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

[cj.23]

Er, many thanks to those who said nice things about me. I am rather surprised given my well known Arch-Woo-id status, a sort of Devil's Advocate for almost lost causes, perhaps merely temporarily-misplaced-with-that-single-black-sock-that-never-made-it-out-of-the-wash-causes....

However on matters of 1st century Palestinian history I'm usually reliable, simply because i take the time to check out what the authorities are saying and think things through, and keep up with as much of the literature as i can.

I realised earlier while out that I never substantiated my comments on synagogues. While anyone can check my claims on polis etc with a Koine Greek Lexicon, this was an oversight, and i may be out of date, so I'll give my sources, just so you can check if I'm talking crap.

I mainly drew on Grabbe, L (1988) "Synagogues in Pre-70CE Palestine: A Reassessment" from the Journal of Theological Studies 39 and Flesher , P (1989) "Palestinian Synagogues before 70 CE: A review of the Evidence" from Approaches to Ancient Judaism. The books I would like to see but have not are Ancient Synagogues Revealed (1981) http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Synagogues-Revealed-Lee-Levine/dp/0814317065 and Huttenmesiter & Reeg's 1977 Die Antiken Synagogue in Israel.
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/870807

If anyone has either and can cast more light on the synagogues of the period please do so! I found in passing this article on pdf http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/sbf/Books/LA41/LA41449Milson_SynagoguesV.pdf which was mildly interesting but more architectural than useful in terms of function -- the same could be said for Chiat's (1982) Handbook of Synagogue Architecture.

I lack any expertise at all in this area, and would be delighted to hear more, as I could only make brief survey of what I had to hand in the time I spent on it.

cj x

 

[kmortis]

So, we're back to Nazareth possibly having a synagogue, right? I mean, if it didn't have to be a grand building it's possible that no archelogical evidence exists for it.

Where do we go from here, folks? I've read in other places that there's some question as to Peter's existance, what do we know there? I mean, Petra doesn't seem to be as common of a name, could he be a wholly fictional character?

 

[six7s]

Peter was actually called Simon... Jeebus gave him the 'nickname' Peter - see Matthew 16:15-18

Peter = rock (as in petrified)

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Personally, I see the NT (and the bible as a whole) as a work of religious literature. It is a story of what people from that time wanted to write about. Sometimes the story was better than others, but there is some fact mixed in with all the fiction. Actually, only the gospels make a case for Jesus being the son of god, the rest of the NT just assumes that to be true an no further discussion is involved. I'm not really interested in any of that, I'm more interested in how a small band of believers saw the world at that time.

Even more to the point, there has always been the question of interpretation; i.e. that Jesus in the Gospels was actually claiming he was more or less the "Son of God" than any other human being. From the beginning of his alleged Ministry, there have been interpretations that suggest the following:

1) That though he claimed to be God's Son, he was not claiming Divinity for himself. (Arianism--Strict Monotheist)
2) That Jesus claims to being God's Son and Divinity was not exclusive to himself, but shared with all humankind. (Gnosticism)
3) That Jesus claimed that he Exclusively was God's Son and shared Divinity only with the other parts of the Trinity, in some sort of twisted semantic arrangement to justify claims to being Monotheist. (Catholicism, and later the Reformation)

That Gnostic and Arian, and yet other texts were eventually excluded from the Canon by the Sect that "Won" (Catholicism), is itself testimony to the inappropriateness of this thread's title. The remaining Gospels are themselves conflicting stories. That one can extrapolate certain historical elements as having some accuracy (i.e. the existence of Nazareth in some form etc.), has little to no bearing on the Mythological Elements of Christ's story--so obviously borrowed from Pagan Myths of the dying and resurrecting Sun God.

GB

 

[six7s]

Even more to the point, there has always been the question of interpretation; i.e. that Jesus in the Gospels was actually claiming he was more or less the "Son of God" than any other human being. <snip/>

...The remaining Gospels are themselves conflicting stories

Are you implying that some of those stories conflict with John 14:6?

⁶Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Hokulele]

Ack! I sit on an airplane for 16 hours and look what happens, the thread gets interesting. I will catch up and see if there is anything I feel compelled to respond to, but in the meantime, thanks to kmo for the setup and cj for the delivery.


*Hunkers down to read and follow links*

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Even more to the point, there has always been the question of interpretation; i.e. that Jesus in the Gospels was actually claiming he was more or less the "Son of God" than any other human being.

In the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus never refers to himself as the son of God. Others do, but Jesus doesn't. When asked directly whether he is the son of God, Jesus says nothing (Matthew 26:63) or says "Ye say that I am" (Luke 22:70).

Jesus often refers to himself as the son of man.

