The testimony of the NT writers

[leroy]

What makes you think that the NT authors were "well informed"? There are clear errors in the NT. Where are you getting your information from? Put it this way, if they do not mention that Luke's date of birth of Jesus was ten years after that of Matthew they probably are not too reliable.

Because most of the testable information happens to be true

The date of birth is at worse a tinny mistake...... all ancient authors made these type of mistakes. If you dont reject other documents, why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?

In your opinion
What makes a historical document reliable and why the gospels fail that test ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

do you reject the documents just because they are in the bible?............. or do you have good reasons to doubt it´s authenticity

What does rejecting documents mean? Not believing all of the claims contained within them? Not believing all of the claims made about their provenance? I treat the Gospels and the Bible in general the same way I do other claims of truth. They claim that a man was born of a virgin, had a career in religion in which he allegedly performed miracles including walking on water and turning water into wine, and then rose from the dead when three days dead. I don't believe that. I reject those claims except for the man existing part, which is also not an established fact, but an irrelevant one to the skeptic. If Jesus wasn't a god or channeling a god, then none of the rest matters.

For example you showed skepticism on weather if Jesus was crucified………..do you have a good reason to be skeptical? Or are you just playing skeptic?

Yes. We all have good reason to be skeptical of all claims. Like I said, I don't know if a guy more or less resembling the description of Jesus existed, and if one did, whether he was crucified, but it also doesn't matter to me if he was also just another man. I'm agnostic on the matter and indifferent regarding the correct answer for the reasons given. But I think we're wandering astray a bit here from whether the NT writers were reliable to whether Jesus lived or was crucified. Those writers are not reliable to me. I don't who they were. Names like Luke and Mark might as well be Neil and Bob. I don't know their agenda or values. And the Gospels contradict one another. And we can see the narrative evolving over time through the synoptic gospels.

Where did "achieving expertise in a field" enter into the definition?

With the word scholarship. You might be conflating critical thinking with scholarship.

 

[metis]

I posted this, just to show you that believers are not the only ones who accept things based on faith.

That's fine, but science is not at all dependent on faith as we use the "scientific method", which is meant to use objective evidence, not faith, as the main driving force. Religion, otoh, is based on faith, thus not objectively derived evidence. However, this is not to imply religion is somehow wrong.

 

[SDavis]

Talking about the apostles someone said:
... and I answered:


If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

Not understanding what you mean when you say that first century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true while other testimonies of old times are considered more serious. Considered more serious how - as true?

And in all honesty we don't know who wrote some of the books in the New Testament other than those written by Paul which they have in national archives. We know the church says the disciples wrote Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke who was a friend of Paul is said to have written the Book of Luke. It is said Peter wrote the books of Peter - Jude wrote the book of Jude - and John wrote the Book of John, 1st / 2nd John and Revelation. But there are no original copies.

And I seriously doubt whether it was written secular or not, there would be disagreements on the validity of occurrences.

The Romans of those days heard and saw something miraculous going on and changed from the false gods they worshiped to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The Greeks also played a part they knew something miraculously happened because the New Testament was written in their language and they are the ones that gave Christ the name Christus. Whom Tacitus born in 56 AD I believe and died in 129 AD _ who was a Roman historian and senator wrote in his annals of Christus, Christians, and even a tad of what Pontius Pilate did.
People know this and still don't accept.

 

[Kenny]

With the word scholarship. You might be conflating critical thinking with scholarship.

I don't think so, but I always leave room for me to be wrong.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I always leave room for me to be wrong.

Me too. And boy has that paid off more than I'd have liked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because most of the testable information happens to be true

The date of birth is at worse a tinny mistake...... all ancient authors made these type of mistakes. If you dont reject other documents, why making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?

In your opinion
What makes a historical document reliable and why the gospels fail that test ?

There is not that much that is "testable". In fact the only things that seem to be acknowledged is that he was a preacher and that he was crucified. That is it. And that is pushing it. What parts of his life do you think are testable?

What makes the Bible suspect is that there is no eyewitness testimony. The gospels were all written at least a generation after the event, most of them at least two generations. It stared as oral tradition and that can change hugely over a short time period. There are inconsistencies with history too. Most scholars doubt even the tomb story these days. At that time in Roman crucifixions the body was not taken down. Why would they have taken down Jesus's body? A big part of the lesson of crucifixion was leaving the body up so that people could see what could happen to them. And don't give the "Jewish holiday" excuse. As conquerors the Romans did not respect the religions of those that they conquered. They would tolerate them, but tell them that it was a holy day and they would have probably laughed.

