Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
GT WT,
About extrabiblical references there are several: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Talmud, Lucian, and of course Josephus. You are somewhat mistaken about him too. He actually refers to Jesus 4 times with only one of them challenged as authentic. The main problem with the one from Josephus is that it gives very detailed information and at the same time has a positive tone. I don't know if that is really a valid reason to reject its authenticity. If that is the case I can discredit, in my own mind at least, any written account that I don't want to agree with. That is pretty weak.
GT WT, there is no need for suspicion. All you have to do is read the accounts and then examine their reliability via internal and external methods. With that approach you can come to a clear and confident understanding of who Jesus was and His ministry.
As far as Mark being earlier, many scholars do believe it to be the earliest and they seem to have good reason to do so. All of the gospels were written within 20-30 years of one another. John may be an exception to that but I have seen interesting internal evidence to support a pre-70AD authorship for it.
Theologians are not the source text modification, that would be scribes. The changes and errors are well known. The area of textual criticism is very interesting to me. There are 1000s of manuscripts that have been examined and more are being found all the time. What it shows is that in the transmission of the new testament in general and the gospels in particular there has been no significant change to the texts. No major doctrines are changed. I have not even seen a minor doctrine affected by the variation.
Yes, the issue is one of assumptions. It is good to have points of agreement. I do have to disagree on your characterization of me though. I don't see evidence for the supernatural everywhere. I am generally a skeptical kind of person and an engineer by trade. The issue is that I read the Bible an open mind and later did investigation to determine whether I could trust it or not. The evidence points to reliability. If you just can't accept the existence of the supernatural, that is fine. It is a reasonable belief based on the historical documents, but it is not required I guess.
I do see intangible kinds of things occur in my life and the lives of others which are described in the Bible. I also see correct characterizations of the human psyche and the positive effects to human relationships based on following Biblical teachings. Those are kinds of subjective things which could be categorized as material or immaterial based on the specific case.
About extrabiblical references there are several: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Talmud, Lucian, and of course Josephus. You are somewhat mistaken about him too. He actually refers to Jesus 4 times with only one of them challenged as authentic. The main problem with the one from Josephus is that it gives very detailed information and at the same time has a positive tone. I don't know if that is really a valid reason to reject its authenticity. If that is the case I can discredit, in my own mind at least, any written account that I don't want to agree with. That is pretty weak.
GT WT, there is no need for suspicion. All you have to do is read the accounts and then examine their reliability via internal and external methods. With that approach you can come to a clear and confident understanding of who Jesus was and His ministry.
As far as Mark being earlier, many scholars do believe it to be the earliest and they seem to have good reason to do so. All of the gospels were written within 20-30 years of one another. John may be an exception to that but I have seen interesting internal evidence to support a pre-70AD authorship for it.
Theologians are not the source text modification, that would be scribes. The changes and errors are well known. The area of textual criticism is very interesting to me. There are 1000s of manuscripts that have been examined and more are being found all the time. What it shows is that in the transmission of the new testament in general and the gospels in particular there has been no significant change to the texts. No major doctrines are changed. I have not even seen a minor doctrine affected by the variation.
Yes, the issue is one of assumptions. It is good to have points of agreement. I do have to disagree on your characterization of me though. I don't see evidence for the supernatural everywhere. I am generally a skeptical kind of person and an engineer by trade. The issue is that I read the Bible an open mind and later did investigation to determine whether I could trust it or not. The evidence points to reliability. If you just can't accept the existence of the supernatural, that is fine. It is a reasonable belief based on the historical documents, but it is not required I guess.
I do see intangible kinds of things occur in my life and the lives of others which are described in the Bible. I also see correct characterizations of the human psyche and the positive effects to human relationships based on following Biblical teachings. Those are kinds of subjective things which could be categorized as material or immaterial based on the specific case.
