₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Lucifyre post=133640009][/quote]
NOW LET'S SEE WHAT SECULAR LIBERAL SCHOLARS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT EARLY DATING OF THE GOSPEL.

NOTE- THESE ARE NON THEOLOGIANS.








1. John A.T. Robinson

"One is forced to ask why, if the Gospels were written after 70 CE, there is no explicit mention of the destruction of the Temple as a fulfilled prophecy."

2. William F. Albright
Background: An archaeologist and biblical scholar who approached the Bible from a historical and archaeological perspective rather than a theological one.
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 CE, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, p. 136)


3. J. Warner Wallace
Background: A former cold-case detective and secular investigator of Christian claims who approached the New Testament with forensic techniques.

"The lack of reference to the destruction of the Temple in the Gospels or Acts strongly suggests they were written before this significant event." (Cold-Case Christianity, p. 204)

4. Carsten Peter Thiede
Background: A papyrologist and historian known for his work on early Christian manuscripts.

Quote: "The Magdalen Papyrus suggests that the Gospel of Matthew could have been written within a generation of the events it describes." (The Jesus Papyrus, p. 92)

5. Colin Hemer
Background: A historian and scholar focused on the historical reliability of the New Testament.

"The historical detail and abrupt ending of Acts strongly imply it was written before the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem." (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, p. 375)

6. Martin Hengel
Background: A German historian who took a critical but fair approach to New Testament studies.

Hengel proposed that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written before the end of the first century, with Mark possibly as early as 50 CE.

"The Synoptic Gospels must be dated much earlier than many modern scholars suggest, as they reflect a pre-70 CE perspective." (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 124)


Now U will see how the clown will once again avoid all these evidence and continue his meaningless and pointless verbosity.

[quote author=Lucifyre post=133640009][/quote]Are U blind and dumb or sometthing.

I brought what your 5 reliable scholars has to say about HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE GOSPEL, U deliberately ignored, talking nonsense.

NOW AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT YOUR FAVOURITE SCHOLARS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE GOSPEL.

Did U actually read the quotes I brought or too lazy to read....

I will bring them again, U won't hide behind one finger today....

Now read and digest.

A.T Robinson.


"One of the most notable features of the New Testament is that it was written within a generation of the events it records. This proximity makes the Gospels historically reliable, as eyewitnesses were still alive to verify or refute their accounts."
(Redating the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not imaginative creations but documents grounded in the testimony of those who personally witnessed the events they describe or had access to those who did."
Redating the New Testament


"The resurrection narratives in the Gospels, far from being late additions, represent some of the earliest and most central traditions of the Christian community. Their consistency across sources supports their historical credibility."
(Redating the New Testament, p. 178)

"The skepticism with which some scholars approach the Gospels often owes more to presuppositions than to the actual evidence. When judged on their own terms, the Gospels stand up well as historical sources."
(Redating the New Testament.

Daniel B Wallace

"While there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts, the vast majority are inconsequential, and not one of them affects a core Christian doctrine or the essential historical truths about Jesus."
(Can We Still Trust the Bible?, Lecture, 2011)

"The Gospels are rooted in early eyewitness testimony, which was passed down and preserved with remarkable care in the early Christian communities."
(The Reliability of the New Testament Text, Lecture, 2015)

"We have more than 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many of which date very close to the original writings. This allows us to reconstruct the Gospels with a high degree of confidence in their historical accuracy."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not merely theological documents; they are also deeply historical, presenting a consistent and coherent picture of Jesus' life and teachings that aligns with what we know from archaeology and external sources."
(The Gospel According to Bart: A Review of Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', Article, 2006)


"Skepticism toward the Gospels often comes not from evidence against them but from presuppositions about what they should or should not say. When judged by the standards of ancient historiography, they hold up remarkably well."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels, when read in their historical and cultural context, demonstrate an impressive level of historical accuracy, particularly in their depiction of first-century Palestine."

F.F Bruce

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The Gospel writers were not inventing stories but recording events and teachings of Jesus as they were remembered by those who witnessed them. Their purpose was not fiction, but proclamation."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament books were written at a time when the memory of the events they record was still fresh, and many witnesses were still alive to verify or dispute the accounts."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament writers knew the facts, and we have overwhelming evidence of their reliability. Archaeological findings continue to confirm the geographical, cultural, and historical details described in the New Testament."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The historical trustworthiness of the New Testament is unsurpassed by any other ancient writings. The Gospels present a credible picture of the life and teachings of Jesus." smiley
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

Bruce Metzger.

"The essential message of the Gospels concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus has been transmitted to us with a high degree of fidelity."

(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)


"The variations among the manuscripts of the New Testament are trivial in most cases and do not jeopardize the essential integrity of the Gospels' message."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

"The Gospels, though written with theological intent, are rooted in the memories of eyewitnesses and oral traditions that were faithfully preserved."
(The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance)

"The Gospels reflect the cultural and historical milieu of first-century Palestine with remarkable accuracy, corroborated by archaeological findings and external sources."
(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)

"The textual evidence for the New Testament is so much greater than that for any other ancient work of literature that the burden of proof is shifted to the critic to prove why we should not consider the New Testament reliable."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

gohf:
now thing would be interesting
I am wondering where you will find the monkey you want to pull out of your straw hat and dazzle everyone

If I bring the evidence from ancient Jewish scripture, would U accept it?.

I don't want U wasting my time if U already decided to be blind to the truth.

I only want to engage in people seeking the truth.

gohf:
You have come with that metaphysical believe that originates from hell, what benefit is there from anyone having a proper understanding of the metaphysical concept, ah is that not the depths of Satan Jesus warned about in Revelations.