You can search the most famous English translation (KJV) of the New Testament at
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/simple.html
If you search the New Testament (only) for "son of man", you'll find 89 matches.
If you search the New Testament (only) for "son of God", you'll find 47 matches.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Are you implying that some of those stories conflict with John 14:6?

Depends on the various interpretations.

If one gets esoteric and non-literal enough, that statement could be taken to imply that Jesus wasn't referring to his human ego, but rather appealing--in a Hindu like fashion--to a Cosmic Ego accessible to all from within their own Selves. In essence imploring people to seek the Divinity within themselves. That is one of the Gnostic interpretations anyway.

In the end though, all such interpretations rely on speculation and supposition. Taken at face value, and even sometimes allegorically, there are many contradictions in the Gospels. So even if they might contain some esoteric or psycho-social "truths", none of those "truths" can be demonstrated Empirically, and certainly no literal single Truth of Jesus' alleged Divinity can be, if he even existed as an historical personage at all.

WD Clinger:
In the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus never refers to himself as the son of God. Others do, but Jesus doesn't. When asked directly whether he is the son of God, Jesus says nothing (Matthew 26:63) or says "Ye say that I am" (Luke 22:70).

Jesus often refers to himself as the son of man.

You can search the most famous English translation (KJV) of the New Testament at
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/simple.html
If you search the New Testament (only) for "son of man", you'll find 89 matches.
If you search the New Testament (only) for "son of God", you'll find 47 matches.

Very true. I would have made that particular point also, but I didn't want to clutter the particular points I was trying to make.


GB

 

[amb]

In the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus never refers to himself as the son of God. Others do, but Jesus doesn't. When asked directly whether he is the son of God, Jesus says nothing (Matthew 26:63) or says "Ye say that I am" (Luke 22:70).

Jesus often refers to himself as the son of man.

You can search the most famous English translation (KJV) of the New Testament at
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/simple.html
If you search the New Testament (only) for "son of man", you'll find 89 matches.
If you search the New Testament (only) for "son of God", you'll find 47 matches.

Perhaps at the end he actually believed he was the son of god. Boy was he surprised when hanging from the cross he came to realise that after all he was just a man like everyone else.

 

[eccles]

Apparently the expression "Son of Man" was common amongst Jews in those days, well before Jesus.

I have not been posting here for a while. I have been busy on Facebook with fellow Atheists having very intelligent discussions about the Poison of Religion. Of course the "Holey" Babble gets it's fair share of debunking as do examples posted showing the mad rantings of brain dead Christians in the United Christian States of America.

For anyone who wish to join in, here is my Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pray-for-an-Atheist/324325528476?v=app_4949752878#!/robert.tobin

 

[Elizabeth I]

Are you implying that some of those stories conflict with John 14:6?

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Looked at another way, in that verse he could have been saying that, although not divine himself, he was the one true prophet who could show the way to God. Sort of a Judaeo-Christian version of "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet."

 

[amb]

Apparently the expression "Son of Man" was common amongst Jews in those days, well before Jesus.

I have not been posting here for a while. I have been busy on Facebook with fellow Atheists having very intelligent discussions about the Poison of Religion. Of course the "Holey" Babble gets it's fair share of debunking as do examples posted showing the mad rantings of brain dead Christians in the United Christian States of America.

For anyone who wish to join in, here is my Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pray-for-an-Atheist/324325528476?v=app_4949752878#!/robert.tobin

Friend request is on it's way.

 

[amb]

Looked at another way, in that verse he could have been saying that, although not divine himself, he was the one true prophet who could show the way to God. Sort of a Judaeo-Christian version of "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet."

If that was so, he was one mixed up dude wasn't he?

 

[cj.23]

The meanings of "Son of God" and "Son of Man" in the NT (and more widely in Judaism pre-70CE) are so convoluted, controversial and difficult that I shudder to try and think of how to do them justice in less than 10,000 words, and that would be a scratching of the modern scholarship on the issue at best. Still I have the books to do it kicking around, and while knowing there are plenty of posters on here with a much better biblical crit background than me who can expand, improve and correct my overview, or do it instead. Hey I'm willing to try a really brief overview drawing on Dunn, Vermes and others if you want. However it is not directly related to the original thread, so not sure if we might be veering off topic. I can start a new thread for that discussion if you want?

AS WD Clinger points out nowhere in the synoptics does Jesus apply the phrase "Son of God" to himself, though the disciples do once (Matt 14.33), and the demons do a few times. However I do not think we are dealing with "Son of God" in the Roman sense of the actual child of a deity --

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "

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

Sanders draws upon the example of Honi the circle drawer calling on God as father to suggest it implies a close relationship with God -- the other examples given suggest in Psalms that teh Davidic Kings were seen as "sons of god" and the others that the term is collectively applied to the Hebrews as a nation. Clearly it goingto be a complex discussion, but I'm up for looking at it if people want as I said, but maybe a new thread?

cj x

 

[kmortis]

I would think that the Son of Man/Son of God debate isn't directly related to the veracity of the NT writers, more a question of Jesus' divinity.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I would think that the Son of Man/Son of God debate isn't directly related to the veracity of the NT writers, more a question of Jesus' divinity.

