Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Mr Clingford]

It's annoying when that happens, isn't it?

!

Do you have any views, apart from Nazareth, which we've already touched on, about the historical accuracy of the NT?

I hope you know that I'm sincere in asking, and I'm certainly not asking for solid evidence, but I respect your opinions.

Avoiding the extremes of 'It's in the Bible and God wrote it so it's all true' and 'The Bible is complete bollocks so of course anything in it is wrong and worthless' is a good place to start!
The quote about the gospels not being history is a good point. The gospels appear to be making points about what Jesus is like. Whether the story actually happened as written does not seem to matter to them. One simple example of this is that events happen in different orders, even in single stories like the Temptation of Jesus - there is a little difference in the order of the temptations in Matthew and Luke. Since we can't tell if so many of the stories about Jesus took place or not, the point of them for me is what they say about the character of Jesus and his mission.

I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or not the historicity of the NT and, of course, a lot depends on one's starting assumptions. I think the early date of composition for a lot of the NT, i.e., the mid and latter parts of the 1st C, is of significance. We know, therefore, that there were communities believing that the Messiah had come from the mid 1st C. Paul's early letters tell us something about this. Xtianity did not develop communities, ideas and writings centuries after Jesus, but we can see that they go back as early as c.50s, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. We can argue about whether Jesus was only human etc, but we know that in the mid 1st C some Jews believed different things to others and they became known as Xtians.

That's a bit of a start on a big topic.

I have no doubt of your sincerity and appreciate your stating it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al.

While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.

 

[Mr Clingford]

That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al.

Hmm ,what do we mean by 'veracity of the NT'? That it is all historically true? That there was a preacher called Jesus (in the Greek) in the early 1st C? I take it to mean that at least there was a preacher who had followers and who thought he was the Messiah and we have an unbroken chain from the time of Jesus to now. Perhaps I mean more but that will do for the moment. There is nothing, though, that proves that Jesus was God, or that there is a God, god or gods.

Your point is true, of course, but I think that if you take the line that the earlier something is to the period about which it talks, then on balance it is likely to be more accurate, all things considered, the earlier it is produced. Some of these writings were produced when people who knew Jesus were still alive and preaching their good news and arguing about what was true. The writings were not produced in a vacuum. I apologise if this a bit disjointed, but my brain is a bit fuzzy ATM.

While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.

The Bible is an interesting collection of documents about what people thought and held important. I am glad I don't live in those times (modern healthcare is amazing, thank God (only kidding!)). It is especially hard to find religious meaning in some of the stories in the OT, but they can be fascinating sociologically. Some are fun too. The portrayal of God as somewhat incompetent at finding a helpmate for Adam in the creation story amuses me. It's so far from how theists normally view God.

 

[Akhenaten]

Avoiding the extremes of 'It's in the Bible and God wrote it so it's all true' and 'The Bible is complete bollocks so of course anything in it is wrong and worthless' is a good place to start!

I agree. I think the situation has ended up that way now though, not because of the subject matter, but because of the way it has been presented.

The quote about the gospels not being history is a good point. The gospels appear to be making points about what Jesus is like. Whether the story actually happened as written does not seem to matter to them. One simple example of this is that events happen in different orders, even in single stories like the Temptation of Jesus - there is a little difference in the order of the temptations in Matthew and Luke. Since we can't tell if so many of the stories about Jesus took place or not, the point of them for me is what they say about the character of Jesus and his mission.

We've reached another point of agreement.

I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event.

Actually, I find myself a little surprised that there isn't more archæological evidence turning up. Not evidence for the veracity of the Gospels and other stories so much, but at least for some of the people and places that are mentioned. They're still out there digging, I guess, so hope springs eternal.

Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents.

Yet another point of agreement. This is going swimmingly

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify or not the historicity of the NT and, of course, a lot depends on one's starting assumptions. I think the early date of composition for a lot of the NT, i.e., the mid and latter parts of the 1st C, is of significance. We know, therefore, that there were communities believing that the Messiah had come from the mid 1st C. Paul's early letters tell us something about this.

A lot of people, including myself, sometimes like to point to the fact that the NT was written post hoc as a sign that it can't be taken as history, but the point you make is quite valid. It wasn't THAT long afterwards and there was no TV to confuse the issues. Some facts must have remained intact, although as I think we agree, it's well-nigh impossible to sort them from the allegories and metaphors.