God didn't die on the cross, Jesus did and Jesus is not God. That should be simple

Now you say, "The spirit of Jesus is the exact divine substance of the Father!!!. He is the Son of God."

But because you believe a lie that Jesus is God you say
"Jesus himself said at the cross, 'Father, my spirit (the God in him) I return you'"


The question is is Jesus God?
Is the spirit of Jesus, Jesus?
If the spirit of Jesus is Jesus then who died on the cross?
If the spirit of Jesus is not Jesus but God, so then when God left him, it means that Jesus is not God. Because according to you Jesus returned God to God.


Is not just that you don't see that you are confused but you also don't realize how you are confused.

You say and you think it makes sense, when it doesn't does it become metaphysical beyong human reasoning then, then how are men supposed to know what has been revealed to them if it is beyond them.

That is why Jesus said God has hidden it from those who think they are wise and revealed it to children.

You say why people don't comprehend, you don't realize you don't even comprehend it.

If Jesus is God and left his body to die, it means it is not Jesus that died. So you are saying that the body of Christ is not Jesus

Then this would make nosense
John.6.54 - But those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them at the last day.
John.6.56 He who feeds on My flesh and drinks My blood dwells continually in Me, and I [in like manner dwell continually] in him.

I know we don't eat his physical body but here he refers to his flesh as him.

Your theology illiteracy is beyond ordinary?
And U call yourself a Christian and bible believer is what amaze me.

Let me ask U a question.

Why did the bible calls human Elohim- the exact same word for God.
Yes bible said humans are Gods.

Why did the bible call mortal men Gods?

gohf:
When I told you this
"The devil is author of confusion and the father of lies, but from God comes wisdom and understanding and revelation."

See where the confusion that came from the devil that you believe has brought you to. Something simple and wonderful revealed by the word of God.

You turn it to a question and answer section where you can't even answer

"If it was neither the Father nor the son that died on the cross, do you mean the figure that died on the cross was just like an empty shell?"

"God created an empty shell with no essence, inhabit this empty shell at some point, then depart the body at the point of crucifixion?"

You can't even answer but start claiming it is obvious Qasim doesn't understand who a man is. Please tell us how he obviously doesn't know who a man is?

And how that relates to you avoiding shamefully the result of you believing the confusions of darkness?

You want to confuse him more by mentioning christology and creation of men.

I think some of you think, either a person has to be a complete fool or exceptional diabolical wise if not they can't be saved.


Asking you who died on the cross was it a man or God? You can't answer directly after proclaiming a lie that suggests God is man and man is God. Instead of believing that Jesus is the son of God, the son of man and he is and was and will never be God

copy Qasim


The biggest confusion with the crucifixion amongst it's antagonist is asking if God died on the cross.

This question is poor understanding of basic metaphysical concept.

A God cannot die, it's impossible for a God to die. God is not bound by the human characteristics of MR NIGER D. God doesn't physically exist in this physical world, he's not bound by time, space or matter. Therefore, there's no reason for him to stop existing in it. Such concept do not arise at all.

Now what is death?
Death is separation of the body from the soul and spirit. The dynamic process of such separation is called death.
When a man's soul and spirit exits his body, we say the man is dead. He no longer exist in this physical world.
That doesn't mean his spirit and soul died.

We have said it thousands of times, Jesus Christ while on earth isn't physically God. He had a human soul and dwelt in a mortal body. It's his spirit that his divine. That's why the correct nominal term for him is the Son of God.

The spirit of Jesus isn't made in the image of God like the rest of humanity. The spirit of Jesus is the exact divine substance of the Father!!!. He is the Son of God.

At the cross, that spirit separated from the mortal body of Christ, that is death. It doesn't mean the spirit died or any God died.

Why this is so hard for people to comprehend is beyond me.
Jesus himself said at the cross, 'Father, my spirit (the God in him) I return you'

God didn't die on the cross, it's ignorance to say such.

sonmvayina:
Bring it on...I will only accept if in the Hebrew scriptures it says the logos will come as a man in the future to die for the sins of the world..

This is a straw man argument.
The debate here is about validity of trinity.

If I show U from the ancient Jewish scriptures that the logos is a person and created the universe, would U accept it?

That's my question.

Lucifyre:
Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

See your life in the mud ..potopoto.
Your own reliable bible scholars denied you and spit on your face.

I warned u in the beginning, but like fly wey no dey hear word, U kept having mouth diarrhea.
Now see the gargantuan evidence against U.

I think we done with scholars here.

If U desire to be buried, I will gladly oblige U that request.
Let's go one and one on any of your claim about the bible. One topic at a time.

On only one condition- U must reply to all my response until I stop my rebuttal.

I'm saying this because my previous experience with atheists is that once their argument crumbles and they become stuck, they run away and abandon the debate.

Lucifyre:
Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ladies and Gentlemen, can we please stand up as we bring back one for the five bible scholars this joker assumed will support his beer parlour moronic gists.

A.T Robinson.


"One of the most notable features of the New Testament is that it was written within a generation of the events it records. This proximity makes the Gospels historically reliable, as eyewitnesses were still alive to verify or refute their accounts."
(Redating the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not imaginative creations but documents grounded in the testimony of those who personally witnessed the events they describe or had access to those who did."
Redating the New Testament


"The resurrection narratives in the Gospels, far from being late additions, represent some of the earliest and most central traditions of the Christian community. Their consistency across sources supports their historical credibility."
(Redating the New Testament, p. 178)

"The skepticism with which some scholars approach the Gospels often owes more to presuppositions than to the actual evidence. When judged on their own terms, the Gospels stand up well as historical sources."
(Redating the New Testament.

