Originally posted by sonship
Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

[b] Bibiographical writngs about Julius Caesar
Lived 100-44 BC.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D
Intervening Time Span - 1,000 years.
Number of copies - 10

Who fed you that drivel?????
Gaius Sallustius Crispus, usually anglicised as Sallust 86 – c. 35 BC was a Roman historian, politician, ... Sallust is the earliest known Roman historian with surviving works to his name, of which we have Catiline's War (about the conspiracy in 63 BC of L. Sergius Catilina), The Jugurthine War (about Rome's war against the Numidians from 111 to 105 BC),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallust

That's CONTEMPORARY accounts of the life of Julius Caesar
not a thousand years later!

Originally posted by whodey
They were not written that long after the fact. They would have known where Jesus' tomb was located.

.

Perhaps it is telling that local people who knew where the tomb was
located remained Jewish and it was people in far off lands (to whom
Israel was presumably quite exotic) fell for a story they could not disprove.

Why didn't all the local people become Christians?????

Originally posted by whodey
But what made them keep going? If it was a lie, then why continue this sham? Was it worth their lives?

This is indeed one of the really intriguing questions:

That Jesus came and offered himself for death cannot be debated, as who really knows what was in his mind. However, many of those who followed him followed him to death. Why on earth would someone do that if they knew for a fact Jesus was not who he claimed to be?

Originally posted by divegeester
However, many of those who followed [Jesus] followed him to death. Why on earth would someone do that if they knew for a fact Jesus was not who he claimed to be?

Who is claiming that Jesus' followers "knew for a fact Jesus was not who he claimed to be"? [My emphasis]. I have never heard anyone claim that. Doesn't everyone accept that they must have been committed believers in Jesus and were convinced He was "who he claimed to be"?

Originally posted by FMF
Who is claiming that Jesus' followers "[b]knew for a fact Jesus was not who he claimed to be"? [My emphasis]. I have never heard anyone claim that. Doesn't everyone accept that they must have been committed believers in Jesus and were convinced He was "who he claimed to be"?[/b]

Assuming the account is recorded accurately there are only two options in this scenario:

1) they either knew he wasn't the risen Messiah as they had stollen his body and claimed he had risen

2) they knew he was the risen Messiah

If 1) is true then why would they give up their lives for something that was untrue?

Originally posted by divegeester
Assuming the account is recorded accurately there are only two options in this scenario:

1) they either knew he wasn't the risen Messiah as they had stollen his body and claimed he had risen

2) they knew he was the risen Messiah

If 1) is true then why would they give up their lives for something that was untrue?

Set me straight if I have missed something about the "account" that ended up in the biblical canon...

You say only 2 possibilities: isn't there a No.3?

3) they didn't know what happened to His body ~ but it was gone ~ and so they believed He had risen [and not that the body had been taken by persons unknown] and that's the story that prevailed by way of the texts that survived the culling process in the decades and centuries ahead.

And a No.4

4) His body was still there but later some claimed that He had risen and that they had seen Him and met Him and this story mutated over the decades into... his body itself rising, therefore there was an empty tomb...

etc.?

Originally posted by FMF
Set me straight if I have missed something about the "account" that ended up in the biblical canon...

You say only 2 possibilities: isn't there a No.3?

3) they didn't know what happened to His body ~ but it was gone ~ and so they believed He had risen [and not that the body had been taken by persons unknown] and that's the story that prevailed by way of th ...[text shortened]... d over the decades into... his body itself rising, therefore there was an empty tomb...

etc.?

Accepted as possibilities, but neither seem to be likely scenarios by which multiple people would be prepared to stake their actual lives on.

Originally posted by divegeester
Accepted as possibilities, but neither seem to be likely scenarios by which multiple people would be prepared to stake their actual lives on.

Thomas even asked to place his hand in the side of Jesus.

I suppose it was a reasonable request, especially armed with the knowledge he might later have to give up his life for him.


All 12, except Judas, believed.

Originally posted by sonship
When many historiagraphical tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

[b] Bibiographical writng ...[text shortened]... s adaquate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament." J P Moreland [/quote]

When will you retract this nonsense?

Originally posted by sonship
When many historiagraphical tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

[b] Bibiographical writng ...[text shortened]... s adaquate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament." J P Moreland [/quote]

That's what i like about you sonship, when you write, (books) you can really put some passion into it.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
That's what i like about you sonship, when you write, (books) you can really put some passion into it.

Passion does not indicate truth.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Who fed you that drivel?????
[i]Gaius Sallustius Crispus, usually anglicised as Sallust 86 – c. 35 BC was a Roman historian, politician, ... Sallust is the earliest known Roman historian with surviving works to his name, of which we have Catiline's War (about the conspiracy in 63 BC of L. Sergius Catilina), The Jugurthine War (about Rome's war against t ...[text shortened]...
[b]That's CONTEMPORARY accounts of the life of Julius Caesar
not a thousand years later![/b]

So were the New Testament writers CONTEMPORARY with Jesus, but sonship was referring to the estimated dates of surviving COPIES of the writings, not the people that were supposed to have written the accounts.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So were the New Testament writers CONTEMPORARY with Jesus, but sonship was referring to the estimated dates of surviving [b]COPIES of the writings, not the people that were supposed to have written the accounts.[/b]

The implication was that only the copies survived.
If the original documents survive how, when and where copies were made is irrelevant.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The implication was that only the copies survived.
If the original documents survive how, when and where copies were made is irrelevant.

I think the point is that more copies were made to compare the accuracy of the copies for the New Testament writings and they were also much earlier copies than those other histories or writings. So the likelihood of the New Testament writings being far more accurate is much greater, if we were able to compare them to the originals.

Originally posted by divegeester
This is indeed one of the really intriguing questions:

That Jesus came and offered himself for death cannot be debated, as who really knows what was in his mind. However, many of those who followed him followed him to death. Why on earth would someone do that if they knew for a fact Jesus was not who he claimed to be?

Perhaps they thought the religion they created had merit for the masses, even if parts of it were myth.

As for following a religion until death, there have been people willing to do this for various religions. Or for their home country. Or their activist organization. Etc. etc.

Edit: and I know you're all reading crappy Josh McDowell tracts on this, so I know you're going to say, "but, but, this is different! all those other guys didn't know they were dying for a lie!". The reality is, that was one of many truth claims made. People can and do die for causes they know to be imperfect in some respects.