Burden of Proof

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Apollos wrote:

From Apollos:
I agree that my supposition is based on �Christian theology� as described in Christian documents during the first 150 years of the Church including Paul�s writings. I could have clarified this but I doubt it would change your objections. 
Post by Andalus:
It is supposition because none of the writings tell us of the actual historical Jesus and your point of view comes from copies of copies from unknown sources and not from anything that puts us with Jesus.
My point is that you cannot tell us that you know what Jesus thought or did, you can only tell us what labored interpretations of texts say about him. 
From Apollos:
Since your �refutation� relies on this claim, you have the obligation to prove your claim. As a starting point, why don�t you provide some evidence that Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus or that the Disciples rejected his teachings.
Post by Andalus:
My refutation is based on the internal problems with your claim, with demo using critical thinking with numerous examples. You are stuck in this realm that you have certain rules that allow you to challenge the beliefs of one faith using such and such reasons, yet your stance itself fails in light of the same reasons. You further propose that only followers of the other faith have some great burden of proof while we must accept your blank assertions and �assumptions� you have buried in your statements as if they are facts, in fact, we must accept them as universally accepted facts. When you are called out on the internal problems with your contribution, you cont with �special pleading�. 
You want me to prove Paul was not a witness to Jesus? Show me a single document that counters what I have stated. I believe that when you are pressed for specifics, you rely on claiming that it is the other person, not you, that needs to specify. 
Paul is not even a witness to Jesus, and your following his word is nothing but complete special pleading on your part as far as your claim about following authorities. It is really funny actually. I am not sure why no one has caught your convoluted claims. Your claim begs the question: What was Paul�s authority? 
From Apollos:
Paul�s authority came directly from Jesus and it was confirmed by the Disciples as well as signs and wonders from God. It does not matter that you or I were not there to observe the latter. Others were and he wrote his letters describing this sign of his authority when contemporaries could refute him if it wasn�t true. The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge. 

Post by Andalus:
You are telling me what you believe, which is the common mantra one would here in Sunday school. This is good for the faithful, but fails in terms of providing you with the right to lay down assertions which you feel others should accept as �fact�. Paul never met Jesus, Paul came with a claim which differed from what the Jews taught and believed, his proof of authority, the last time I looked, is extremely �short�. We can believe letters attributed him about how great he is, but I must point out that as far as proof goes, it is �weak�. 
So, for you, the proof of Paul�s authority is what he wrote about himself in letters. Nice. 
Furthermore, I find your statement ambiguous, 
  The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge.
In other words, 
-Paul is right
-The Church believes Paul is right
-Paul is right
Reply by Apollos:
Andalus � When I referred to the Church, I was referring to the Church that existed during Paul�s day. They had the ability to check with Peter, James and others as to Paul�s authority. They had the ability to know if Paul�s claims of performing signs and wonders was true. The fact that these people accepted Paul is very significant. Your remarks don�t address this.

-so what if the writings you have make the claim for Paul. It is all "circular reasoning", the documents that make the claim for Paul tell us that the church accepted Paul and that Paul is the real deal! We have the same documents tell us to accept him, of the very documents ascribed to Paul himself! Come on, if this weak claim was found in my faith, you would be all over it. But again the ugly special pleading fallacy raises its head in Christian polemics. 
-if Paul was so full of "proof", why is it that the pagans were his source of followers? Why did he fail so miserably with the Jews? Looking at the most reasonable explanation, which is not what the Church tells us, it is clear that we have two camps: one who knew the knowledge Paul was quoting, and those who did not know anything. So what group can be duped the easiest? 

 apollos wrote:

Post by Andalus:
I would also like to point out, that factually, there is not much in terms of �documents� in the first 150 years, and you are deluded if you think so.
From Apollos:
Please then, provide an explanation that accounts for just the following:
Lexionaries before 200 A.D. quote all but a handful of verses from the Gospels which indicates widespread knowledge and use of the Gospels before this time. There are several manuscript fragments of these Gospels dated as early 70 A.D. and no later than 125 A.D. (They are identical to the versions we use today). Paul�s letters � which are written between 52 A.D. and 65 A.D. - quote from these Gospels. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (95 A.D.) quotes the Gospels. Ignatius � a disciple of John and martyr � wrote letters in 110 A.D. confirming the Gospels and who wrote them. Polycarp � another disciple of John � quoted and confirmed the Gospels in 135 A.D. Christian creeds, Secular and Jewish writings confirm that the fundamentals of the Gospels were known and believed by the early Church prior to 110 A.D. 
Post by Andalus:
This is the latest �broad stroke� used by apologists. It used to be, �we have hundreds and thousands of MSS that give us the gospels that date from the first century�. This worked because who could possibly look up the facts and look at every MS to show otherwise. In time, it became clear that this claim was not true. 
Reply by Apollos:
We do have thousands of manuscripts and textual criticism leads scholars to conclude that the autographs behind these copies are from the first century. The evidence keeps getting better not worse. Since you claim the contrary, please provide some details of what you are referring to.

Once more you are over generalizing, and giving a sweeping broadstroke without any clarity by invoking "thousands of MSS", then asking me to provide details. 