Lucifyre:
Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's bring back one of the scholars this joker said he trust and are reliable...
Daniel B Wallace

"While there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts, the vast majority are inconsequential, and not one of them affects a core Christian doctrine or the essential historical truths about Jesus."
(Can We Still Trust the Bible?, Lecture, 2011)

"The Gospels are rooted in early eyewitness testimony, which was passed down and preserved with remarkable care in the early Christian communities."
(The Reliability of the New Testament Text, Lecture, 2015)

"We have more than 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many of which date very close to the original writings. This allows us to reconstruct the Gospels with a high degree of confidence in their historical accuracy."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels are not merely theological documents; they are also deeply historical, presenting a consistent and coherent picture of Jesus' life and teachings that aligns with what we know from archaeology and external sources."
(The Gospel According to Bart: A Review of Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', Article, 2006)


"Skepticism toward the Gospels often comes not from evidence against them but from presuppositions about what they should or should not say. When judged by the standards of ancient historiography, they hold up remarkably well."
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament)

"The Gospels, when read in their historical and cultural context, demonstrate an impressive level of historical accuracy, particularly in their depiction of first-century Palestine."
(The Reliability of the New Testament Text, Lecture, 2015)

Lucifyre:
Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's bring back F.F Bruce and what he has to say about historical authenticity of the gospel.
"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The Gospel writers were not inventing stories but recording events and teachings of Jesus as they were remembered by those who witnessed them. Their purpose was not fiction, but proclamation."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament books were written at a time when the memory of the events they record was still fresh, and many witnesses were still alive to verify or dispute the accounts."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The New Testament writers knew the facts, and we have overwhelming evidence of their reliability. Archaeological findings continue to confirm the geographical, cultural, and historical details described in the New Testament."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

"The historical trustworthiness of the New Testament is unsurpassed by any other ancient writings. The Gospels present a credible picture of the life and teachings of Jesus."
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?)

Lucifyre:
Defcon 1 ☢️

Faack me! 'rely on academic to safe me' Nah! I'm good 🤣Dude with every new regurgitated ai copy paste, you just show how much more of a frigging genius you are to those who read this. This is interesting. So let's recap, first i school you on your ignorant claim, then unable to articulate a single thought process of your own to counter anything i said, even just one, you ask ai to do the thinking for you and help you cite scholars to support your claim.

Unfortunately for you, cause you've never even read a word of scholarship to save ur life(60k still up for grabs😁) you ignorantly conflated the terms and cited em out of context like your bible. When i then schooled your ignorant ass a second time and educated you on the nuanced terms and the full context of the citations, showing they contradict your position(embarrassing btw), you then leave the reputable scholars to cite hacks, especially William Craig and Gary Habermas.😄

Wait! Theres more. You then ironically project your loud ignorance on me by claiming i need a lesson in "textual attestation" when 5mins ago, you didn't even understand what it was and conflated it with fact and accuracy of the content until i schooled and educated your genius self. That's not even the best part, you then show how intelligent you really are by conflating it again immediately after, and then cite quotes of Bart and Bruce again validating my point thinking it contradicts it. Still too much of a genius to realise the nuance and difference.

This is what happens when you rely on ai to do your thinking for you, you end up making a fool of urself and threatening people with a hell that only exists in your deluded mind. Did you even at least read any of the quotes after you copied and pasted verbatim cause if you read it you wouldn't have made a fool of urself. Instead you prefer to ask ai, then tack on one or 2 sentences, making the same mistake again "let us ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity" Like the heck is that😄... You should have just done the normal apologetic defense and left scholarship you ain't got a clue about.

Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Ok o, now let's bring back Bruce Metzger.

"The essential message of the Gospels concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus has been transmitted to us with a high degree of fidelity."

(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)


"The variations among the manuscripts of the New Testament are trivial in most cases and do not jeopardize the essential integrity of the Gospels' message."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

"The Gospels, though written with theological intent, are rooted in the memories of eyewitnesses and oral traditions that were faithfully preserved."
(The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance)

"The Gospels reflect the cultural and historical milieu of first-century Palestine with remarkable accuracy, corroborated by archaeological findings and external sources."
(The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content)

"The textual evidence for the New Testament is so much greater than that for any other ancient work of literature that the burden of proof is shifted to the critic to prove why we should not consider the New Testament reliable."
(The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration)

Lucifyre:
Defcon 1 ☢️

Faack me! 'rely on academic to safe me' Nah! I'm good 🤣Dude with every new regurgitated ai copy paste, you just show how much more of a frigging genius you are to those who read this. This is interesting. So let's recap, first i school you on your ignorant claim, then unable to articulate a single thought process of your own to counter anything i said, even just one, you ask ai to do the thinking for you and help you cite scholars to support your claim.

Unfortunately for you, cause you've never even read a word of scholarship to save ur life(60k still up for grabs😁) you ignorantly conflated the terms and cited em out of context like your bible. When i then schooled your ignorant ass a second time and educated you on the nuanced terms and the full context of the citations, showing they contradict your position(embarrassing btw), you then leave the reputable scholars to cite hacks, especially William Craig and Gary Habermas.😄

Wait! Theres more. You then ironically project your loud ignorance on me by claiming i need a lesson in "textual attestation" when 5mins ago, you didn't even understand what it was and conflated it with fact and accuracy of the content until i schooled and educated your genius self. That's not even the best part, you then show how intelligent you really are by conflating it again immediately after, and then cite quotes of Bart and Bruce again validating my point thinking it contradicts it. Still too much of a genius to realise the nuance and difference.

