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

[Simon39759]

[hijack]I have to call you on this one, Simon. Try retting, scutching, and hackling enough flax to hand-spin (with a drop spindle) enough linen thread to hand-weave a yard of fabric. Or reread Stave Four of A Christmas Carol, in which someone literally takes Scrooge's shirt off his corpse to sell it -- in the apparent certainty that someone would "want to wear the dirty cheap clothes of a dead guy". Before spinning and weaving were mechanized, all clothing was worn and reused and handed on and mended until it couldn't support another stitch: who had worn it before didn't matter much, so long as he or she hadn't died of smallpox or something equally noxious.

You can't really compare the two, though.
Roman soldiers would have had a salary, quite decent compared to the local standard of living, they would have had to wear their uniforms and were destined, at the end of their service, to receive a property title and live in relative prosperity.
Jesus was terribly poor, wore clothes from a different culture and style and had just spend at least a couple of years crossing the country in them.


Throw in the fact that no gospel writers could have been there to witness the event, it seem to me obvious that it is made up long after the facts to match the prediction.

 

[amb]

You can't really compare the two, though.
Roman soldiers would have had a salary, quite decent compared to the local standard of living, they would have had to wear their uniforms and were destined, at the end of their service, to receive a property title and live in relative prosperity.
Jesus was terribly poor, wore clothes from a different culture and style and had just spend at least a couple of years crossing the country in them.


Throw in the fact that no gospel writers could have been there to witness the event, it seem to me obvious that it is made up long after the facts to match the prediction.

On another forum, that is my argument for the lack of any historical evidence that this feller [Jesus] ever existed.
The whole tale is taken from the O/T and made into a mythological Jesus Christ of the N/T.

 

[Simon39759]

I heard of this argument, but do not personally subscribe to it. If only because it does not fit all that well.

I personally believe that the fellow Jesus did exist and preach and die crucified (although Pilate was not nearly as innocent as in the Bible and the Sanhedrin not nearly as implicated).
In the decades after that, his followers often regretted the low level of informations available about their savior. To complete that gap, they "decided" that because he was the savior his life must have been chronicled in prophecies of the old testament, so, when in doubt, they started looking for prophecies that seem to apply to a chosen one and, unless explicitly contrary to what they knew, took it as a skeleton of truth to expend upon.
That's where we got the flight to Egypt from and the birth in Bethlehem (which does not make sense in light of what we know of the situation at the time) and the Davidian lineage and, in our case, the casting of lots, inspired by psalm 22, a psalm that we knew the writers of that gospel was famliliar with and considered relevant, as he quoted it.

Of course, there also was a lot of just pure myth building without any discernable factual basis and a bit of syncretism with other religious current, such as the Mithraic one.

 

[DOC]

He also said that you are like slaves (servants) and god can beat you if he wanted.

No he didn't

And he said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

Very nice metaphor for spiritual warfare. Christ is known for his parables.

He also said I am the vine. Of course that is
and
he also cursed trees, like a crazy person.

So then you agree with Geisler's 2nd point that the NT writers wrote embarrassing things about Jesus which doesn't make sense to do about your long awaited Messiah unless you are telling the absolute truth - warts and all.

And if you were hungry in the middle of the desert, you might curse too, if you thought a tree might have some fruit but didn't. This just shows Jesus was also human while on earth. How can God know what it is like to suffer as a human without truly experiencing it.

Have you ever been truely hungry joobz, and were not able to get some food.

 

[Lothian]

So then you agree with Geisler's 2nd point that the NT writers wrote embarrassing things about Jesus which doesn't make sense to do about your long awaited Messiah unless you are telling the absolute truth - warts and all.

And if you were hungry in the middle of the desert, you might curse too, if you thought a tree might have some fruit but didn't. This just shows Jesus was also human while on earth. How can God know what it is like to suffer as a human without truly experiencing it.

Have you ever been truely hungry joobz, and were not able to get some food.

Make your mind up. Did Jesus demonstrate embarassing behaviour or normal human behaviour?

 

[zooterkin]

And if you were hungry in the middle of the desert, you might curse too, if you thought a tree might have some fruit but didn't.

What does the middle of the desert have to do with this incident? According to Mark 11, it happened as they were leaving Bethany. Also, it was not the season for figs; might not the deity incarnate be expected to know this?

This just shows Jesus was also human while on earth. How can God know what it is like to suffer as a human without truly experiencing it.

So his reported ability to cause a fig tree to wither overnight proves he's human?

 

[amb]

I heard of this argument, but do not personally subscribe to it. If only because it does not fit all that well.

