Christian Apologetics

[Dunecat]

I would like to foster a little debate here regarding Christian apologetics. I do not expect me (or any other Christian/Jew/Muslim) to be only person right, and this thread is not an attempt for me to prove and show everyone how right I am. I am creating this thread so that we can informally debate and discuss various topics that are perceived as a threat to specific Christian churches, church doctrine, or Christianity on the whole. I'll begin with several topics, such as the reliability of the New Testament documents, the "Gnostic" gospels, the Apocrypha, Old Testament Canon, and theistic presupposition arguments (mostly in regards to intra-christian debate regarding "heresy," or unfounded doctrine).

I have dabbled in this field myself, and have a few notes and ideas that I would like to run past you guys, with the purpose of either strengthening my arguments (trial by ordeal), abandoning them, or revising them. I do this because I'm naturally curious.

I would first like to discuss the reliability of N.T. documents, as it is free from the existence of God- either these documents are reliable, being authored by those close with Jesus the Christ, or they are forgeries in at least some sense. Both arguments are independent of the existence of God the father.

There are several tests you may do concerning the consistency of the N.T. Firstly is the bibliographic test, analyzing the quantity of similar copies, the time span from which the first known transcripts were found and when they were supposedly "written," and the degree of error between said copies. For this test, I will compare N.T. manuscripts to other manuscripts, usually attributed to those like Plato, Aristotle, and Homer (the possibility that some of these works are mis attributed is valid, but I feel that their comparison to commonly-rejected validity of N.T. documents is also warranted).

I don't have all the sources for these statistics, but I wouldn't think that they are that far out. Granted, some of this information came from my Christian education, but my teacher is a closet agnostic and would probably be fairly reliable, considering he dedicates his life to this realm. He's frankly a genius, as evidenced of his turning the family business into a massive corporation, and making 8 figures as it's CEO. (I know this how?...) But I digress...

There are roughly 5,300 Greek, 10,000 Latin (Vulgate - Jerome - 405ce), and 9,300 other "earlier versions" of N.T. documents. This is not a point, it is merely stating that these "books" exist outside of the collective "Holy Bible".

Manuscript Comparison to other Manuscripts:
AUTHOR     DATE WRITTEN     EARLIEST COPY     TIME SPAN     # of COPIES
Plato        427-347 bce         900 ce          2100 yrs       7
Aristotle    384-322 bce         110 ce          1400 yrs       49
Homer        900 bce             400 bce         500 yrs        643
N.T.         40-100 ce           125 ce          25 yrs         5,366

Textual Variation:
AUTHOR     # of LINES     # of (?) LINES     % (?)    % CERTAIN
Homer        15,600          764             4.89%    95.11%
N.T.         20,000          40              0.20%    99.80%

What does this show? Well, it's fairly simple- that their is an internal consistency within the N.T. Canon (textually), and should be given some respect, at least on par with that accredited to other "classic" works. Granted, there are NO original original documents that were handled physically by alleged authors.



The next test you may do is an external evidence test- that is, searching for historical references by chroniclers that correctly correlate with Christian Canon (say that 10 times fast...). Such as:

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover (Darkness included)
-Samaritan historian, Thallus (52 ce)
He was believed to have risen from the dead three days after this event
-Roman historian, Josephus (37-100 ce)
Jewish leaders charged Christ with Sorcery and believed he was born illegitimately
-Jewish Talmud (500 ce)
The Judean sect of Christianity could not be contained and was spread to Rome
-Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus (52-54 ce)
Nero and other Roman rulers bitterly persecuted and martyred early Christians
-Roman historian, Suetonius (120 ce)
These Christians denied polytheism, lived by Christs teachings and worshiped him
-Greek satirist, Lucian (2nd century)

There is also archaeological evidence that may concur correctly with commonly accepted Christian Canon (now I'm just doing it on purpose...).

Luke 2:1-3 ~ Census
John 19:13 ~ Stone Pavement
John 5:1-14 ~ Pool of Bethesda
Acts 16:12 ~ Greek word's usage

Now, these are fairly minor and vague, but I had them written down, and figured it'd be a crime not to include them. I would venture to say that the fact that these things are true can only help the argument... but it does not prove (in this case) that EVERYTHING stated in the N.T. is true, of course. I am not making that claim (for the record). The point is that the N.T. is not- at the very least- completely fabricated.



I think I've done a fair job in covering the bases at least briefly on what an apologetic argument can contain concerning the historic reliability of the New Testament Canon.

Once we rip this apart, I (or someone else- feel free) will introduce a new topic, and we'll continue on (at least that's the plan).
Cheers!

[Scorch]

So what do you mean? You've laid a convincing argument as to the accuracy of the New Testament with the direct intention of ripping it apart later?

[Dunecat]

What does not destroy it, makes it stronger...

[Sadreddine]

The problem being, when it is destroyed beyond recognition.

[Gwendylyn]

Manuscript Comparison to other Manuscripts:
AUTHOR DATE WRITTEN EARLIEST COPY TIME SPAN # of COPIES
Plato 427-347 bce 900 ce 2100 yrs 7
Aristotle 384-322 bce 110 ce 1400 yrs 49
Homer 900 bce 400 bce 500 yrs 643
N.T. 40-100 ce 125 ce 25 yrs 5,366

Why are you comparing authors (Plato, Homer) to a book (N.T.)? Did you neglect to post the names of the works that were compared?

[Dunecat]

What are compared are the works attributed to those authors, to the N.T. canon.

I guess I could divy it up into Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John Mark, etc.