Confirmations of the New Testament

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jesus could have told them after his resurrection.

That preposterous suggestion does not explain why the four accounts are all different and why the three Synoptics differ with John on the timing of this "trial".

Cold Case Christianity may be of some help here, eyewitness accounts show the event from different perspectives, and the differences may be differences of emphasis.

Forgive me if I do not accept the special pleading of a believer. Nor can events from 2000 years ago be assessed in the light of present day homicide investigations.

Well, here we read:

[cite=Evidence for Christianity]

The festival lasts for several days.

[lee_merrill]

Where exactly were the writers of the four canonical gospels hiding during the interrogation with Pilate? Were they all lurking behind the columns clasping their tabulae and stylus? More to the point how did they [and Peter] sneak into the Antonia?

Jesus could have told them after his resurrection.

If they were all eyewitnesses why do the four accounts differ?

Cold Case Christianity may be of some help here, eyewitness accounts show the event from different perspectives, and the differences may be differences of emphasis.

Furthermore, why do all four gospel writers give different timings for the trial? Was it on the eve of Passover [John]? Or after Passover[Synoptics]?

Well, here we read:

Source: Evidence for Christianity

Source

© Copyright Original Source

So it seems there is some agreement.

Blessings,
Lee

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Shuny, when someone claims to be an eyewitness, we count that as a reference to being an eyewitness.

Bob claims to be an eyewitness and Mary records the account - we have an eyewitness account.

[shunyadragon]

For the third time, this was dealt with, 4 months ago, upthread. Repeating your objections doesn't make them any more valid. Go back to sleep, Frank.

For the third time:

No it was not, and again NO original texts, and abundant evidence that the text of the gospels represent an evolved edited text, without known author. This true for some of the letters.

It was only dealt with by an assertion of belief, and not evidence. It is a fallacy to use the text to prove the text when there is no evidence.

Hand waves do not count. This is Archaeology 201, which begs for archaeological evidence.

The objections to the claims of the original video have been made and documented.

1) The New Testament was set in history history of the time, and like all ancient scripture contain known events, people and places, but based on this they cannot be concluded to be completely accurate. Not all events are known by current archaeology evidence of parallel record, such as the timing of census and tax collection recorded in the gospels.

2) There is no reason to believe that those literate writing 100 to 200+ years after Jesus did not know most of the events, places and people of the time of Jesus.

3) All the historical records cited in the video are late, third hand, and of questionable provenance such as Josephus' writings.

3}Absolutely no text has been found within 100 years of the life of Jesus. I am being generous here, because the texts found are even later.

[One Bad Pig]

No it was not, and again NO original texts, and abundant evidence that the text of the gospels represent an evolved edited text, without known author. This true for some of the letters.

It was only dealt with by an assertion of belief, and not evidence. It is a fallacy to use the text to prove the text when there is no evidence.

Hand waves do not count. This is Archaeology 201, which begs for archaeological evidence.

The objections to the claims of the original video have been made and documented.

1) The New Testament was set in history history of the time, and like all ancient scripture contain known events, people and places, but based on this they cannot be concluded to be completely accurate. Not all events are known by current archaeology evidence of parallel record, such as the timing of census and tax collection recorded in the gospels.

2) There is no reason to believe that those literate writing 100 to 200+ years after Jesus did not know most of the events, places and people of the time of Jesus.

3) All the historical records cited in the video are late, third hand, and of questionable provenance such as Josephus' writings.

3}Absolutely no text has been found within 100 years of the life of Jesus. I am being generous here, because the texts found are even later.

For the third time, this was dealt with, 4 months ago, upthread. Repeating your objections doesn't make them any more valid. Go back to sleep, Frank.

[shunyadragon]

This was dealt with, 4 months ago, upthread. Go back to sleep, Frank.

No it was not, and again NO original texts, and abundant evidence that the text of the gospels represent an evolved edited text, without known author. This true for some of the letters.

It was only dealt with by an assertion of belief, and not evidence. It is a fallacy to use the text to prove the text when there is no evidence.

Hand waves do not count. This is Archaeology 201, which begs for archaeological evidence.

The objections to the claims of the original video have been made and documented.

1) The New Testament was set in history history of the time, and like all ancient scripture contain known events, people and places, but based on this they cannot be concluded to be completely accurate. Not all events are known by current archaeology evidence of parallel record, such as the timing of census and tax collection recorded in the gospels.

2) There is no reason to believe that those literate writing 100 to 200+ years after Jesus did not know most of the events, places and people of the time of Jesus.

3) All the historical records cited in the video are late, third hand, and of questionable provenance such as Josephus' writings.

3}Absolutely no text has been found within 100 years of the life of Jesus. I am being generous here, because the texts found are even later.

[One Bad Pig]

No it was not, and again NO original texts, and abundant evidence that the text of the gospels represent an evolved edited text, without known author. This true for some of the letters.

It was only dealt with by an assertion of belief, and not evidence. It is a fallacy to use the tect to prove the text when there is no evidence.

This was dealt with, 4 months ago, upthread. Go back to sleep, Frank.

[shunyadragon]

This was dealt with 4 months ago, upthread. Go back to sleep, Frank.

No it was not, and again NO original texts, and abundant evidence that the text of the gospels represent an evolved edited text, without known author. This true for some of the letters.

It was only dealt with by an assertion of belief, and not evidence. It is a fallacy to use the tect to prove the text when there is no evidence.

[One Bad Pig]

Fact: No original texts.

This was dealt with 4 months ago, upthread. Go back to sleep, Frank.

[shunyadragon]

It does refer to closeness to an original text, even though we don't have the originals.

Source: Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament

All the papyri before the third/fourth century are placed in the highest category because of their age, even when their "free" text sets them at a distance from the original text.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

Unfortunately there are not original texts to refer to.

[shunyadragon]

So, handwave followed by handwave. Keep up the good fight, shunya.

Fact: No original texts.

[Rushing Jaws]

Precisely. I could now write a book about WWII over 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony like from my father and a couples of uncles as well as neighbors I knew growing up.

Excellent analogy 😀

[Rushing Jaws]

OK from the perspective of the believer, but not the subject of the thread.

Relevant nonetheless. Plenty of people confuse the truth of claims about history, with the truth of theological claims. So pointing this out is not off-topic, but is very relevant to it. Distinctions of that kind need making, for the sake of clarity, to avoid confusion of thought.

[Tassman]

Letter perfect?!?! I do not believe this is a realistic standard in the history of Hebrew nor Christian scriptures. They both show the distinct characteristics of evolved, edited and redacted scriptures. It is true that Hebrew scriptures became relatively evolved at some time between ~1100 and 500 BCE, but these scriptures are the result of a process of evolution up until the Dead Sea scrolls. The oldest known Torah as we know it today is from the 11-12th century.

[rogue06]

And yet in II Peter 3:15-18 we have Peter describing Paul's letters as Scripture and in I Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Scripture citing Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7.