I personally believe that the fellow Jesus did exist and preach and die crucified (although Pilate was not nearly as innocent as in the Bible and the Sanhedrin not nearly as implicated).
In the decades after that, his followers often regretted the low level of informations available about their savior. To complete that gap, they "decided" that because he was the savior his life must have been chronicled in prophecies of the old testament, so, when in doubt, they started looking for prophecies that seem to apply to a chosen one and, unless explicitly contrary to what they knew, took it as a skeleton of truth to expend upon.
That's where we got the flight to Egypt from and the birth in Bethlehem (which does not make sense in light of what we know of the situation at the time) and the Davidian lineage and, in our case, the casting of lots, inspired by psalm 22, a psalm that we knew the writers of that gospel was famliliar with and considered relevant, as he quoted it.

Of course, there also was a lot of just pure myth building without any discernable factual basis and a bit of syncretism with other religious current, such as the Mithraic one.

All this comes from tradition. Nearly all scholars in the past two centuries start the ''Quest For The Historical Jesus'' by taking it for granted that he actually existed in time.
But if you seek this Jesus outside of the N/T, the evidence as I said is scant at best. Christians, and others point to a reference to Jesus from such ancient writers as Josephus, Tacitus and a couple of others who I feel were writing what was already tradition when they put quill to paper. In Josephus's case, it may have been a complete forgery by later Christians. All his earlier work makes no mention of any Jesus.
There is a bona fide case that Jesus was a complete construction based on the O/T.
Someone ought to start a new thread on the historicity or otherwise of Jesus on this forum.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Very nice metaphor for spiritual warfare. Christ is known for his parables.

And again we have, "The Bible is metaphorical." Except, of course, for when it isn't. And how do you tell which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal again?

And if you were hungry in the middle of the desert, you might curse too, if you thought a tree might have some fruit but didn't. This just shows Jesus was also human while on earth. How can God know what it is like to suffer as a human without truly experiencing it.

Sorry? Excuse me? Isn't your God omniscient? So doesn't he know everything, including "what it is like to suffer as a human"? You really can't find a position and stick with it, can you? The Bible is metaphorical, except when it's not. God knows everything, except when that doesn't fit the story, then he doesn't.


p.s. See those little squiggly things at the ends of some of my sentences? They're question marks. Amazingly useful for indicating when you're asking a question. You should try them sometime. Why do you hate question marks?

 

[kmortis]

So his reported ability to cause a fig tree to wither overnight proves he's human?

I think it was pre-emptive retribution against all trees for letting him be hung from one later in life.

 

[joobz]

No he didn't

Yup. He compared us all to slaves. and stated that it's ok to beat slaves.
a very nice metaphor.

Very nice metaphor for spiritual warfare. Christ is known for his parables.

a very nice metaphor for explaining why you should be a jerk to people who think you joined a cult.

So then you agree with Geisler's 2nd point that the NT writers wrote embarrassing things about Jesus which doesn't make sense to do about your long awaited Messiah unless you are telling the absolute truth - warts and all.

Geisler is an idiot who never read good fiction. If I'm going to make up a story, I'd make darn certain that my main character is flawed. Interestingly, I think it's a further example that matthew didn't think Jesus was god. Did you happen to read my assessment of Psalm 22? I noticed you dropped the issue....

And if you were hungry in the middle of the desert, you might curse too, if you thought a tree might have some fruit but didn't. This just shows Jesus was also human while on earth. How can God know what it is like to suffer as a human without truly experiencing it.

Have you ever been truely hungry joobz, and were not able to get some food.

Yes, but I didn't curse objects for good. Nor did I think beating slaves is acceptable.

 

[kmortis]

Yup. He compared us all to slaves. and stated that it's ok to beat slaves.
a very nice metaphor.

Yeah, I thought that was the point for the book of Job. God saw a guy who was faithful, honest and doing well. God decided to "test" him by having Satan kill off his family, ruin his business and make him disease-ridden. That's one nice god you got there, DOC. Personally, I'll take the empty void if that's my only other choice.

 

[Paulhoff]

Yeah, I thought that was the point for the book of Job. God saw a guy who was faithful, honest and doing well. God decided to "test" him by having Satan kill off his family, ruin his business and make him disease-ridden. That's one nice god you got there, DOC. Personally, I'll take the empty void if that's my only other choice.

And the other part is, being all-knowing there was no need for the test, seeing that he knew the outcome already.

Paul

 

[Elizabeth I]

And the other part is, being all-knowing there was no need for the test, seeing that he knew the outcome already.

