How can the New Testament be even remotely correct?

[Mathematician]

Hi,

I was just checking out http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm, and it hit me again that the New Testament was written years after Jesus Christ (hypothetically) died, rose, and ascended to heaven.

Now most of the arguements over sin, including homosexuality, comes from passages in the New Testament. But how, exactly, did Mark, John, and the others remember what Jesus said word for word? How can it be considered relliable, as some of the more ultra-Conservative Christians claim? Last I was taught, only Jesus was perfect. Surely the group of men didn't remember what Christ said verbatim. Seeing as how only a word or two can change the meanings of multiple passages, this is a very important issue. Is it not?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." NIV

 

[Mathematician]

That could be used for mostly anything, and it has no proof to back it up.. So you're saying God gave them amazing memory?

 

[dan]

Hi,

I was just checking out http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm, and it hit me again that the New Testament was written years after Jesus Christ (hypothetically) died, rose, and ascended to heaven.

Now most of the arguements over sin, including homosexuality, comes from passages in the New Testament. But how, exactly, did Mark, John, and the others remember what Jesus said word for word? How can it be considered relliable, as some of the more ultra-Conservative Christians claim? Last I was taught, only Jesus was perfect. Surely the group of men didn't remember what Christ said verbatim. Seeing as how only a word or two can change the meanings of multiple passages, this is a very important issue. Is it not?

These scriptures where written down with the help of inspiration and revelation. In addition, the stories now contained in the New Testament were handed down verbally for years. Any one of those men could have known verbatim the words Christ spoke because they could have shared them twenty times a day for fifty years. I know a guy who has the whole Bible memorized, verbatim. He reads a book a day from it to keep himself sharp, but give him any passage anywhere and he can rattle off the entire rest of the Bible without missing a syllable.

 

[Lloyd]

People in less literate societies than our own are a lot better about memorization and recall then those who can afford to rely on books. I think it's fair to say that most of the Gospels is paraphrasing, but I believe that the oral knowledge of the Jesus' teachings would have been rich enough for the evangelists to create passages faithful to the original teachings just by knowing Jesus' general style and the broader spirit that animated his entire ministry.

 

[Scuba Pete]

II Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

GeneCosta,

When you say that there is "no proof" you are referring to current physical proof. The spiritual proof is all around us, but you can't see it if you don't seek it out. Faith, real faith, is never blind.

 

[michel]

II Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

GeneCosta,

When you say that there is "no proof" you are referring to current physical proof. The spiritual proof is all around us, but you can't see it if you don't seek it out. Faith, real faith, is never blind.

Spot on my friend, as usual......

 

[Dayv]

But still, you are assuming that these people remembered everything perfectly. You are hoping they got it right and that they didn't stretch one thing or another to their own desire. You don't know any of this, you are only speculating. Obviously observations can be scewed, just look at the four different gospels, they each tell the same story but from obviously different views. How do you know that these men were being lead by god in what they wrote? You don't! You can only hope that they were. If you're going to believe everything that a so called prophet says, why aren't you all Muslim? Seeing as Islam came after the New Testament, why don't you believe any of that? It had just as much proof, it was supposedly inspired by the same god, why don't you believe the Qu'ran? Any logical evidence you could come up with against the Qu'ran could also be used against your beliefs.

You have as much proof that your prophets were lead by god as you do that I am currently being told what to say by your almighty one, the only difference is that you feel fuzzy thinking god told these men what to say and that you're following god, but god telling you to open your minds and think logically about all of it is scary. Obviously god isn't telling Dayv what to write, it's uncomfortable and I don't like to think about it.