 

[leroy]

What does rejecting documents mean? Not believing all of the claims contained within them? Not believing all of the claims made about their provenance? I treat the Gospels and the Bible in general the same way I do other claims of truth. They claim that a man was born of a virgin, had a career in religion in which he allegedly performed miracles including walking on water and turning water into wine, and then rose from the dead when three days dead. I don't believe that. I reject those claims except for the man existing part, which is also not an established fact, but an irrelevant one to the skeptic. If Jesus wasn't a god or channeling a god, then none of the rest matters.

The existence of Jesus is an establish fact , it is also an establish fact that he did stuff that some interpreted as miracles,

Weather if there were real miracles or just illusions is a different discussion

Yes. We all have good reason to be skeptical of all claims. Like I said, I don't know if a guy more or less resembling the description of Jesus existed, and if one did, whether he was crucified, but it also doesn't matter to me if he was also just another man. I'm agnostic on the matter and indifferent regarding the correct answer for the reasons given. But I think we're wandering astray a bit here from whether the NT writers were reliable to whether Jesus lived or was crucified. Those writers are not reliable to me. I don't who they were. Names like Luke and Mark might as well be Neil and Bob. I don't know their agenda or values. And the Gospels contradict one another. And we can see the narrative evolving over time through the synoptic gospels.

Well we simply have different standards,

To me the fact that we have multiple independent sources confirming the crucifixion is enough to establish it as an “almost certain historical fact”

If your standards are higher than that, then all I can say is that you should be agnostic about everything in ancient history Because nearly no other event form ancient history is supported with more evidence

 

[leroy]

There is not that much that is "testable". In fact the only things that seem to be acknowledged is that he was a preacher and that he was crucified. That is it. And that is pushing it. What parts of his life do you think are testable?

Jesus had a brother named James

Jesus was baptize by a john the Baptist

Pilate was the guy in charge of that region

The names of the emperors

The geographical description of the towns that he visited

The political and economical structure of that region

Etc.

There are 50 or so facts that are reported in the gospels and that can be corroborated




What makes the Bible suspect is that there is no eyewitness testimony. The gospels were all written at least a generation after the event, most of them at least two generations. It stared as oral tradition and that can change hugely over a short time period. There are inconsistencies with history too. Most scholars doubt even the tomb story these days. At that time in Roman crucifixions the body was not taken down. Why would they have taken down Jesus's body? A big part of the lesson of crucifixion was leaving the body up so that people could see what could happen to them. And don't give the "Jewish holiday" excuse. As conquerors the Romans did not respect the religions of those that they conquered. They would tolerate them, but tell them that it was a holy day and they would have probably laughed.[/QUOTE]

At that time in Roman crucifixions the body was not taken down. Why would they have taken down Jesus's body?
A big part of the lesson of crucifixion was leaving the body up so that people could see what could happen to them.

How do you know that? but here is the trick……….I will reject by default any source that was not written by an eye witness or written 1 generation or more apart ........... in other words you have to support your claim using your own standards, -(or cahnge your standards)

Why would they have taken down Jesus's body?
And don't give the "Jewish holiday" excuse

We know that sometimes crucified people where buried, (the tombs have been found)……………..

So we know that at least sometimes there where expiations

Jesus didn’t do anything wrong form the point of view of the romans (blasphemy against the Jews God would have not been a crime ) and a wealthy guy with political power (Joseph of Arimathea )was Jesus´s follower and eked for the body.

So why wouldn’t Jesus be an exception to the common practice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus had a brother named James

Jesus was baptize by a john the Baptist

Pilate was the guy in charge of that region

The names of the emperors

The geographical description of the towns that he visited

The political and economical structure of that region

Etc.

There are 50 or so facts that are reported in the gospels and that can be corroborated

Even if granted those are very weak facts. None of them are evidence for magic Jesus.

[quote

How do you know that? but here is the trick……….I will reject by default any source that was not written by an eye witness or written 1 generation or more apart ........... in other words you have to support your claim using your own standards, -(or cahnge your standards)

From the works of the same historians that gave you your supposed accepted facts. If you deny those facts then you deny your own.

We know that sometimes crucified people where buried, (the tombs have been found)……………..

The Romans were not the only ones to use crucifixion. The Jews used it too at times. But they would have taken the bodies down because they did follow their own laws.

So we know that at least sometimes there where expiations

Jesus didn’t do anything wrong form the point of view of the romans (blasphemy against the Jews God would have not been a crime ) and a wealthy guy with political power (Joseph of Arimathea )was Jesus´s follower and eked for the body.

So why wouldn’t Jesus be an exception to the common practice?

Make up your mind. You are contradicting yourself. If Pilate was involved it was a Roman crucifixion. And just because you have a name in a fictional story does not make it reliable. Do you know how long it was before there was an accepted written account? Well over a generation.