The question that must be asked is: What does thousands of MSS mean? A question that begs clarification which Chistian apologists tend to be "brief" on. 

Keep in mind that in textual criticism, one goes by quality and not quantity. It is not the number but the quality of the MS. If one actually takes a look at what is used by NT scholars to prepare an NT edition, one will find that only a few select MSS are used, in contrast to thousands. Here is a snap shot of a great example that is quoted by the islamicawareness site. One may find this at 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html

Manuscript Type

Editions Of The Greek New Testament 

Nestle-Aland 26 

Bover-O'Callaghan 

UBS GNT-3 

Metzger's 

Merk

Vogels

BFBS-2

Souter

Papyri 

86

73

52

1

51

4

37

23

Uncials 

225

122

179

7

104

46

78

76

Cursives

-

360

525

258

385

274

238

243

Minuscules

206

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lectionaries

5

29

149

-

3

-

-

-

Talismans

-

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total 

522 

529 

905 

266 

543

324

353

342

Manuscripts Used (nearest %) 

10% 

10% 

18% 

5% 

11%

6%

7%

7%
Table II: Number of New Testament manuscripts used in the editions of the Greek New Testament. Nestle-Aland 26 = Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart, 1979); Bover-O'Callaghan = Nuevo Testamento Triling�e (Madrid, 1977); UBS GNT-3 = The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1975); Metzger's = A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971); Merk = Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (Rome, 9th Edition, 1964); Vogels = Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (Freiburg and Barcelona, 4th Edition, 1955); BFBS-2 = H KAINH DIAqHKH (British and Foreign Bible Society, 2nd Edition, 1958); Souter = Novum Testamentum Graece (Oxford, 2nd Edition, 1947). Number of manuscripts used to compute the percentage = 5000.

Notice that the total number of MSS assumed is 5000. The percentage of the 5000 MSS used is extremely small, not because the other MSS were not needed, but because only a few are credible. The other point is that of the thousands of MSS, the majority of those MSS are medieval. Now I am not getting into the methods to date original sources, I am only addressing the notion of what it means to have �thousands of MSS�, and what it does not mean. We know your gospel accounts were taken from many of the other narratives assumed by the various early communities.

 apollos wrote:

Post by Andalus:
Now the latest broad stroke is, �we have the lexionaries�, where now one must either accept it, or deny it without giving a good reason since who has time to read through all of the church father�s writings to say otherwise. For those who have spent some time studying the beginnings of your faith know that this is problematic, and for others it just does not seem �reasonable�. The study of the early writings is extensive and one will find that there are quotes that are not in the cannon and there are quotes that are differing from what is found in the cannon. Applying the criteria of textual criticism, one will find that early NT scholars will not pt out an edition of the NT based upon the �lexionaries�, and there is good reason. To just make a sweeping generalization by invoking the magnificent lexionaries as evidence is �cherry picking�.  
Reply by Apollos:
I have presented a minimal and concise list of documents that exist within 150 years of Jesus walking the earth. Lexionairies are one type and your remarks don�t address their importance. Even if the Lexionaries were filled with the paraphrases, misquotes, etc., they document that there were written Gospels with these words and/or ideas in them prior to the Lexionairies. (Else they couldn�t be referenced). You seemed to be arguing that because the Lexionaries aren�t as good or complete as manuscripts of the Bible that they are worthless. They certainly are not. They document what the early church was practicing and teaching in their services and they consistently quoted passages from the Gospels.  
What about the other documents I reference? You said I was deluded to think there is much in the way of documents during the first 150 years and I showed you many. Paul�s letters alone represent a wealth of documentation for what the Church believed while the Disciples were still living. 

Lexionaries are of no use for giving us confidence in what Jesus said or did or believed, or that the Gospel accounts have such attributes. As Bart Ehrman stated, �Patristic sources provide primary evidence for the history of the text but only secondary evidence for the original text itself.� As quoted from the website I have provided a link to. Didymus The Blind And The Text Of The Gospels, 1986, op. cit., p. 5. See the footnote 2
We are not arguing that the narratives did not exist, their historical nature as being a part of the narratives that were found in the different Christian communities is known, what is argued is that they (Patristic accounts) are worthless in trying to argue that the NT is a source that can give us �confidence� that we are reading what Jesus said, thought, and that Paul had interpretive freedom in his name. In terms of transmission, we are back to square one as we are with the gospel accounts. Ehrman states, 
�The other set of problems unique to Patristic sources concerns the history of their own transmission. The MS traditions of virtually all the church fathers show that later copyists tend to "correct" quotations of the Bible to the form of text prevalent in their own day... Biblical citations in such sources do not necessarily represent the text of the Father, but often only known to his later copyists.� Didymus The Blind And The Text Of The Gospels, 1986, op. cit., p. 6

So with Patristic sources, we have copies of copies. Hardly the inducer of �confidence� in terms of providing strength to Christian apologetic claims, which is why we do not find scholars using them when producing NT editions. Given that there were differing communities with different ideas of Jesus, they give us insight to what we already know about the �proto-orthodox�, a term coined by Bart Ehrman for the group you inherited your ideas from. 
I agree that many traditions existed in the first 150 years, I ask for proof to show me that your tradition is the correct one authorized by Jesus, or a first hand follower. 