This is what happens when you rely on ai to do your thinking for you, you end up making a fool of urself and threatening people with a hell that only exists in your deluded mind. Did you even at least read any of the quotes after you copied and pasted verbatim cause if you read it you wouldn't have made a fool of urself. Instead you prefer to ask ai, then tack on one or 2 sentences, making the same mistake again "let us ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity" Like the heck is that😄... You should have just done the normal apologetic defense and left scholarship you ain't got a clue about.

Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Your choice Cho Cho Cho won't safe U.
This is what Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger has to say on the gospel. These are the 2 greatest NT scholars of modern times.

They critically examined and scrutinised the NT and came up with the following conclusion.

We can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.

Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger in the text of the New Testament.
Your argument is broken and has no legs to stand on
Give it up.


Trust me, it's better for U if I quote scholars. because if I take U up on your silly claims- there will be only one outcome.... I will chew U and spit U out.

U won't be the first ignorant atheist to challenge me here, check my previous threads- their burial grounds plenty.

If U want to join them, let's go one on one with authorship evidence of the gospel or the dating of the gospel.

Ojuntana:
It is usually hard to judge these kind of cases with religion as the base

Their prophet married a 6 year old girl and raped her at 9

He kept sex slaves and encouraged his followers to do same

They are simply following the dictates of their religion

In a society that upholds freedom of religion, how do you prosecute a man for following the examples of his prophet?
Isn't that religious persecution?

But why didn't they pick girls from their own ethnicity or religion.
Why target white girls?
That's the point she's making.

gohf:
When I told you this
"The devil is author of confusion and the father of lies, but from God comes wisdom and understanding and revelation."

See where the confusion that came from the devil that you believe has brought you to. Something simple and wonderful revealed by the word of God.

You turn it to a question and answer section where you can't even answer

"If it was neither the Father nor the son that died on the cross, do you mean the figure that died on the cross was just like an empty shell?"

"God created an empty shell with no essence, inhabit this empty shell at some point, then depart the body at the point of crucifixion?"

You can't even answer but start claiming it is obvious Qasim doesn't understand who a man is. Please tell us how he obviously doesn't know who a man is?

And how that relates to you avoiding shamefully the result of you believing the confusions of darkness?

You want to confuse him more by mentioning christology and creation of men.

I think some of you think, either a person has to be a complete fool or exceptional diabolical wise if not they can't be saved.


Asking you who died on the cross was it a man or God? You can't answer directly after proclaiming a lie that suggests God is man and man is God. Instead of believing that Jesus is the son of God, the son of man and he is and was and will never be God

Let me ask U a question? What's the difference between a spirit and a soul?

What happens to the soul and spirit at death.

BoldBrainz:
SAW ten featured Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson, eleventh is in the works and it still has the screen appeal.

Fast and Furious is equally on its 11th sequel and again, it still has audience and viewership appeal.

Pirates of the Caribbean is expected to churn out its sixth instalment and it is highly anticipated since its viewership appeal still leaves many slobbering for more.

Now seeing how you resorted to personal attacks over an opinion I put out on this subject, which I maintain notwithstanding, what business are you currently doing and how many years have you kept it afloat?

Answer the question so I know where to place your idiocy, as na you decide to take am personal since Walt Disney na your papa brother!

Lion king had very strong appeal
500 million dollars revenue within 2 weeks is not beans.

If U are tired of watching it, just skip.
I got tired of fast and furious after the 7th. That doesn't mean I will run my mouth carelessly like U doing because I understand business.

My personal life is no business of yours. What U display to public is what we will use to determine your idiocy.

Qasim6:
It was not the son~ it would mean human sacrifice.
It was not the father~because the Father can not die for obvious reason.

If it was neither the Father nor the son that died on the cross, do you mean the figure that died on the cross was just like an empty shell?
God created an empty shell with no essence, inhabit this empty shell at some point, then depart the body at the point of crucifixion?

It's obvious U don't understand who a Man is and thus confused about the person of Jesus Christ.
Is it ok If I teach U christology?

For U to understand Christology, we have to go back to the creation of man.

Now, let me ask U, how is man created as per bible theology.

2. What is death? What happens to man at death?

BoldBrainz:
Pray tell, what business do you run now and how many years have you kept it afloat?

When successful enterprise run their business, U keep shut and learn.
Disney and other move companies have been running film franchise for over 100 years, U are not in any position to tell them what to do.

SAW franchise is on its 9th series while fast and
furious is on 10th. Toy story is about to release the 5th this year. Yet U complaining about the 3rd release of Lion king franchise. Even Madagascar got to number 4.

Spin offs of these franchise includes video games, short films, toys, musical theatre, film series and parallel movies.

I hate when people form opinion on what they have no knowledge about.

BoldBrainz:
This Lion King storyline has been over-flogged. They should put it to rest. It's becoming tiring to watch.

A movie that already garnered over 500 million dollars less than 2 weeks in theatre is over flogged
A lot of U people don't know anything about franchise, that's why U barely can run a successful business that last a generation.

Lucifyre:
🤣 My gosh! Your comments literally made me lol! When i said confident and ignorant it sounded demeaning but just look. Seriously how do you guys do it, how can you be so confident yapping about something u've obviously got no clue about, its fascinating. I could bet #50k u've never read any of the sources you cited and an additional #10k u've literally never read any peice of scholarship if not you wouldn't commit this kind of embarrassing blunder. At least i cited what ive read and put the thought process in my words.