Paul

Ohhh, I never thought of that. So he just did it for the LOLZ. That's really mean.

 

[DOC]

Make your mind up. Did Jesus demonstrate embarassing behaviour or normal human behaviour?

Normal behavior for a human, but not normal behavior for a long awaited Messiah; thus embarrassing, which doesn't make sense for the NT writers to write if they were making up the story.

 

[Waterman]

Geisler Again...

So then you agree with Geisler's 2nd point that the NT writers wrote embarrassing things about Jesus which doesn't make sense to do about your long awaited Messiah unless you are telling the absolute truth - warts and all.

Ok, Since Geisler has resurfaced lets looks what he says.

From the Top Ten list in the “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” the book reference by DOC Page 275. Paraphrased for brevity

1. The New Testament writers included embarrassing details

Geisler’s own discussion uses the phrase regarding the principal of embarrassment, ‘the principal assumes that any details embarrassing to the author are probably true.’ Bolding is mine. While I am unfamiliar with this ‘principal’ it is somewhat indefinite in its core. It does NOT say that it if it is embarrassing that is MUST be true but that… well… maybe… I’m leaning that way. Besides the principal is only addressing the EMBARRASSING DETAIL not the rest of the story it is embedded in. However for that to be even applicable in this case it would have to be a first person account of events. There does seem to be some questions even in religious circles as to the authorship and date that the gospels were actually written down instead of carried on by oral traditions. If this is what was written down after many retellings by anyone other than the actual ‘authors’ then this does not apply. In addition this is in reference to fact about the author not his subject, so this only applies to Jesus if he is claimed as the author.

To assert that the authors of the actual gospels are those that they are attributed to despite the questions raised even by Biblical Scholars is already accepting the conclusion that the Bible is factual and rasping and wisps of ‘evidence’ that is no more than mere smoke.

2. included embarrassing details and difficult saying of Jesus

The flawed misunderstood hero is a common story telling technique and allows you to identify with the character. The idea is for the listener to feel that they have been where the character is ‘not believed’ or ‘abandoned by family and friends’ but bore all the hardship and came out victorious in the end. The listener goes away with the idea well if he could do all that my might be able to do some of it… This is evidence of compelling story telling not that the story is true.

 

[joobz]

Normal behavior for a human, but not normal behavior for a long awaited Messiah; thus embarrassing, which doesn't make sense for the NT writers to write if they were making up the story.

and by having no problem with slavery, He also demonstrated normal human morality for the time. Not something you would expect from a god, unless god is an immoral jerk.

 

[DOC]

What does the middle of the desert have to do with this incident? According to Mark 11, it happened as they were leaving Bethany.

Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert. So if you are leaving Vegas you are still in the middle of a desert. Also the verse said he saw it off in the distance. That could be a 1/4 of mile outside the city.

Also, it was not the season for figs; might not the deity incarnate be expected to know this?

More embarrassing details which doesn't make sense to write if you are making up a story. More evidence of Geisler's point #2 in post #1.

But when you think about it, you can't truly know what is like to be human unless you experience hunger and forgetfulness. From this verse we know Jesus experienced both.

 

[DOC]

and by having no problem with slavery, He also demonstrated normal human morality for the time. Not something you would expect from a god, unless god is an immoral jerk.

Nowhere does the bible say Jesus had no problem with slavery. Joobz if you spent more time trying to be accurate it would save everyone a lot of time.

 

[kmortis]

Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert. So if you are leaving Vegas you are still in the middle of a desert. Also the verse said he saw it off in the distance. That could be a 1/4 of mile outside the city.

More embarrassing details which doesn't make sense to write if you are making up a story. More evidence of Geisler's point #2 in post #1.

But when you think about it, you can't truly know what is like to be human unless you experience hunger and forgetfulness. From this verse we know Jesus experienced both.

And that he had no issue using that as an excuse to be a capricious jerk.

 

[joobz]

Nowhere does the bible say Jesus had no problem with slavery.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus OR god had a problem with slavery. Indeed, Slavery was one of the greatest evils of past civilizations. An evil that was surprizingly NOT on Jesus' radar.*

Further, All evidence in the bible points to the contrary. His willingness to use the beating of slaves for unknowingly breaking a rule as an example of acceptable action clearly suggests that slavery wasn't a big issue with him.

Joobz if you spent more time trying to be accurate it would save everyone a lot of time.

and if you would actually bother to stop lying, we could finally close this thread. But, obviously, truth isn't important to you so I will continue to point out your lies/falsehoods/and general lack of logic.