own eyes."
( 2nd Peter 1:16 NLT)
A major part of the New Testament is the apostle Paul's 13 letters to young churches and individuals. Paul's letters, dated between the 40's and mid 60's (12 to 33 years after Christ), constitute the earliest witnesses to Jesus' life and teaching.
Will Durant wrote of the historical importance of Paul's letters, "The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul, .. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James and John, and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in the flesh. "
next post tomorrow 15th July
ARE THE GOSPELS RELIABLE ?
PART ONE
(copied from
Y-Jesus.com)
Are the New Testament gospels the true eyewitness history of Jesus Christ? Or could the story have been changed through the years? Must we simply take the New Testament accounts by faith or is there evidence for their reliability?
The late ABC News anchor, Peter Jennings was in Israel broadcasting a television special on Jesus Christ. His program, "The search for Jesus," explored the question of whether the Jesus of the New Testament was historically accurate.
Jennings featured opinions on the gospel accounts from DePaul professor, John Dominic Crossan , three of Crossan's colleagues, from the Jesus Seminar and two other Bible scholars. (The Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars who debate Jesus' recorded words and actions and then use red, pink, gray or black beads to cast votes indicating how trustworthy they believe statements in the gospels are.
Some of the comments were stunning. There on National TV, Dr Crossan not only cast doubt on more than 80% of Jesus' sayings but also denied Jesus' claims to divinity, His miracles and His resurrection. Jennings clearly was intrigued by the image of Jesus, presented by Crossan.
Searching for true Bible history is always news, which is why every year Time and Newsweek go on a cover story quest for Mary, Jesus, Moses, or Abraham, Or who knows? - maybe this year it will be "Bob - the Missing thirteenth disciple."
This is entertainment and so the investigation will never end or yield answers, as that would eliminate future programming. Instead those with radically different views are thrown together like an episode of Survivor, hopelessly convoluting the issue rather than bringing clarity.
But Jennings's report did focus on one issue, that ought to be given some serious thought, Crossan implied that the original accounts of Jesus were embellished by oral tradition and were not written down until after the apostles were dead. Thus they are largely unreliable and fail to give us an accurate picture of the real Jesus.
How are we to know if this is really true?
next post tomorrow 14th July
IS JESUS GOD ?
The question we must deal with is; what could possibly motivate Jesus to live His entire life as a lie?
