reply to post by Angle
Wallace calculates some 20,000 New Testament (NT) manuscripts exist 12 dating second-century and 124 within 300 years of NT composition.
Daniel B. Wallace, "Lost in Transmission: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament Text," in Revisiting the Corruption of the New
Testament, ed. Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011). pp.28-29.
Relative to the next best attested writing from antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with 2200 extant manuscripts , its prolificacy, an order of magnitude less
than the NT manuscripts, yet its reliability is considered 95% certain.
Bart D. Ehrman, and Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005). p.126.;Wallace, "Lost in Transmission: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament Text."p.30 footnotes.
The writer Luke, how wrote Luke and Acts and was the physician and travelling companion of Paul is considered one of the greatest historians of all
'Luke is a historian of first rank. ...This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.'
William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915). p.222.
Habermas surveying trends in scholarly resurrection thought over 30 years to 2005, documents: the early followers of Jesus definitely thought they
saw the risen Jesus in some sense, a view holding almost unanimous critical scholarly consent ; hallucinations, illusions or similar naturalist
proposals are vastly rejected as explanatorily insufficient ; 75% of scholars deduce as historical fact, Jesus' tomb empty ; and women recorded as
initial resurrected Jesus witnesses in all 4 gospels is easily the most popular argument supporting the gospels' declarations as 'the Gospels probably
would not have dubbed them as chief witnesses unless they actually did attest to the event' with Osiek's contribution cited which establishes
compelling historicity in patriarchal settings .
Habermas, "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?." p.140-1, 150.; Carolyn Osiek, "The Women at the
Tomb: What Are the Doing There?," HTS Theological Studies 53, no. 1&2 (December 1997). p.116.
Craig , overlaying McCullagh's framework for justifying historical hypotheses , scrutinizes the rival hypotheses of 'conspiracy' , 'apparent death' ,
'wrong tomb', and 'displaced body' showing all logically absurd and summarising the current scholarly position on each respectfully: completely given
up; almost completely abandon; garnered virtually no support, dead at conception; and no scholars defend it today.
William Lane Craig, "Accounting for the Empty Tomb," America 208, no. 11 (April 2013). pp.12-4, 15-7.
Critic Lüdemann acrimoniously concludes,
"we can certainly say to be historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in Jerusalem) soon after Jesus' death...these
appearances cannot be denied."
Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1996).p.81. Similar assessments amongst scholars are the norm. Ed Sanders declares that the "equally secure facts [indicate that
Jesus' disciples] saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death... .Thereafter his followers saw him."(E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure
of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993). pp.10, 13).
Lee's theses refutes Lüdemann's 'subjective visionary experience' explanation versus resurrection however, through unbiased probability analysis,
determining 98.44% probability for resurrection based on the evidence, versus 1.56% epistemic hallucination probability.
Yong-Won Lee, "Resurrection Vs. Hallucination: An Argument for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus in Terms of Probabilistic Analysis"
(Dissertation & Theses, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009). pp.22-33, 146-54.; Richard Swinburne has previously used Bayes' Theorem as well
to estimate the probability that Jesus arose from the dead, concluding it then a 97% probability. Swinburne's claim has criticized by Michael Martin
(1998), with Stephen Davis (1999) replying to Martin's argument concluding "Richard Swinburne has previously used Bayes' Theorem as well to estimate
the probability that Jesus arose from the dead, concluding it then a 97% probability. Swineburne's claim has criticized by Michael Martin (1998), with
Stephen Davis (1999) replying to Martin's argument concluding "the probability great but very much greater" (Licona, "The Historicity of the
Resurrection of Jesus: Historiographical Considerations in the Light of Recent Debates." p.76 + footnote 301).
Embarrassing admissions of Jesus' supernatural power and miracle performing made public by Schäfer in uncensored Jewish 5th century Babylonian
Talmud, furthering the case beyond reach.
"The mesit is someone who seduces an individual to idolatry, whereas the maddiah is understood as someone who publicly entices many into idolatry.
Jesus, the Talmud tells us, was both: he not only enticed some individual but all of Israel to become idolaters. To make things worse, he was also a
sorcerer in the sense defined more precisely in the Mishna: someone who really practices magic and not just “holds people’s eyes” (ha-'ohez et
ha'enayim), that is, who deludes people by optical deception (which is permitted)"
Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud. Kindle Locations 1325-1330.
Thus, the Rabbinic authorities creatively misrepresent Jesus' miracles as sorcery, but in doing so confirm that what he did was real and not optical
illusion under the specific legal definitions in use.
Keener's monumental cataloguing of miracles performed through Jesus, a plethora attested in plain sight of modern medical doctors , one could wonder
why Jesus' supernatural credibility is doubted.
Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts, 1 & 2. Kindle Locations 8352-90, 8876-950.
Critical NT scholars recognise the resurrection's significance, equated to God's endorsement of Jesus and the gospels , a transformational event
leading to other biblical teachings 'often accepted more-or-less-directly' .
Nigel M. Watson, "Willi Marxsen's Approach to Christology," The Expoisitory Times 97, no. 2 (1985).pp.39-40.; Lyle K. Weiss, "The Public
Significance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Dissertation & Theses, St. Mary's Seminary and University, 2007). pp.49-66, 79-88.; Gary R.
Habermas, "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2
So I have just proved the resurrection and miracles as a historical fact....enjoy
"It is not clear why historiography should not in principle be able to speak about Jesus' resurrection as the explanation that is best
established" the "phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection"
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus - God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press,
1977). p.109.; Charles F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament: A Inquiry into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament
(London: S.C.M. Press, 1967). p.3.
Licona confirms historians are now taking miracle claims more seriously as no sound priori or a posteriori prohibitions exist.
Licona, "The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus: Historiographical Considerations in the Light of Recent Debates." pp.95-138.; Keener
supports these findings particularly addressing Hume (Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts, Kindle ed., vol. 1 & 2
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011).Kindle Locations 3280-5012).
edit on 7-5-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason