The Revelation of Jesus Christ

[Doug Shaver]

In doing so then a lot of ancient history that we know about will be swept away as well.

I keep hearing that. I have never seen it demonstrated. It seems to be one of those claims that apologists love to make just because it sounds so good, not because they have any evidence for it.

[foudroyant]

I keep hearing that. I have never seen it demonstrated. It seems to be one of those claims that apologists love to make just because it sounds so good, not because they have any evidence for it.

The New Testament:
More manuscripts, more accurately copied manuscripts and earlier manuscripts from their original than from virtually all writings from the ancient world.

[Doug Shaver]

The New Testament:
More manuscripts, more accurately copied manuscripts and earlier manuscripts from their original than from virtually all writings from the ancient world.

There is no logical connection between what you say here and what you said before.

[foudroyant]

Sure there is. We know quite a bit about ancient history from the manuscripts that we possess from other writings. Why accept those and not what the New Testament affirms?

[Doug Shaver]

Sure there is. We know quite a bit about ancient history from the manuscripts that we possess from other writings.

I'm not understanding you. What does it mean to possess a manuscript from other writings?

[foudroyant]

Manuscripts from other writings means -> the copies (not the original) that are still available (those that "survived") of a writing other than the New Testament manuscripts.

[shunyadragon]

Sure there is. We know quite a bit about ancient history from the manuscripts that we possess from other writings. Why accept those and not what the New Testament affirms?

It depends what you mean by accept ancient writings?? Ancient manuscripts are not totally accepted or rejected. The supernatural events in other manuscripts are no more accepted then those in the NT. The NT is set in history just like many other ancient documents, and much of the geographic and historical events are factual, but that does not translate to acceptance of everything in the NT just as all the other ancient manuscripts are not accepted as totally true nor false.

[shunyadragon]

In doing so then a lot of ancient history that we know about will be swept away as well.

No, that is not how academic history works.

[foudroyant]

The supernatural events in other manuscripts are no more accepted then those in the NT.

Why the anti-supernaturalistic bias?

[Doug Shaver]

Manuscripts from other writings means -> the copies (not the original) that are still available (those that "survived") of a writing other than the New Testament manuscripts.

I think it safe to assume that everyone in this forum is aware that when we're talking about ancient history, none of the manuscripts available for evidence is an autograph from whoever wrote the original. Will you now explain how we should infer, from a relative abundance of manuscripts and their chronological proximity to the originals, the historical reliability of those documents?

[foudroyant]

In answer to your question see Post #17.

Added to this is it's reporting of facts concerning geography (names of cities and places) as well as people (historical figures). Another thing to look for is its internal consistency.

[Doug Shaver]

In answer to your question see Post #17.

Repetition is not an argument. You are claiming that the manuscript evidence establishes the historical reliability of the New Testament. You can't prove that just by saying it over and over again. You need to show us the logic of your argument.

I suspect that you don't understand your own argument because you're just reading from a script, so to speak. I suspect that you read in some apologetic literature that the manuscript evidence proves the historical reliability of the New Testament, and you figured you could be a good witness for Christ just by parroting that claim every chance you got. Would you like to try proving that my suspicion is in error?

[Doug Shaver]

Added to this is it's reporting of facts concerning geography (names of cities and places) as well as people (historical figures). Another thing to look for is its internal consistency.

That proves nothing. Any good work of fiction will have those characteristics.

[foudroyant]

There are things worth repeating when the other party does not adequately address what was presented.

I already gave my reason WHY the manuscript evidence establishes the historical reliability of the New Testament. These were not refuted.

Look at all the evidence presented not just what I wrote concerning about a few things.

I suspect that you are just going to deny all the evidence presented concerning what the New Testament has to say concerning the resurrection of Christ.

[Doug Shaver]

There are things worth repeating when the other party does not adequately address what was presented.

If I have failed to address anything you said, the appropriate response is not to just say it again. The appropriate response is: "You did not address what I said."

I already gave my reason WHY the manuscript evidence establishes the historical reliability of the New Testament.

When I asked you why, all you did was point me back to the post in which you made the claim.

Look at all the evidence presented not just what I wrote concerning about a few things.

I'm not asking for evidence. I'm asking for an argument. You're the one claiming that the extant manuscripts are evidence for the New Testament's historical reliability. Your saying so doesn't make it so. You need to present an argument supporting that claim.

I suspect that you are just going to deny all the evidence presented concerning what the New Testament has to say concerning the resurrection of Christ.

I know what the New Testament says about the resurrection. The question is why I should believe what it says. You say I should believe it just because (1) we have lots of manuscripts and (2) the oldest manuscripts were produced soon after the originals. That is a simple material implication. You are saying that A implies B. I'm asking: Why should I think that A implies B?