So this doesn't fully turn to just ad hominems let me school/educate you. To begin, don't you see you couldn't literally refute a single thing i said, which are all basically facts in scholarship, not one. Not with words and thought processes of your own, not even with the chat gpt you resorted to, to find your sources and buttress your point, that you hadn't even read and ended up quoting out of context as you do your bible. You just had to ignorantly conflate textual integrity with historical validity and inerrancy.

If you had managed to read even just the context of your sources you would have seen that virtually all of em were taking about textual attestation, integrity and preservation in relation to the the original manuscripts not historical accuracy or inerrancy or original authorship. In other words as a document if its been faithfully copied and transmitted, that what we have are close to the original manuscripts overall meta(quantity & quality) even though no 2 manuscripts are same.

They're simply saying its a well preserved textual artifact like the Iliad, not that its contents are historical or true. Just the title of some of the books from the scholars your quotes are from should have clued you in but nope, chat gpt, indoctrination and close mindedness nor let you see road. 🤣 Titles like Bruce's "New Testament : Its transmission, corruption and restoration" or Daniel Wallace's "Revisisting the corruption of the new testament" or Bart's "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why", should have clued you in.

Now for the nail in the coffin of the ignorant😁, at least you were the one that cited them and yes they are reliable scholars. Let me show i too can use a gpt, luckily im not ignorant to coflate textual integrity with historical accuracy and inerrancy. Here's what the same scholars have to say about the latter from the same books( see attached image).

P.S Is this the daze you want to daze me😄. Instead of dazing me educate urself abeg. Scholarship is not your bible study group where you do mental gymnastics to bend the data to fit a dogma, its always data over dogma.

Now that we have confirmed that the gospel reliability and preservation, the issue of textual corruption has been debunked.

Now let's go to the historical accuracy of the gospels.
What did academic scholars have to say not some beer parlour gist from someone who has never written any academic work in his life.

"The Gospel writers intended to write history, and they did so very responsibly, reliably, and with an overwhelming amount of corroboration from external sources. The Gospel accounts align closely with what we know from archaeology and other historical sources of first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture."
Craig Bloomberg. (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 254)

"The Gospels are biographies of a very unusual sort, but they are biographies nonetheless, rooted in a historical reality that must be acknowledged. The idea that the Gospels were written to distort or fabricate history is unsupported by any evidence; they are better understood as historically grounded accounts."

N.T Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 619)

"The Gospels were written by those who knew the eyewitnesses, often directly based on their testimonies, making them an invaluable historical resource for understanding Jesus."
"The evidence strongly suggests that the Gospels are trustworthy records of what was remembered and believed by the earliest Christians."
Richard Bauckam (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 93)

"A careful, critical reading of the Gospels reveals a wealth of historically credible material about Jesus, even if not every detail can be corroborated. Despite theological interpretations, the Gospels remain our best and most reliable sources for reconstructing the life of Jesus."
John P. meier (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 1, p. 27)

"The Gospels demonstrate a strong commitment to preserving historical details, particularly regarding the geography and culture of first-century Palestine. While theological purposes are evident, the Gospels align closely with known historical facts, offering reliable insights into the life of Jesus."
Simon Gathercole (The Composition of the Four Gospels, p. 42)

"The Gospels, taken as historical documents, provide us with a remarkably coherent and consistent portrait of Jesus and the events surrounding his life."
William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith, p. 299)

"The Gospels provide an abundance of historically verifiable data about Jesus, especially regarding his crucifixion and resurrection. The accounts in the Gospels, especially when compared with external sources, strongly affirm the historical core of the Christian message."
Gary R. Habermas (The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, p. 158)

"The Gospels are not myths or legends but records firmly anchored in the historical realities of first-century Judea. Their depiction of events and people fits perfectly within what we know of the time period from other sources."
Paul Barnett (Jesus and the Logic of History, p. 105)

Lucifyre:
🤣 My gosh! Your comments literally made me lol! When i said confident and ignorant it sounded demeaning but just look. Seriously how do you guys do it, how can you be so confident yapping about something u've obviously got no clue about, its fascinating. I could bet #50k u've never read any of the sources you cited and an additional #10k u've literally never read any peice of scholarship if not you wouldn't commit this kind of embarrassing blunder. At least i cited what ive read and put the thought process in my words.

So this doesn't fully turn to just ad hominems let me school/educate you. To begin, don't you see you couldn't literally refute a single thing i said, which are all basically facts in scholarship, not one. Not with words and thought processes of your own, not even with the chat gpt you resorted to, to find your sources and buttress your point, that you hadn't even read and ended up quoting out of context as you do your bible. You just had to ignorantly conflate textual integrity with historical validity and inerrancy.

If you had managed to read even just the context of your sources you would have seen that virtually all of em were taking about textual attestation, integrity and preservation in relation to the the original manuscripts not historical accuracy or inerrancy or original authorship. In other words as a document if its been faithfully copied and transmitted, that what we have are close to the original manuscripts overall meta(quantity & quality) even though no 2 manuscripts are same.

They're simply saying its a well preserved textual artifact like the Iliad, not that its contents are historical or true. Just the title of some of the books from the scholars your quotes are from should have clued you in but nope, chat gpt, indoctrination and close mindedness nor let you see road. 🤣 Titles like Bruce's "New Testament : Its transmission, corruption and restoration" or Daniel Wallace's "Revisisting the corruption of the new testament" or Bart's "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why", should have clued you in.

