Looking for sources - Research

[Jazkal]

I am having a discussion on the reliability of the scripture sources, mainly the NT documents.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for source material?

Some of the questions asked:

(1)
Outside the bible, what sources are there, exactly?
(site source: skepticwiki - Nonbiblical_references_to_Jesus)

(2)
I'm told:
"Josephus documents are recognized by most as forgeries."
Anyone have links/books discussing both sides of the issues concerning Josephus and forged documents?

(3)
And concerning the infallibility of the scriptures:
If we only have documents that date back to the 4th century,
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->(site source: wikipedia - Gospel)
then how can we know they haven't been corrupted by men through the ages?
There seems to be some really deceitful men in charge at different times through Church history, going from the 2nd through the 17th centuries.


If you know of any books and or research material, that would be very helpful.

 

[allforihs]

I am having a discussion on the reliability of the scripture sources, mainly the NT documents.

You can never win a debate on the defensive and you can never when a debate against a wall. Most of the time, I don't care about this fact. But, on sacred issues, I prefer not dirty the sacred the mud holes of pigs. Don't waste your time with pigs.

For the reliability, compare the NT to other ancient documents. You can find this on apologetics sites. You will find that the NT compares very nicely.

Consider the absence of any contrary information. Where are the ancient books that testify that Jesus didn't exist? What ancient source claims to have knowledge that Jesus is still in the grave?

The Jewish Talmud, based on Jewish tradition says Jesus lived and was executed for blasphemy.

There's no compelling evidence that Josephus' remarks are a forgery. Why would a Jew say Jesus is the Christ? Rather than being a forgery, Josephus might have just intended to report what Christians believed. Maybe Josephus wasn't such a Jew after all.

The NT itself is a collection of many books by several authors which the early Christian community believed to be reliable.

All the Apostles after the resurrection devoted their whole lives to Jesus, most even being martyred for their faith. No one dies in defense of what they know is a lie, certainly not nearly a dozen for the same lie.

Additional evidence is the total collapse of priestly Judaism in the first century, never to be restored again, even 2000 years later.

 

[Jazkal]

But, on sacred issues, I prefer not dirty the sacred the mud holes of pigs. Don't waste your time with pigs.

I take 1 Peter 3:15 literally, so I need to find answers to these questions.

The Jewish Talmud, based on Jewish tradition says Jesus lived and was executed for blasphemy.

I've heard this before, and always quoted it as evidence, but when I'm asked to actually show my references, I can't.

All the Apostles after the resurrection devoted their whole lives to Jesus, most even being martyred for their faith. No one dies in defense of what they know is a lie, certainly not nearly a dozen for the same lie.

Oh, I agree with you, but his point is that the gospels are corrupted, so what other evidence do we have outside the gospels?

 

[allforihs]

I take 1 Peter 3:15 literally, so I need to find answers to these questions.

Answers, yes. Holding Jesus out to ridicule, no.

I've heard this before, and always quoted it as evidence, but when I'm asked to actually show my references, I can't.

Jesus is mentioned a number of times in the Talmud:.
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus]34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35
israelectDOTcom/Come-and-Hear/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43

Oh, I agree with you, but his point is that the gospels are corrupted, so what other evidence do we have outside the gospels?

Why does he insist the Gospels are corrupt?

 

[Jazkal]

Jesus is mentioned a number of times in the Talmud:.
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus]34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35
israelectDOTcom/Come-and-Hear/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43

Thank you, I'll look into that, thanks for the link.

Why does he insist the Gospels are corrupt?

Here is a snip of what he has said:

the comments (and attitudes) of these men:

• Bishop Eusebius(c. 263 – 339 CE), the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
  "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."
  
  Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:
  "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
  – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.
• Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c. 215 CE) was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:
  "Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
  – Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)
• John Chrysostom(c. 349 – 407 CE), 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, is another:
  "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
  
  For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
  
  And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
  – Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.
• Manichean bishop Faustus (c. 405 - c. 490 CE)said:
  "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."
• Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) – wrote:
  "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
• The Reformation may have swept away some abuses perpetrated by the priesthood but lying was not one of them. Martin Luther, in private correspondence, argued:
  "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
  – Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

These were men that managed what books were copied as well as how they were copied and assembled. By their own hand they admit to a willingness to lie, for their own position and for the sake of posterity, to convince others that what they had to say was true. Eusebius was largely responsible for the bible that is considered canonical to this day, and he openly stated that, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

 

[allforihs]

Bishop Eusebius(c. 263 – 339 CE), the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

The title of chapter 31 is "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.":

'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

You shouldn't let yourself be put in a position of defending every misspoken, out-of-context, nutty, or politically incorrect statement any Christian has ever said through history. So I'm only going to look into your first example.

The Bishop is responding to something said by Plato. It appears that the Bishop isn't using "falsehood" to mean a lie, but to mean something that is non-literal, like the personification of God.