Xtianity did not develop communities, ideas and writings centuries after Jesus, but we can see that they go back as early as c.50s, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. We can argue about whether Jesus was only human etc, but we know that in the mid 1st C some Jews believed different things to others and they became known as Xtians.

That's a bit of a start on a big topic.

It is. It's a pity it didn't do better in this thread, but that's not the topic's fault. Perhaps there'll be other opportunities in the future, when the demographic here has changed slightly, if you catch my meaning

I have no doubt of your sincerity and appreciate your stating it.

Thank you. Frankly I'm sick of this thread, but at least it might serve as a place to make introductions, ready for the next iteration of the topic.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[Akhenaten]

That there is the beginnings of the Christian (apart from Judaism) religion shortly following Jesus' birth is no more evidence for the veracity of the NT (nor for the existence of the Christian god) than the history of Buddhism is evidence for the existence of karma and/or nirvana, et al.

I don't know that those are entirely fair comparisons.

The truth that's in the NT is unlikely to ever form evidence for the existance of Heaven, or the Holy Spirit, but I don't know that we should entirely rule out that there are some historical facts hidden in there somewhere.

While archeological finds are intriguing, studying the bible as a religious text is hardly as productive (interesting to me, really) as studying the bible as a period mythological piece - similar to studying The Odyssey, Beowulf, et al.

I have no religion whatsoever, so I'm not likely to read the Bible in a search for enlightenment or anything like that either, if that's what you mean by 'studying as a religious text'.

Yeah, a bit like the Odyssey seems reasonable, although the Odyssey is a more interesting yarn, for my money.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[Simon39759]

I have been surprised that archaeology and ancient history support some of what we find in the Bible. E.g., that there probably was a small group of Jews who left Egypt - at the core of all the great Exodus story and magical snakes there could well be an actual event. Since historical accuracy was not the gospel writers main aim (although I'm ignorant as to how Luke totally fits in with this), but teaching what Jesus was like, plus the heavily allusive style of the writings makes it v difficult to say what is historically true. The Bible really is written in a stylistic, literary way, making it a problematic collection of documents

I am not sue about that one. I can't recall anything conclusive showing up on that subject, do you remember where you got that information from?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't know that those are entirely fair comparisons.

The truth that's in the NT is unlikely to ever form evidence for the existance of Heaven, or the Holy Spirit, but I don't know that we should entirely rule out that there are some historical facts hidden in there somewhere.





I have no religion whatsoever, so I'm not likely to read the Bible in a search for enlightenment or anything like that either, if that's what you mean by 'studying as a religious text'.

Yeah, a bit like the Odyssey seems reasonable, although the Odyssey is a more interesting yarn, for my money.


Cheers,

Dave

The comparison between Buddhism and Christianity in my prior response is simply to compare when the teachings were translated to text. In Christianity, it was 20-30 years after Christ was crucified. In the case of Buddhism, Buddha's teachings were written down while he was still alive. Thus, the bible is no more or less accurate.

There are, of course, many differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Studying both, however, we find that the religion is more of a reflection of the cultures and societies than archeological gold mines, much less evidence of any of the supernatural recordings/teachings (resurrection/heaven/karma/nirvana/etc). No different from studying Norse tales, nor Greek tales, etc.

 

[Akhenaten]

I am not sue about that one. I can't recall anything conclusive showing up on that subject, do you remember where you got that information from?

I'm not about to become a poster boy for the Exodus, but I'm sure I've read a bit somewhere about the Hebrews who lived in and around the Delta at something like the appropriate time.

I also will search for references to them.

The comparison between Buddhism and Christianity in my prior response is simply to compare when the teachings were translated to text. In Christianity, it was 20-30 years after Christ was crucified. In the case of Buddhism, Buddha's teachings were written down while he was still alive. Thus, the bible is no more or less accurate.

There are, of course, many differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Studying both, however, we find that the religion is more of a reflection of the cultures and societies than archeological gold mines, much less evidence of any of the supernatural recordings/teachings (resurrection/heaven/karma/nirvana/etc). No different from studying Norse tales, nor Greek tales, etc.

Yeah, I think we about agree then. Good-oh.

Cheers

 

[calebprime]

Just got Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, from the library.

News to me: He makes the case that Jesus didn't teach that he himself was divine. (except in John, which is different from the other three gospels)

According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God would occur in his own generation, on earth. (Which, of course, didn't happen).

Ehrman also points out the difference between Jesus' death in Matthew and Luke: Ignominious, alone, despairing in Matthew, but in Luke, calm and assured.