The connection, if any, is indirect.

This is the history/literature/arts subforum. From each of those three points of view, it's remarkable that the New Testament is so neatly divided by this distinction. That division raises questions of chronology, sources, and motives, all of which bear on the veracity of its authors.

Let's suppose, for example, that the books of Luke and Acts were written by the same person, and that the author of those books was accurate in his reporting and attribution of the phrases "son of man" and "son of God". Under those assumptions, Jesus frequently referred to himself as "son of man" but declined explicit invitations to declare himself a "son of God". Furthermore, this same author reports an angel, various devils, a eunoch, and Saul/Paul declaring Jesus to be the son of God.

At the very least, that's an interesting plot device. It may have been a defense against the charge of blasphemy that recurs throughout the gospel of John, or it may have been intended to assure the Romans that Jesus was not a messiah in the traditional sense of a revolutionary leader, or it may have been something else altogether; I'm sure cj.23 could say more about this.

Whatever the motivation, we're left with the fact that the synoptic authors took some care to portray Jesus as avoiding a controversial label that the New Testament authors, including the synoptic authors themselves, were eager to apply to him. What's more, we have the author of Acts reporting that Saul/Paul was using that label; if we accept that Paul wrote Second Corinthians, then that particular report was accurate.

 

[cj.23]

Hi WD Clinger, good to chat- yes, the Luke/Acts avoidance of "Son of God" is fascinating. I had a wild thought, not supported by any authority, just a quick idea of my own -- if the synoptic authors generally ascribe the phrase to others than Jesus, but never Jesus, could this not be simply because THEY KNEW Jesus actually never used the phrase of himself, and because someone or tradition had made it plain he did not?

So they ascribe the title to other figures. That is not to say that Jesus would not necessarily have taken the title on.

Perhaps Honi's use of 'Abba' (as reported in the Talmud, and therefore possibly unreliable?) had been controversial, but Jesus clearly used that phrase, it occurring in the synoptics and Pauline phrase. So if Jesus did not call himself Son, he certainly prayed to "his Father", indicating a son-ship relationship -- an unusual if not as NT Wright has it unique title for God at the time. (i think there may be DSS examples as well as Honi?)

"Sonship" claims should have been relatively uncontroversial given the references I gave earlier of "sonship" as being simply "to be Jewish", but the Psalms reference to a Davidic king as "son" may possibly have been a reason for Jesus to deliberately avoid the language. Still that is my first hunch - that Jesus never used the title openly at least, and hence it is ascribed to the others.

There is a second, probably far more likely reason. Mark gives us the Messianic Secret ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret useful if not familair with the idea) and hence serving as a source for Matthew and Mark they may have adopted the literary convention of Mark of Jesus NOT revealing who he is as actually an accurate record of what happened, failing to spot the literary device. So John might possibly be more relaible to understand if Jesus did or did not use the phrase --because Mark avoids it for perfectly good writers reasons, and then the others just follow his lead??? Dunno, but probably more likely than my hunch.

Dunno!

cj x

 

[Akhenaten]

The connection, if any, is indirect.

<polite snippy>

Hi WD Clinger, good to chat- yes, the Luke/Acts avoidance of "Son of God" is fascinating.

<and again>


cj x

Thank you both. Food for thought here, where I'd come never to expect it.

I'm heading off happily now to study up as best I might in order to keep up with this new and fascinating turn of events.

 

[tsig]

Are you implying that some of those stories conflict with John 14:6?

That passage says that Jesus is the doorway to god not god himself.

 

[DOC]

Yes, there are many excuses for bible, still is that the best a so-called god can do. Complex or not, do you think a god wrote and/or had anything to do with the bible, because it doesn't show anything like a god to me in that book, a childish being, yes, a god, no?

Actually Jesus never said make a bible after I'm gone. He said go into all the world and "preach" the gospel. The first converts were all done orally like Peter converting 3000 on Pentecost and 5000 more within weeks of that. As Ralph Muncaster says in his book "Examine the Evidence" pg. 211 - 212:

"The existence of the church is undeniable and indicates an unbroken chain of belief in the historical event of the resurrection. Without belief in that one historical event, there would be no Christian church".

Also one has to ask why did the apostles (who were all Jewish) make such a drastic change in religion "after" Jesus was crucified. They had a perfectly good religion that had been around for about a 1000 years where they were the chosen people. Now all of the sudden they are worshiping on Sunday and not Saturday, having communion, uncharacteristically speaking boldly, and dying martyr deaths.