Now for the nail in the coffin of the ignorant😁, at least you were the one that cited them and yes they are reliable scholars. Let me show i too can use a gpt, luckily im not ignorant to coflate textual integrity with historical accuracy and inerrancy. Here's what the same scholars have to say about the latter from the same books( see attached image).

P.S Is this the daze you want to daze me😄. Instead of dazing me educate urself abeg. Scholarship is not your bible study group where you do mental gymnastics to bend the data to fit a dogma, its always data over dogma.

Once again I'm not interested in your whack unintelligible opinion.
And I think U need a lesson on textual reliability and attestation.

Let's ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity and reliability of the gospel.

We can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.
Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger in the text of the New Testament.


"There are some 8,000 changes in the manuscripts, but most are minor and of no consequence to the meaning. Less than one percent of the variants are significant, and none affect any cardinal doctrine."

A.T Robertson in Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.


"Even the most skeptical of scholars agree that the New Testament preserves the teachings and basic historical events surrounding Jesus with a high degree of accuracy."
Craig L. Blomberg in The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
Pls read above at least twice.

"The sheer number of manuscripts and the early dates of many of them make the New Testament the most reliable and best-preserved text of all ancient writings."
Philip W Comfort in The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament.

"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
Sir Frederic Kenyon in The Bible and Archaeology.

These are the scholars who questioned the reliability of the gospel in the 20th and 21st century.
After thorough and extensive research they all came down to only one conclusion - the integrity and reliability of the New Testament is intact.

If U are relying on academic to safe U from the eternal damnation awaiting U, they will deny U.
because they boldly told U that the conclusion of their works is that the new testament is reliable.

DaddyCoool:
Nachmonides, SIRTee15, Steep, gohf

FINAL WORD ON THIS TOPIC

It has been over 2 thousand years. Churches that worship Jesus Christ as God have gone from strength to strength. At Nicea the bishops prayed that God guide their deliberations and help them arrive at the right conclusion - these were people who knew the Bible more than any of us. We must assume that God was in those deliberations and therefore part of the conclusion they arrived at - which would explain why it has sustained and only gotten stronger.
Folks, these things have been debated ad infinitum by people much wiser, holier, and much more knowledgeable than us.
Bottom line:
Since YHWH has been intimately involved from beginning till now, unless we are ready to say that He doesn't exist, or no longer exists, or exists but is powerless, or exists but doesn't care, we must assume that what has triumphed is NOT something that is against His will.

The history of nicea isn't that straightforward dear.
Lots of churches and Christians remained Unitarian after nicea council and rejected the trinity. Some even formed their own sects.
Part of those sects living in middle east came up with Islam.
The next emperor of Roman empire after Constantine actually rejected trinity and insisted Unitarian Christianity would be the official religion and trinitarian priests were persecuted.

Trinity didn't become mainstream until 600 years after nicene council.
As I said earlier, U do t need nicene or church fathers to believe in trinity.
Honesty and common sense is all U need to see trinity in the bible.
The scripture loudly shouts trinity.

Nachmonides:
Knowing that being a person doesn't necessarily mean "physical", but having a personality, and relational attributes.

The Bible portrays the Spirit of God as a person with will, intellect, and emotions, playing an active role in creation, guidance, and redemption.


The Bible portrays the Word as both a person (Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos) and God’s message to humanity.

Very good.
So U can see from the bible that the FATHER, THE WORD OF GOD AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD IS ONE EXISTENCE NOT 3.

AT THE SAME TIME THE BIBLE ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE FATHER, HIS WORD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE 3 DISTINCT PERSONS.

SO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE BIBLE IS ONE GOD WITH THREE PERSONS.

ONE BEING AND THREE PERSONS.

gohf and janosky, black Jews- somvinya and hackerman, U people should allow the bible to speak. The scripture can defend itself when it comes to trinity. Both the old testament and the new testament speak boldly about the trinity.

U don't need any Nicene council or church fathers to believe in Trinity. Trinity is in the bible, only intellectually dishonest people will deny the trinity is in the bible.

If U don't want to use the term God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit, that's fine.

But simply accept and believe that There's one essence/one divinity/one being called God but manifest in 3 persons of the Father, his word and his spirit.

This is the truth from our bible. Believing anything else is rejecting the scriptures

DaddyCoool:
Oh, my question is quite clear. Here it is again:
WHY is the Father sacrificing at all when He could simply forgive without any self-sacrifice? It would make sense if there were another entity involved that required sacrifice to be appeased

Ok, your question bothers around dynamics of forgiveness by God.
Why can't God just forgive instead of going thru the process of self sacrifice?


Is this your query? I want to be clear b4 I answer.

Nachmonides:
1, No, the Word of God (Jesus Christ, the Son) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.

2, No, the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.


They are of the same essence but distinct.

Good, that means they are not beings.
So that automatically disqualify the notion of 3 gods.
God is one existence, one being not 3.

Next question

Does the bible depicts the spirit of God as a person or just a substance
Does the bible depicts the word of God as a person or just a substance.

Janosky:
Your fellow Trinitarians devotees have debunked your false claims.

Your ghost deity taught them that Jesus is archangel Michael.

Go and argue with them.
Nah the same ghost deity dey teach una.

Ok are U saying angel of the LORD is Jesus?
Is that what U saying?
because the angel of the LORD is called YHWH and God almighty multiple times in the bible.

Are U sure U want to stick to Jesus being angel of the Lord.

Janosky:
Jesus Christ the word has a separate existence from the Father his God.

John 14:24 & Hebrew 1:1-2 is the answer in your Bible.