 

[Simon39759]

I'm not about to become a poster boy for the Exodus, but I'm sure I've read a bit somewhere about the Hebrews who lived in and around the Delta at something like the appropriate time.

I also will search for references to them.

I would be grateful. I was under the impression that many of these artifacts, such as the Yakov Royal Ring and the Serabit slavery Inscription had now been discredited, or at least found not to be very conclusive.

 

[Hokulele]

Just got Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman, from the library.

News to me: He makes the case that Jesus didn't teach that he himself was divine. (except in John, which is different from the other three gospels)

According to Ehrman, Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God would occur in his own generation, on earth. (Which, of course, didn't happen).

Ehrman also points out the difference between Jesus' death in Matthew and Luke: Ignominious, alone, despairing in Matthew, but in Luke, calm and assured.

It is a good book. Regarding the point about the Kingdom of God, it is also interesting to note that the Gospels clearly indicate that it will be an earthly kingdom, and God is responsible for everything about it. When you get to the Epistles, it changes to a Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus has the starring role. My take on it is that Jesus wasn't a messiah figure when he was alive (assuming there was a singular "he"), but preached about the coming of something very similar. Later, as it became very clear that there was no chance in heck of a soon-to-be Kingdom of God on earth (dang Romans!), the story changed. That change is recorded in the New Testament.

 

[joobz]

It is a good book. Regarding the point about the Kingdom of God, it is also interesting to note that the Gospels clearly indicate that it will be an earthly kingdom, and God is responsible for everything about it. When you get to the Epistles, it changes to a Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus has the starring role. My take on it is that Jesus wasn't a messiah figure when he was alive (assuming there was a singular "he"), but preached about the coming of something very similar. Later, as it became very clear that there was no chance in heck of a soon-to-be Kingdom of God on earth (dang Romans!), the story changed. That change is recorded in the New Testament.

It's funny to me how clear this becomes when you drop the assumption that the 4 gospels are all telling the same story.

 

[Akhenaten]

I would be grateful. I was under the impression that many of these artifacts, such as the Yakov Royal Ring and the Serabit slavery Inscription had now been discredited, or at least found not to be very conclusive.

Hey! Those are MY turquoise mines!

I agree that the finds you mention, and others of the same ilk, have been discredited as Exodevidence (cool new word, minted just this second - get your copy today!). The only evidence I was recalling was for the existance of Hebrews in Ancient Egypt. Frankly, I've got no idea where the lazy buggers have gotten too. Those reeds aren't going to cut themselves you know.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[Akhenaten]

It's funny to me how clear this becomes when you drop the assumption that the 4 gospels are all telling the same story.

That confused me for years. In fact, probably until I started reading yours and Hokulele's work. Take one warm fuzzy feeling each from petty cash.

 

[DOC]

So... "there is an absolute universal morality that is only absolute and universal for the people that applies it (aka sane people)".

That's not very absolute, is it?

Universal truth or absolute morality exists regardless of whether or not people are sane, that is why it is called absolute. I've always said if people are not in the will of God they will eventually fail or suffer the consequences, and the extinct Nazis and Spartans eventually did, whereas the Christian Church is still a strong force in the world after 2000 years.

 

[DOC]

I missed your comments on this DOC:

"It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense . . . theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story."

– J. L. Houlden, Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11​

The Rev. J. L. Houlden is Emeritus Professor of Theology at King's College, University of London.​

Could you please post a link to your response so I can read it again?

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

 

[Paulhoff]

Christ said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. He never said hey write all this stuff down. And that is what the 11 apostles who got martyred did.

Yes, don't write it down, just make it up has you go along, use only those parts that seem to pull the wool down over their eyes.

Paul

 

[DOC]

From Wiki's article on Hitler:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/HitlerJesus.htm

The difference is the lying deceiving Hitler (remember his treaties with Chamberlain and the Russians) proclaimed his belief in Christianity with his worthless words only, whereas he demonstrated his belief in the Spartan philosophy of warfare and eugenics by his actions.

 

[DOC]

Please, DOC, for the love of your God, take an introductory course in logic.

Please

I did- well actually it was part of philosophy 101- and I got an A. I also did well in probability which was part of a college math course. So when I say something increases the likelihood (probability) of something I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Simon39759]

Considering he transferred to a seminary and dedicated several years of his life to studying for becoming a priest, he definitively put his beliefs in Christianity in action.
But, I guess that it does not count for some vague reason... Special pleading is a way of life for you, after all.