Problem: can we all be right?

[AustinMiles89]

You could be right and you could be wrong. I have no issue with people who take the gospels on faith and claim it is an accurate view of Jesus, but the reality is, the gospels don't hold up all that well to an objective historical analysis.

That is not particularly accurate to state. the veracity of how well the New Testament stands up to debate, from even a historical critical argument, is not to be taken lightly. if it were easily discredited, then the debate wouldn't still be waged almost continually.

The trend has actually been, that the more we learn and discover, the more scholars must admit that the writings themselves appear to have been written by known historic figures, ie the original 'church' fathers, before the end of the first century.
if you disagree id invite you to research the scroll known as Papyrus64.
not to mention taking a slightly different view of how to expose the scriptures. specifically, the heptadic structure of the bible should be of interest to a scientific mind.

 

[bhsmte]

That is not particularly accurate to state. the veracity of how well the New Testament stands up to debate, from even a historical critical argument, is not to be taken lightly. if it were easily discredited, then the debate wouldn't still be waged almost continually.

The trend has actually been, that the more we learn and discover, the more scholars must admit that the writings themselves appear to have been written by known historic figures, ie the original 'church' fathers, before the end of the first century.
if you disagree id invite you to research the scroll known as Papyrus64.
not to mention taking a slightly different view of how to expose the scriptures. specifically, the heptadic structure of the bible should be of interest to a scientific mind.

I have read the works of numerous NT scholars and historians and is how I have reached the conclusions I have, which are shared by many of the scholars and historians, specifically, the ones who are not motivated to tell a certain story.

In regards to taking an objective analysis of the NT seriously, that is precisely what historians and scholars do for a living. You see though, the reason that some scholars will always back off before being too critical of the NT, is usually because they either get a paycheck from a theological institution or they are devout Christians themselves, which most scholars and historians are, which already taints the ability to be truly objective. Why would they want to crater their own belief.

This is why, when one looks at the work of these scholars and historians, it is important to note their background, affiliations and the type of education and training they have received. It also helps, to use common logic in examining the reasoning they give to come to the conclusions they do and who makes the most logical sense and has best objective evidence to support their opinion. When I did this, it opened my eyes quite a bit.

 

[AustinMiles89]

I have read the works of numerous NT scholars and historians and is how I have reached the conclusions I have, which are shared by many of the scholars and historians, specifically, the ones who are not motivated to tell a certain story.

In regards to taking an objective analysis of the NT seriously, that is precisely what historians and scholars do for a living. You see though, the reason that some scholars will always back off before being too critical of the NT, is usually because they either get a paycheck from a theological institution or they are devout Christians themselves, which most scholars and historians are, which already taints the ability to be truly objective. Why would they want to crater their own belief.

This is why, when one looks at the work of these scholars and historians, it is important to note their background, affiliations and the type of education and training they have received. It also helps, to use common logic in examining the reasoning they give to come to the conclusions they do and who makes the most logical sense and has best objective evidence to support their opinion. When I did this, it opened my eyes quite a bit.

I understand that is why you have reached the position that you have. And I once held the same perspective. But the evidence doesn't support that stance. I have proffered two extremely interesting pieces of evidence to consider that undermine your position. But instead of investigating them and responding from an informed position you have repeated only the same things that you have already stated. I would challenge you to look into some facets of this that you have not yet been exposed to. It may bring you closer to truth. Worst case scenario you end up more we'll informed and educated.

 

[bhsmte]

I understand that is why you have reached the position that you have. And I once held the same perspective. But the evidence doesn't support that stance. I have proffered two extremely interesting pieces of evidence to consider that undermine your position. But instead of investigating them and responding from an informed position you have repeated only the same things that you have already stated. I would challenge you to look into some facets of this that you have not yet been exposed to. It may bring you closer to truth. Worst case scenario you end up more we'll informed and educated.

How do you know I have not investigated Papyrus 64 as part of the investigation I have already done? Why would you assume that?

I have and the majority of scholars do not agree with the early date assigned to it about 20 years ago. The majority go with a much later date.

 

[AustinMiles89]

How do you know I have not investigated Papyrus 64 as part of the investigation I have already done? Why would you assume that?

I have and the majority of scholars do not agree with the early date assigned to it about 20 years ago. The majority go with a much later date.

The majority? I'd like to see that reference. I am aware of there being some debate over it more recently, but the arguments I've read of have not managed any conclusive proof that the initial studies were wrong or faulty.

I apologize if I assumed anything on your part. It seemed logical to me that if you were aware of these particular facets of the topic at hand, then you would have addressed them after I brought them up. Especially since you seem wonderfully prone to no nonsense logic and data.