 

[blueman]

I think this subject could be debated until the cows come home. In 2 Timothy 3:16,17, Paul stated that all scripture is God-breathed and is used for correcting, rebuking, teaching and training in all righteousness. Scripture was spiritually ordained through these biblical authors, both in the old and new testament. It's fine to question the validity, because you have free will and a mind to do so. On the flip side, God expects a measure of faith to be exhibited by those who follow him and this faith would also lead one to believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant ordained Word of God. At the end of the day, you either believe it or you don't. Through Jesus and the Holy Spirit that was with the disciples and apostles after Jesus's resurrection, these men were able to do great things like heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead. If they were able to perform these miracles facilitated through the Almighty power of God, do you not think that God could give these men, some of whom walked and followed Jesus during His 3 1/2 year ministry, spiritual discernment to document spiritual truth?

 

[Ryan2065]

Dayv, once I figure out this frubal think points to you! Well, thats if frubals are good... :canadian: <~~Holy crap theres a canadian smilie!

The reason I am agnostic is due to the fact that there is the same amount of proof for most of the popular religions today. I didn't like the idea that I was only R. Catholic because I was born into that kind of family. If I was born to, say a LDS family, I'd probably be a LDS right now. You know, cause they have better membership retention :162:

As far as how did these people know exactly what Jesus said so many years later? The Catholic answer I always got was they were filled with the Holy Spirit when writing the scriptures.

 

[Dayv]

I'll think I'll frubal ya just for being another (like myself) that escaped the RC's. Nice to have you on.

 

[tkdrocks]

II Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

GeneCosta,

When you say that there is "no proof" you are referring to current physical proof. The spiritual proof is all around us, but you can't see it if you don't seek it out. Faith, real faith, is never blind.

Would this not be in the category of "The New Testament is true because the New Testament says so?"

As far as Eyewitnesses go (pertaining to the gospels):

Gospel of Mark (regarded as the earliest): Mark may have been a traveling companion of Paul, a non-eyewitness. This was written at least 30 years after the event. The other gospels (excluding John) use this as a template.

Gospel of Matthew: The writer is not really identified. Follows the template of Mark with a few exceptions. Mentions Jesus Birth. This writing had a definite agenda to prove the ties of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

Gospel of Luke: Again, not an eyewitness account. Here we see the story of the birth of Jesus 'evolve'. It would seem that 'traditions' are beginning to creep into the narrative.

Gospel of John: (Written at least 100 years after events) Writer is not identified in the text, but seems to be more personal. Many feel that this was written to counter the Gnostic sects that were cropping up during the time period and thus showing Jesus as a real person.

MY OPINION: There is a lot of room for addition of traditions and legends between events and narratives. Comparison: My father told me many, many stories of the happenings of the Korean War. If I were to write a book about it and claim it to be an eyewitness account, I think there would be a problem, no matter how accurate my dad's accounts were.

 

[jeffrey]

I could say I smoked a joint and I got high. Got all fuzzy headed from it. Someone would come along that never smoked a joint and try and tell me that that joint did not exist, or that I really didn't get high, it was all in my head. If you never experienced what is was like to get high, you would not understand. If you never got high on Jesus, you would not understand. And for the people that claim they tried Jesus and never got "high", then maybe you pulled a Bill Clinton and never inhaled. The people that wrote the Gospels where, as previously stated, inspired by the Holy Spirit. They where high on God. and look at it this way. How could stories passed down from one to another, told by many different people all be basically the same if not inspired by God? And as the OP stated, how could this be? Without the inspiration of God, it would be impossible. Guess That's proof of God's existence right there, eh?

 

[pandamonk]

I could say I smoked a joint and I got high. Got all fuzzy headed from it. Someone would come along that never smoked a joint and try and tell me that that joint did not exist, or that I really didn't get high, it was all in my head. If you never experienced what is was like to get high, you would not understand. If you never got high on Jesus, you would not understand. And for the people that claim they tried Jesus and never got "high", then maybe you pulled a Bill Clinton and never inhaled. The people that wrote the Gospels where, as previously stated, inspired by the Holy Spirit. They where high on God. and look at it this way. How could stories passed down from one to another, told by many different people all be basically the same if not inspired by God? And as the OP stated, how could this be? Without the inspiration of God, it would be impossible. Guess That's proof of God's existence right there, eh?

