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

[WanderingSkeptic]

Even in the era of printed texts it can be difficult to discover the "true" text. ....

I agree with your point ... however, I would add that there are far more serious concerns beyond accurate copying down through the ages. Specifically ... the gospels are not contemporary accounts, they were written at least 30 years after the events ... (thats a fact). Also, the content describes some very dramatic events that nobody else outside the gospels considers worth mentioning ... that also calls into question the accuracy of the content. See my previous posting for more details.

 

[Lucian]

I agree with your point ... however, I would add that there are far more serious concerns beyond accurate copying down through the ages. Specifically ... the gospels are not contemporary accounts, they were written at least 30 years after the events ... (thats a fact). Also, the content describes some very dramatic events that nobody else outside the gospels considers worth mentioning ... that also calls into question the accuracy of the content. See my previous posting for more details.

It's amazing how all those Zombie Plague of AD 33 texts managed not to survive, isn't it?

 

[WanderingSkeptic]

It's OK to posit no Jesus you know . There really isn't any contemporaneous evidence for his existence outside of the Bible.

Still, I think many of us here are perfectly comfortable accepting that there might have been an historical "bloke" on which the NT myths are based.

GB

I tend to agree ...the existence of J as a myth has been seriously proposed ... initially in the 18th Century and then by others since then. However, mainstream scholars dismiss the idea and so the expects do accept that there was a historical human.

I also have no problem with the existence of a historical human who started the ball rolling.

I'm also convinced that the gospels (as we have them today) are religious propaganda and not factual at all. They are full of holes large enough to drive an entire fleet of buses through.

 

[Toke]

Still, I think many of us here are perfectly comfortable accepting that there might have been an historical "bloke" on which the NT myths are based.

Not being a biblical scholar I could live with there being a whole bunch of prophets, one or more of them with the name of Jesus.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I tend to agree ...the existence of J as a myth has been seriously proposed ... initially in the 18th Century and then by others since then. However, mainstream scholars dismiss the idea and so the expects do accept that there was a historical human.

I also have no problem with the existence of a historical human who started the ball rolling.

I'm also convinced that the gospels (as we have them today) are religious propaganda and not factual at all. They are full of holes large enough to drive an entire fleet of buses through.

Not to mention that much of the Jesus story is largely based on ancient Pagan Sun-god Myths.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Eh, ask any cop what it's like to interview multiple eyewitnesses to an event and you find that if you ask five people you get five different, sometimes contrdicting, stories on what happened. That's just being human. I'd be more willing to chuck them as total fabrication if they all agreed in every way.

Of course, this does not imply that any of the supernatural events described have any more validity than any given fantasy tale. Just that to point out that they contradict only implies different authorship, not fallacy.

But what's your reaction if when you ask "Where did the accident take place?" one witness says "At the intersection of 7th Avenue and McDowell Road in downtown Phoenix", and another says "On a desert hillside four miles outside of Clarkdale, Arizona"?

 

[amb]

Yes, but that is an extremely small sub-set of Christian belief, if it exists at all. Even supposed "literalists" reconcile disagrements, and do not believe (AFAIK) that there was a Sermon on the plain and a Sermon on the mount, or that the Bible is devoid of metaphor, analogy or poetic langauge?? Certainly it is not the norm???



That is a much more interesting issue -- and one where we can actually investigate. For some time now I have thought about looking at veterans of the First World Wars accounts, plenty of which exist, and comparing them with the official war historries, regimental histories,and then seeing how they have changed in line with wider societal readings of the War over the decades.

cj x

Hello Jerome. The thing that flashes across my mind and I have read the accounts of certain battles of war vets and the same accounts by historians.
The historian has an overall viewpoint of the whole campaign/battle while the war vet has only the local knowledge of his immediate surroundings. The rest he would be relying on hearsay just as were the gospel writers.

 

[cj.23]

But what's your reaction if when you ask "Where did the accident take place?" one witness says "At the intersection of 7th Avenue and McDowell Road in downtown Phoenix", and another says "On a desert hillside four miles outside of Clarkdale, Arizona"?

My honest first thought would be "is Phoenix on the edge of a desert and four miles from Clarkdale, AZ?"

cj x

 

[Rincewind]

That is a much more interesting issue -- and one where we can actually investigate. For some time now I have thought about looking at veterans of the First World Wars accounts, plenty of which exist, and comparing them with the official war historries, regimental histories,and then seeing how they have changed in line with wider societal readings of the War over the decades.

cj x

This is an interesting comment that CJ23 has made – about the personal accounts of WWI battles.

I don’t have the details to hand, but I recall reading about the major German offensive in March 1918, and the effect on the British 4th(?) Army.

In the official unit histories, it was stressed that many British battalions were completely smashed in the attack, with only a remnant surrendering. This, of course, makes their defence far more heroic.

