Who canonized the official New Testament?

[Duvduv]

Unfortunately there is no evidence for any pockets or the like, unless you have some hitherto hidden information. I don't understand the need to establish Christianity before Constantine without any evidence for it.

 

[cvanwey]

Unfortunately there is no evidence for any pockets or the like, unless you have some hitherto hidden information. I don't understand the need to establish Christianity before Constantine without any evidence for it.

If you were provided evidence of any 'Christianity', prior to Constantine, would it matter? If so, what 'evidence' would suffice?

 

[Duvduv]

That doesn't matter, what matters is a huge religion based on the flimsiest of empirical evidence. This is what is most frustrating. Even secular scholars are hell bent on justifying the church's historical narrative, which is based on nothing.

 

[cvanwey]

That doesn't matter, what matters is a huge religion based on the flimsiest of empirical evidence. This is what is most frustrating. Even secular scholars are hell bent on justifying the church's historical narrative, which is based on nothing.

I get it. Your frustration is based upon the fact that the NT, as related to any/all antiquity, seems to be purely based upon the theological dogma and bias of the selected church of the time. And of course, the historical accounts appears biased to such conclusions. I get it.

However, what empirical unbiased evidence exists for the OT, via an exodus account (or even the existence of Moses), a flood, a tower of Babel, Jonah in a 'great fish', a 'talking donkey', etc?

My point is that there exists many religions, based upon faith (over or instead) of empirical evidence to demonstrate the assertions

 

[cvanwey]

That doesn't matter, what matters is a huge religion based on the flimsiest of empirical evidence. This is what is most frustrating. Even secular scholars are hell bent on justifying the church's historical narrative, which is based on nothing.

(2nd response)

Secular historians could only write about what believers believed. (i.e.) Josephus, etc... This does not validate the claims. But instead reports what others attributed their acts upon.

Unfortunately, with Christianity, the entire works of recorded antiquity, relating to the NT, is written through the bias lens of the ones whom already believed. All outside reports of such a religion were mere reporters of what the believers were doing in the name of such beliefs.

And since Constantine was in control at the time, this was the canon of the day. And since the Roman empire was still highly influential, there you go. A new religion was born.

 

[Duvduv]

The point is that the academic profession takes the traditional narrative at face value and won't acknowledge the holes in the narrative, and this is planted even in to popular culture without anyone admitting it's all based on FAITH.

 

[Hawkins]

What evidence do you have of Nanjing massacre which only happened as recent as WWII?

History is never about evidence. It's all about the validity of human testimonies. It always invite faith to believe.

Secular history can be carried forward simply because our history is about the recording of human activities thus understandable to us. You can't expect supernatural things being seriously recorded and being seriously carried forward generations after generations. That's not what history is for (there could be discrete descriptions of supernatural things in history, there are never systematically kept as formal records).

That's why if you are a god, you need to 'hire' a religion to do the job, especially for information passing across the boarder of paper invention. The barrier of paper invention is that humans will lose all or most of their original manuscripts along the invention of paper.

 

[cvanwey]

History is never about evidence. It's all about the validity of human testimonies. It always invite faith to believe.

This is where I beg to differ, quite greatly. Historians appeal to the following standards to verify any/all claims. Then place the claims from the Bible against, let's say... 'Lincoln's assassination'. Which one of the two carries more validity (Bible or Lincoln)?:

Are records acknowledged as fallible?
Are records first hand accounts?
Are records contemperary with claimed events?
Are events independently corroborated?
Are events plausible under laws of physics?
Are records verified by concrete relics?
Have records been reliably preserved?
Are records preserved in their native language?
Are the records politically and socially unbiased?

This is what the OP means by 'nothing' (from post 83). The more "no's'", the less it becomes reliable.

 

[Hawkins]

This is where I beg to differ, quite greatly. Historians appeal to the following standards to verify any/all claims. Then place the claims from the Bible against, let's say... 'Lincoln's assassination'. Which one of the two carries more validity (Bible or Lincoln)?:

Are records acknowledged as fallible?
Are records first hand accounts?
Are records contemperary with claimed events?
Are events independently corroborated?
Are events plausible under laws of physics?
Are records verified by concrete relics?
Have records been reliably preserved?
Are records preserved in their native language?
Are the records politically and socially unbiased?

This is what the OP means by 'nothing' (from post 83). The more "no's'", the less it becomes reliable.

These are basically BS. Do you mind to show us an example? Will you be able to use Nanjing massacre in WWII as an example to show us how historians deal with the claims?

Your kind are famous in living by ideals turning out to be a delusion!

As for more ancient history, I randomly fetched a statement from Josephus works.

The Antiquities of the Jews, book 9, chapter 3, section1:
1. When Joram had taken upon him the kingdom, he determined to make an expedition against the king of Moab, whose name was Mesha; for, as we told you before, he was departed from his obedience to his brother [Ahaziah], while he paid to his father Ahab two hundred thousand sheep, with their fleeces of wool.


Now show us exactly how historians deal with the above claim!

 

[cvanwey]

These are basically BS. Do you mind to show us an example?

Don't mind if I do...

The claim - 'Lincoln was shot in Ford's theater 4-14-1865'...

Are records acknowledged as fallible? Of course they are... They come from eyewitness testimony. Some minor errors may exist.
Are records first hand accounts? Genuine eyewitness accounts from the people in the room as it happened, validated by differing news papers. We also have testimonials from the confederate conspirators themselves, admitting to the plot and carrying it out.
Are records contemperary with claimed events? Yes, the very same day, with multiple accounts, whom all corroborated the main events.
Are events independently corroborated? Yes, an autopsy report from the person whom performed as such. Along with the multiple reviewed and questioned eyewitnesses sighted in the papers.
Are events plausible under laws of physics? Yes
Are records verified by concrete relics? We still have Booth's actual pistol used.
Have records been reliably preserved? Yes, we still have multiple English written news papers, all reporting and recording similar events from 4-14-1865.
Are records preserved in their native language? Yes
Are the records politically and socially unbiased? The part about Lincoln being shot and killed, yes it is unbiased.

Now contrast the above claimed event against a resurrection claim, or any other supernatural claim from the NT.

Thanks