Pope Francis Slams 'Prejudiced Mentality' Of Believers Who Fearfully Cling To Religious Laws

[happyslug]

34. the New Testament is a reliable as any documents prior to the Linen paper

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Linen paper ONLY came into use in the 1300, prior to that Parchment was the "paper" of choice, but parchment is thin leather. The Egyptian did use Papyrus, but it deteriorated rapidly in the wet climates outside of Egypt and thus only used for message NOT expected to be keeped.

Thus we have questionable sources for any history prior to the 1300s for Parchment was expensive and thus only used if someone wanted something written down for later use AND willing to spend the money to preserve the record. Thus the first report we have of Hannibal was written decades later, by the family of Paulus, one of the Generals in Charge of the Army Hannibal defeated at Carrhae (And historians who examine and the other reports of the other commander, and how Roman Armies were lead, believe that book is lying about Paulus NOT being in command. Paulus is with the light cavalry, the position of the Commander, the other commander survives, for "he ran back to the Camp" which is where the person NOT in command that day should be and several other factors that indicate the report that the battle was lost while true, who was in command was NOT).

General Zukov (The man who defeated the Germans in the Battle for Moscow in 1941 and Stalingrad in 1942-1943) commenting on Alexander's the Great victory in India states that given what Alexander did afterward shows Alexander had been decisively DEFEATED and was forced to retreat to save his army. i.e. the book we have that Alexander won that battle and was forced afterward by his troops to return home is an out and out lie, but it is the only report we have of that battle.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383.html

This is common prior to the 1300s. It is surprising that researchers of the Gospel, actually believe that while the first three Gospels may be based on a earlier gospel, now lost, St Johns, is NOT from that same source. I.e. we do have TWO Independent sources for what Jesus said, St Johns and the other three gospels. Most historians want two independent sources for stories and the New Testament, given the differences between St John an the other three Gospels fulfills that role.

Thus we have a dual independent source, something we do not have for what Alexander the Great did, what Hannibal did, or even what Ceasar did (And we have his Commentaries to go by, but they are clearly propaganda Ceasar mentioned his fight with one Gallic commander, Ambirix, and that Gull's retreat into the Swamps and Ceasar decision NOT to chase him in those swamps. Julius Ceasar next mention Ambirix, in passing, during the siege of Alesia, that the besieged sent a message to Ambirix for help, but no help came. The next time we read of Ambirix is 225 years later when the Historian Florus, who wrote that Ambirix later crossed the Rhine and disappeared into Germany.

http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesar/gallic_e1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiorix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florus

While it appears some people did write of Alexander the Great during his life time, all of those sources are now lost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great

More on the Historical Record on Hannibal (The first six paragraph is on the debate involving the Gospels compared to the record we have on Hannibal, then it goes into details on the history we have on Hannibal and it is that part of that cite I find relevant to this tread):

https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/godfrey-on-historiography-1-polybius-livy/

http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal3.htm

I love people who attack the New Testament for they do NOT want Jesus to be divine and thus the New Testament had to be unreliable. That is NOT the test for reliable source material. what most historians consider reliable source material is two different reports of the same incident from two different people hopeful with two different perspectives. We do have one non Christian, Non Jewish report about early Christians (and how they were blamed for the burning of Rome by Nero) which shows Christians did exist (that is all we can say from that report).

More on the Synoptic gospels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem

My point is the Gospels do meet the minimal requirements for historians. Yes, they are NOT first hand, but most of the history we have prior to 1300 is NOT first hand. We have to make do with what we have and it is very limited, but enough to show someone was telling stories that come down to us as the teachings of Jesus around 30-33 AD.