 

[lukethethird]

There is not that much that is "testable". In fact the only things that seem to be acknowledged is that he was a preacher and that he was crucified. That is it. And that is pushing it. What parts of his life do you think are testable?

What makes the Bible suspect is that there is no eyewitness testimony. The gospels were all written at least a generation after the event, most of them at least two generations. It stared as oral tradition and that can change hugely over a short time period. There are inconsistencies with history too. Most scholars doubt even the tomb story these days. At that time in Roman crucifixions the body was not taken down. Why would they have taken down Jesus's body? A big part of the lesson of crucifixion was leaving the body up so that people could see what could happen to them. And don't give the "Jewish holiday" excuse. As conquerors the Romans did not respect the religions of those that they conquered. They would tolerate them, but tell them that it was a holy day and they would have probably laughed.

I don't think there was an oral tradition because most of the epistle writers were unaware of any, besides it's just a hypothetical which can't be proven either way. It's much easier to show that we're dealing with a written tradition considering the reliance on the OT.

 

[lukethethird]

The existence of Jesus is an establish fact , it is also an establish fact that he did stuff that some interpreted as miracles,

Weather if there were real miracles or just illusions is a different discussion




Well we simply have different standards,

To me the fact that we have multiple independent sources confirming the crucifixion is enough to establish it as an “almost certain historical fact”

If your standards are higher than that, then all I can say is that you should be agnostic about everything in ancient history Because nearly no other event form ancient history is supported with more evidence

There is more evidence for Pilate than there is for Jesus, which isn't very much at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think there was an oral tradition because most of the epistle writers were unaware of any, besides it's just a hypothetical which can't be proven either way. It's much easier to show that we're dealing with a written tradition considering the reliance on the OT.

By oral tradition I do believe that it does not appear that there was any well accepted written version before the Gospels. There were probably records in Aramaic. Supposedly Matthew wrote such a version, but nothing of it seems to have survived. Not even the gnostic Gospels were written in Aramaic, they were written in Coptic:

Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia.

At any rate there was plenty of time for the Jesus myths or legends to grow before the Gospels were written. Any American that was alive when Elvis died should know how quickly tales about legendary heroes can grow after their death. And this was in a country with a fairly high literacy rate and the availability of a reliable press. Think how quickly stories could have grown about Jesus. Believers want to believe. They do not care that much about being right or wrong.

 

[lukethethird]

By oral tradition I do believe that it does not appear that there was any well accepted written version before the Gospels. There were probably records in Aramaic. Supposedly Matthew wrote such a version, but nothing of it seems to have survived. Not even the gnostic Gospels were written in Aramaic, they were written in Coptic:

Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia.

At any rate there was plenty of time for the Jesus myths or legends to grow before the Gospels were written. Any American that was alive when Elvis died should know how quickly tales about legendary heroes can grow after their death. And this was in a country with a fairly high literacy rate and the availability of a reliable press. Think how quickly stories could have grown about Jesus. Believers want to believe. They do not care that much about being right or wrong.

One theory has it that reading the NT in chronological order (epistles then gospels), gives us the impression that Christianity began with visions of a risen Christ figure. The idea of a Jesus with disciples was a later development, beginning with gMark.

 

[leroy]

Even if granted those are very weak facts. None of them are evidence for magic Jesus.

No but it is evidence that the authors of the gospels where well informed. Which iS the claim that you asked me to support......... if you dont try to refute the text in red I will assume that you grant it agree with it

From the works of the same historians that gave you your supposed accepted facts. If you deny those facts then you deny your own.

Again support your claim , how do you know that crucified people where not burried ?

The Romans were not the only ones to use crucifixion.

People Crucified by the romans have been found in tommbs showing that atleast sometimes exceptions where made.

Make up your mind. You are contradicting yourself. If Pilate was involved it was a Roman crucifixion.

Yes Pilate was making a favor to the Jewish liders...... he didn't had anything personal against Jesus ......

And just because you have a name in a fictional story does not make it reliable.

No but it proves that the authors where well informed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No but it is evidence that the authors of the gospels where well informed. Which iS the claim that you asked me to support......... if you dont try to refute the text in red I will assume that you grant it agree with it/

It is only evidence that the writers of the Gospel were aware of what most people would know of that time. You are only making a "So what?" argument so far. It does not support magic Jesus.

Again support your claim , how do you know that crucified people where not burried ?

Sorry, now you have to support your claims first. I accepted what most think is moderately well known, You are being inconsistent again. Are you going to support each and every one of your claims? If you want to make me do that work, which I could but do not feel like, then you need to support yours first. My accepting your unsupported claims was obviously contingent on you supporting mine.

People Crucified by the romans have been found in tommbs showing that atleast sometimes exceptions where made.