"the one not loving Me does not keep My words. And the word that you hear is not Mine, but that of the Father having sent Me"
Yahweh can not send Himself Isaiah 6:8.
Yahweh sent Jesus his son to speak Yahweh's word, John 14:24
Jesus is the word because he & Paul agreed that Jesus is the Spokesman sent to speak the words given to him by God his Father.

Do you SirTee15 agree with Jesus Christ and Paul, both apostles of God?

If U think the word of God has a separate existence from the Father, U need your head checked.

So when God said ' Let their be light'. That statement that was spoken by the Father is a separate existence from the Father?

DaddyCoool:
My question is, WHY is the Father sacrificing at all when it's only Him involved - it would make sense if there were another person involved that needed to be appeased

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

But the work of atonement by God is a self sacrifice from him to safe humanity. It doesn't involve another being.

Self sacrifice is different from human sacrifice.

Jesus who is God in flesh sacrificed himself for us.

It's not like the Father created a fully separate human being and send him to the world to die for our sins.
That would depicts the pagan practice of sacrificing humans to appease their deity.

Jesus is human with fullness of father's divinity in him. He's not a separate being from the Father.

Janosky:
Your Trinitarian mentors at Nicene in 381 AD made their holy spirit they installed as deity.

Jesus said holy spirit is God's finger often referred to as hand of God in your Bible.Luke 12:20 Matthew 12:28.
Egyptians agreed at Exodus 8:13 that Jesus is correct.

God has eyes , Psalm 11:4 ,ears,Nehemiah 1:6 & finger, Exodus 8:19 and mouth, Matthew 4:4.
Is God's mouth a person? No.
Is God's eyes a person? No.
Is God's ears a person? No
Is God's finger a person? Definitely not!

So are U saying the word of God and holy spirit are not depicted as persons in the bible.
Is that what U saying because I need U to be clear.

Janosky:
Constantine assembled men at Nicene to make it a deity in 381AD and instal l it as a being.

Holy spirit is not a being. No Christian ever said holy spirit is a being.
Pls understand the difference btw being and person b4 embarrassing yourself in public.
GOD IS ONE BEING NOT 3 BEINGS.

Janosky:
[b]Origen and other church fathers never believed nor agree with that Nicene invention.
John 16:13 , holy spirit is referenced as "he" but "he" is not in the Greek manuscripts.
English translators of your Bible put "he" there because Greek Paraclete in John 16:7 is masculine gender in Greek language.
Holy spirit is personified as "he".
KJV Romans 8:16,26 accurately referenced holy spirit as itself because in Greek language holy spirit neuter,no gender.

Ok if U say holy spirit is not a person. Explain this verses
Luke 2
25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.

So how can holy spirit communicates and give revelation If it's not a person?

Janosky:
"Christianity before emperor Constantine" go and study this subject very well and cure your delusion.
[/b]

Why are U talking about Nicene creed again. U already said said U don't believe in church fathers and I said fine.
Let's stick to scripture and leave church fathers doctrine out of our discussion.
Stick to the scripture.

Now if U say the word of God is not a person, explain this verses.
Genesis 15
After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:
“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,[a]
your very great reward.[b]”

Explain how the word can be expressed as an action force if it's not a person.
How can the word of the LORD be speaking of it's not a person.

Janosky:
Your footnotes reads @ Exodus 3:14
"I will be what I will be". the correct rendition of Hebrew Exodus 3:14
"I AM" is desperate attempt by Trinitarians to deceive themselves about John 8;58.

The screenshots evidence speaking the truth.

I'm not going to waste my time on Hebrew grammatical argument with U because none of us speak ancient Hebrew.

The word ehye is pronounced as YHWH. AND THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAID- I AM.
THE Septuagint Translates 'ehye to ego eimi'.
The original John manuscript wrote I am as ego eimi'.

Lucifyre:
The amount of confidently ignorant people on this platform is too damn high😅. Like the frigging irony of saying you want evidence from scholarship when anyone with the daintiest clue about the stance of basic academic scholarship wouldn't make the outstandingly ignorant statement you did is beyond laughable. Then again its the typical apologist way of making assertions before even understanding the context of said assertions cause they think it supports their conclusion, so not suprised there.

Anyway, first off, which is basic knowledge and a fact and consensus among the academic community, is that there is no single "Bible." There are multiple Bibles, and they say different things depending on the adopted canon, translation method, and source manuscripts. They range from 24 to as many as 82 books, depending on the sect, from the Codex Sinaiticus to the Tanakh to the Targum, to the Septuagint, to NA28, etc. This is just to paint a backdrop of the confusing mess of zero objectivity.

Now, whatever Bible you use or choose, one thing is certain, and that is the fact that it is not univocal. Different authors say different things with different agendas, directed at different audiences, which is why there are so many contradictions. The Gospels contradict themselves at virtually every turn, from the birth narrative to the death narrative, with no harmony and no objectivity. This is despite the fact that the authors basically copied each other but tweaked the story to appeal to their particular audience, as there were numerous Gospels in circulation, all wanting to drive their narrative. Many of these Gospels and their narratives didn't make it into the canon, as they brought about even more contradictions.

The Gospels and other books are historically inaccurate. Various accounts depicted in them, when verified with external sources, are found wanting, pointing to creative liberty. For example, the census in Luke, which was conducted at Jesus' birth, was used to fix location contradictions from the other Gospels. However, the census, as claimed by the Gospels, took place during the reign of Herod the Great (who wanted to kill Jesus, by the way), which we know is flat-out wrong. According to other sources, the census took place during the reign of Quirinius, 10 years after Herod's death.