However research made long after the events has proved that this was not the case – for complicated reasons – there was a heavy fog, the British Army had only just taken over former French trenches, much of the trench work was fairly rudimentary, and the troops were expected to form all-round defences, though without any training or preparation – many units actually suffered few casualties before surrendering. I may be misremembering the details – I’m at work, without my books (as it was a good time ago when I read this )

There does seem to be a possible parallel with the Synoptic Gospels – perhaps these can be read as the official history, written for “political” reasons. If we could find some of the banned & destroyed documents, etc, that were outlawed at the various Councils started by Constantine (also for political reasons ) maybe we’d see a very different story.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

What really fascinates me is why the Gospel authors, who have every reason to place Jesus from Bethlehem in terms of prophecy, all admit he actually was a resident of Nazareth, and try to show it as somehow foretold. This suggests strongly to me that he historical Jesus was indeed from the Nazareth area,

So,
the reason for Jesus coming from Bethlehem is NOT historical (but from religious beliefs of prophecy.)

Why on earth does the reason or Jesus coming from Nazareth have to be historical?

It could just as easily been something "known" about Jesus from some story, prophecy, legend or what-not.

It does NOT have to be from history at all.


Kap

 

[kmortis]

Gday,



So,
the reason for Jesus coming from Bethlehem is NOT historical (but from religious beliefs of prophecy.)

Why on earth does the reason or Jesus coming from Nazareth have to be historical?

It could just as easily been something "known" about Jesus from some story, prophecy, legend or what-not.

It does NOT have to be from history at all.


Kap

That's why I tend toward a historic Jesus. Look at it like this, whenever you have a story about Al Capone, it's set in Chicago. Why? Because "everyone knows" that Capone was from Chicago. Jesus hailed from Nazareth, those who knew the basics about him knew that tidbit so the gospellers had to make sure that the story fit. Bethelehm was prophesy, Nazareth was reality.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

That's why I tend toward a historic Jesus. Look at it like this, whenever you have a story about Al Capone, it's set in Chicago. Why? Because "everyone knows" that Capone was from Chicago. Jesus hailed from Nazareth, those who knew the basics about him knew that tidbit so the gospellers had to make sure that the story fit. Bethelehm was prophesy, Nazareth was reality.

Everybody "knows" Harry Potter is from London.
Do you tend towards a historic Harry Potter?

Everybody "knows" Frodo is from Bag-end.
Everybody "knows" Vulcan lives on Mt Etna.
etc.

Many things are "known" without being true.


Kap

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Actually, everybody knows that Harry Potter was born in Godric's Hollow, somewhere in the West Country of Southwest England.

And Frodo grew up in Brandy Hall in Buckland.

GB

 

[dafydd]

That's why I tend toward a historic Jesus. Look at it like this, whenever you have a story about Al Capone, it's set in Chicago. Why? Because "everyone knows" that Capone was from Chicago. Jesus hailed from Nazareth, those who knew the basics about him knew that tidbit so the gospellers had to make sure that the story fit. Bethelehm was prophesy, Nazareth was reality.

Al Capone was from Italy.

 

[amb]

Isn't there some dispute that Nazareth may not have been inhabited at the time of Jesus' birth? If he existed, all gospelers claim he was from Galilee which itself was a small province.
Perhaps the Nazareth tale grew just like the virgin birth, from hearsay.

 

[amb]

Al Capone was from Italy.

Sicilian I believe! I could be wrong. Most mobsters were originally from either Sicily or Calabria in the deep south of Italy. Less were from Napoli.

 

[cj.23]

Isn't there some dispute that Nazareth may not have been inhabited at the time of Jesus' birth? If he existed, all gospelers claim he was from Galilee which itself was a small province.
Perhaps the Nazareth tale grew just like the virgin birth, from hearsay.

Discussed on previous few pages amb in some depth?

cj x

 

[amb]

True, but no satisfactory answer has been given one way or the other.

 

[Fox]

The New Testament left out the part that Mary had consorted with a Roman soldier called Panthera, and that Joshua her son from these consorts was later found out to be the son of a Roman soldier called Panthera and was hanged as such.

You know when a judge provides an excuse to hang someone because the real reason you want to execute them isn't justifiable by law? Yeah, such was this case. The pharisees had been tolerating 'jesus' for years, it was not until information came to them 'via Judas' that 'jesus' was a halfbreed. If you think people were racist in the 1950's - 1960's go back to the time of Joshua of Panthera in his area... racism was currency.

 

[Akhenaten]

The New Testament left out the part that Mary had consorted with a Roman soldier called Panthera, and that Joshua her son from these consorts was later found out to be the son of a Roman soldier called Panthera and was hanged as such.

You know when a judge provides an excuse to hang someone because the real reason you want to execute them isn't justifiable by law? Yeah, such was this case. The pharisees had been tolerating 'jesus' for years, it was not until information came to them 'via Judas' that 'jesus' was a halfbreed. If you think people were racist in the 1950's - 1960's go back to the time of Joshua of Panthera in his area... racism was currency.

And the evidence for all of this is . . . ?