I have seen that people crucified were sometimes in tombs. I have not seen that they were from Roman crucifixions. That appears to be an assumption on your part. Once again the Hebrews used crucifixion too at times.

Yes Pilate was making a favor to the Jewish liders...... he didn't had anything personal against Jesus ......

And this is the sort of strong claim that does require evidence. The only sources that I now of it are the Gospels. You are trying to use circular reasoning here.

No but it proves that the authors where well informed.

Once again, only about the places and leaders at that time. The authors of the Gospels were classically trained in Koine Greek. They do not appear to have been any of the apostles who were according to the Bible unlettered. I think one such verse is Acts 4 13. People at this time of widespread literacy keep forgetting that at that time literacy was much rarer than it is today.

 

[metis]

I don't think so, but I always leave room for me to be wrong.

You, wrong? Who woulda thought!

 

[Kenny]

You, wrong? Who woulda thought!

ABSOLUTELY! I was wrong when I thought I was wrong. (as the old overused saying goes)

 

[leroy]

It is only evidence that the writers of the Gospel were aware of what most people would know of that time. You are only making a "So what?" argument so far. It does not support magic Jesus.

I am just supporting the claim that you asked me to support, if it is a “so what” claim then why did you ask for support?

The fact that the authors got all these details about Jesus and his surroundings correct show that the authors where well informed, and where in a position to know stuff about Jesus. ..for example they would have known if he was buried or thrown in to a common grave.

Sorry, now you have to support your claims first. I accepted what most think is moderately well known, You are being inconsistent again. Are you going to support each and every one of your claims? If you want to make me do that work, which I could but do not feel like, then you need to support yours first. My accepting your unsupported claims was obviously contingent on you supporting mine.

You don’t see the point.

You are the one with the ridiculous standards , you are the one who claims that only documents written by witnesses are acceptable………………. So provide your documents written by witnesses that show that people where buried in graves after being crucified………….or admit that your standards are riducously too high

I agree that most crucified people where thrown in common graves ……… but using your ridicuouls standards there wouldn’t be evidence for that claim

Once again the Hebrews used crucifixion too at times.

how do you know that?

I have seen that people crucified were sometimes in tombs. I have not seen that they were from Roman crucifixions. That appears to be an assumption on your part. Once again the Hebrews used crucifixion too at times.

An example of a guy who was burried after being crusified by the romans

Examination of Yehohanan’s bones showed one of the many Roman crucifixion methods. Both of his feet had been nailed together to the cross with a wooden plaque while his legs were bent to one side. His arm bones revealed scratches where the nails had passed between. Both legs were badly fractured, most likely from a crushing blow meant to end his suffering and bring about a faster death. Yehohanan was probably a political dissident against Roman oppression. In death his bones have helped fill in gaps in the history of crucifixion.

A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods

Once again, only about the places and leaders at that time. The authors of the Gospels were classically trained in Koine Greek. They do not appear to have been any of the apostles who were according to the Bible unlettered. I think one such verse is Acts 4 13. People at this time of widespread literacy keep forgetting that at that time literacy was much rarer than it is today.

Do you know who the president from Israel was 40 years ago? (Probably not) the average person doesn’t know that type of details, only people who lived in Israel or people with access to good sources would know who was the president of Israel 40 years ago

The same is true with the Gospels, the average person who lived in the years 80s or so would not know who was the governor of Judea in the 30s only a wtiness or someone with good sources would have known that. ………… this means that the authors of the gospels ether lived in that area in the 30s or they had access to good sources

But I have an open mind, if you don’t accept this as evidence that the authors were well informed, please tell me what criteria would you use and why the gospels fail

obviously contingent on you supporting mine.

We´ve been over this before,

You are expected to support your claims, regardless if I support mine or not,

And this is the sort of strong claim that does require evidence. The only sources that I now of it are the Gospels. You are trying to use circular reasoning here.
A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods

Well we have the testimony of well-informed people, who are telling us that Jesus was crucified for basifying against the Jewish God ………. What alternative hypothesis do you suggest? Why is that hypothesis better than mine?

Not to mention that Paul confirms that Jesus was buried…………..Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus, so obviously he had access to good reliable testimonies on what happened to Jesus after he died. (people usually know if their brothers where buried)………………..if Jesus would have been thrown to a common grave, James (-and Paul) would have known that

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mmmh, well, to the effects of this topic, Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts. If you want to discuss that I guess we need to open other topic.

This is how the Gospel of Luke starts:

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
5 In the days of Herod, king of Ju·deʹa, there was a priest named Zech·a·riʹah of the division of A·biʹjah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth ...

And he said later:

... 3:1 In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, 2 in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.

Can you recognize historicity in that beginning?

Sounds to me like he's telling us his testimony is based on hearsay.