You're right. They must've been high on something to come up with it, I wouldn't say it was God though, lol. No it ain't really proof of God's existence. There are many contradictions in the stories of the New Testament also look at what tkdrocks said. Each Gospel was written using the others as templates. There was as much as 200 gospels by 100AD, i think(i'll need to check), yet only 4 were chosen.

 

[tkdrocks]

I could say I smoked a joint and I got high. Got all fuzzy headed from it. Someone would come along that never smoked a joint and try and tell me that that joint did not exist, or that I really didn't get high, it was all in my head. If you never experienced what is was like to get high, you would not understand. If you never got high on Jesus, you would not understand. And for the people that claim they tried Jesus and never got "high", then maybe you pulled a Bill Clinton and never inhaled. The people that wrote the Gospels where, as previously stated, inspired by the Holy Spirit. They where high on God. and look at it this way. How could stories passed down from one to another, told by many different people all be basically the same if not inspired by God? And as the OP stated, how could this be? Without the inspiration of God, it would be impossible. Guess That's proof of God's existence right there, eh?

The real problem is the time that had elapsed. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that the author of the Gospel of Luke had access to the Gospel of Mark before he wrote it. Thus, he followed the story line. Matthew then followed the story lines of Mark and Luke. I am not sure how that proves anything.

I have read in Christian writings the gospels may have each written to reach a different target audience. Mark - the Romans; Matthew - the Jews; John - to clarify doctrine. If that were the case, it would make sense for them to agree.

 

[Ryan2065]

So I was reading the Gospel of Mark, you know, the earliest gospel that tells of Jesus' life and death. Mark does not mention the birth story at all. You would think a virgin birth, three wise men, and all that jazz would be something he would want to write down.

This is just one example, but could it be the later bible writers changed stories to make Jesus look more like the "prophesied" messiah? Anyone know of other stories in other Gospels that seem too important to be left out in the first one?

 

[jeffrey]

The real problem is the time that had elapsed. It would not be too much of a stretch to say that the author of the Gospel of Luke had access to the Gospel of Mark before he wrote it. Thus, he followed the story line. Matthew then followed the story lines of Mark and Luke. I am not sure how that proves anything.
I have read in Christian writings the gospels may have each written to reach a different target audience.... If that were the case, it would make sense for them to agree.

But That's just it. There are slight contradictions in them. If one was just copying the other, there would have been more word for word. And you would not expect them to write about Jesus the day after he died and was risen. You would expect them to write them when they where near the end of their life on earth when they could no longer pass down what happened by word of mouth. And it also makes sense that the people that wrote the Gospels wrote what they witnessed or heard from someone who had.

 

[john313]

So I was reading the Gospel of Mark, you know, the earliest gospel that tells of Jesus' life and death. Mark does not mention the birth story at all. You would think a virgin birth, three wise men, and all that jazz would be something he would want to write down.

This is just one example, but could it be the later bible writers changed stories to make Jesus look more like the "prophesied" messiah? Anyone know of other stories in other Gospels that seem too important to be left out in the first one?

When was Jesus born? Was he born about 4bc to make him like Moses, in relation to Herod the Great? or was he born during the census in 6-7ce to make him migrate for his birth and be born in the Mithra style manger. there are differing accounts.

 

[Ryan2065]

But That's just it. There are slight contradictions in them.

But if the bible truly is the word of god... wouldn't there be no contradictions?

 

[jeffrey]

So I was reading the Gospel of Mark, you know, the earliest gospel that tells of Jesus' life and death. Mark does not mention the birth story at all. You would think a virgin birth, three wise men, and all that jazz would be something he would want to write down.

This is just one example, but could it be the later bible writers changed stories to make Jesus look more like the "prophesied" messiah? Anyone know of other stories in other Gospels that seem too important to be left out in the first one?

Mark wrote what he thought was important, relevant to what he was attempting to convay. as did all the authors. He was more focused on his teachings. Matthew focused more on showing he was the Messiah.