These contradictions and historical inaccuracies are not surprising, considering that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was written at least four decades after the said event and wasn't even written by eyewitnesses. Most of it was made up after the fact, sometimes drawing motifs from other older myths (similar to most of the Bible), like the virgin birth of Dionysus and his turning water into wine...

I will daze you with bible scholars evidence.unril U are purged of those beer parlour opinion.

This is what Bart Erhman have to say about the New testament reliability.
FYI Bart Erhman is a confirmed atheist and is the foremost crusader in the argument of NT textual corruption.
At the end of it all, this is what he has to say in his book called misquoting Jesus




Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Lucifyre:
The amount of confidently ignorant people on this platform is too damn high😅. Like the frigging irony of saying you want evidence from scholarship when anyone with the daintiest clue about the stance of basic academic scholarship wouldn't make the outstandingly ignorant statement you did is beyond laughable. Then again its the typical apologist way of making assertions before even understanding the context of said assertions cause they think it supports their conclusion, so not suprised there.

Anyway, first off, which is basic knowledge and a fact and consensus among the academic community, is that there is no single "Bible." There are multiple Bibles, and they say different things depending on the adopted canon, translation method, and source manuscripts. They range from 24 to as many as 82 books, depending on the sect, from the Codex Sinaiticus to the Tanakh to the Targum, to the Septuagint, to NA28, etc. This is just to paint a backdrop of the confusing mess of zero objectivity.

Now, whatever Bible you use or choose, one thing is certain, and that is the fact that it is not univocal. Different authors say different things with different agendas, directed at different audiences, which is why there are so many contradictions. The Gospels contradict themselves at virtually every turn, from the birth narrative to the death narrative, with no harmony and no objectivity. This is despite the fact that the authors basically copied each other but tweaked the story to appeal to their particular audience, as there were numerous Gospels in circulation, all wanting to drive their narrative. Many of these Gospels and their narratives didn't make it into the canon, as they brought about even more contradictions.

The Gospels and other books are historically inaccurate. Various accounts depicted in them, when verified with external sources, are found wanting, pointing to creative liberty. For example, the census in Luke, which was conducted at Jesus' birth, was used to fix location contradictions from the other Gospels. However, the census, as claimed by the Gospels, took place during the reign of Herod the Great (who wanted to kill Jesus, by the way), which we know is flat-out wrong. According to other sources, the census took place during the reign of Quirinius, 10 years after Herod's death.

These contradictions and historical inaccuracies are not surprising, considering that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was written at least four decades after the said event and wasn't even written by eyewitnesses. Most of it was made up after the fact, sometimes drawing motifs from other older myths (similar to most of the Bible), like the virgin birth of Dionysus and his turning water into wine...

Ok after writing your long opiniated opinion U failed woefully to bring any evidence from any scholar that says the gospel is fabricated.

Your opinion counts for nothing. It's at best beer parlour gist.

Now let me bring U the writings of topmost bible scholars and what they have to say about the reliability and integrity of the gospel.

1. Bruce M. Metzger
Renowned New Testament scholar and textual critic.
Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for over 40 years. He's regarded as the greatest NT scholar of the 20th century.

"The amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic citations, is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author, that the need for resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. Despite some scribal errors, the core message of the New Testament is intact and well-preserved.


2. F.F. Bruce
Distinguished biblical scholar and historian.
Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester.
Specialized in the historical reliability of the New Testament.

"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament. The New Testament is one of the best-attested works of antiquity, with thousands of manuscripts supporting its textual integrity. The variations among manuscripts do not affect essential Christian doctrines because the unparalleled textual evidence supporting the New Testament authenticity.
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 15)

3. Daniel B. Wallace
Leading textual critic and New Testament scholar.
Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM), focusing on digitizing ancient manuscripts.


"The New Testament has far more manuscripts that are also much earlier than any other ancient text. The average classical author’s literary remains number no more than twenty copies, whereas the New Testament boasts over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts... Such an embarrassment of riches is unequaled by any other ancient literature. The overwhelming quantity and early dating of New Testament manuscripts, supporting its preservation.
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, p. 28)

4. Bart D. Ehrman
Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Leading scholar in textual criticism, known for his work on scribal practices and variations in New Testament manuscripts.

"The New Testament is by far the best-attested work of any work from the ancient world."
(Misquoting Jesus, p. 7)
Significance: Although Ehrman critiques scribal practices, he acknowledges the exceptional textual attestation of the New Testament.

5. John A.T. Robinson

Biblical scholar and theologian.
Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge university, and author of influential works on the dating and historical context of the New Testament.


"The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the very substantial papyri dating from the second and third centuries, makes it overwhelmingly probable that we have a text which is very close to that originally written this very reliable."
(Redating the New Testament, p. 36)

I brought U evidence from 5 bible scholars some of them atheist who all confirm the reliability and integrity of the new testament.
You brought none, not even one.

So the question is who should I believe, bible scholars or Your beer parlour baseless opinion?

MindHacker9009:
I have presented you with evidence which are the truth from the OT, but because you hate the truth and prefer to hold on the the invented story of the NT is the reason you are so confused now.

Now answer this question: Where in the OT did your God say he will send his only begotten son to come this world and" "I will also make him a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach ends of the earth."?

Did the old testament ever mentioned the Messiah would be the salvation to the world?

Regarding begotten son, read this...

Psalm 2.7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

FYI ANCIENT JUDIASM REGARD PSALM 2.7 AS A MESSIANIC PSALM.