How can the New Testament be even remotely correct?

[Scott1]

i am not a scholar - i hope to be later on in life after studying the scriptures in their orignal lanuguages - but not just yet

God bless you... I pray you do this some day... (me too!)

wasnt it a pagan festival on the 25th so they tied christmas into it because everyone was already cellibrating it

It sure was... the early church took much of its liturgy from pagans to help incorporate them into the Christian faith. Candles, insense etc etc were taken from pagan rituals.

 

[Sabio]

i am not a scholar - i hope to be later on in life after studying the scriptures in their orignal lanuguages - but not just yet

however i do think that recent scholars have dated jesus to not have been born when we think he was (25th december 2005 years ago) i cant remember when but i think it was something like september and something like 2012 or something

that is just what i think i can remember so its very open to criticism and it is not accurate - but im sure we are wrong on our calender

wasnt it a pagan festival on the 25th so they tied christmas into it because everyone was already cellibrating it

not sure - anyone who knows anything on this i would appreciate your input



can scholars be remotely correct? - imnot sure to be perfectly honest - they can speculate - but at the end of the day if we dont know then we cannot say beyond a doubt that they are either right or wrong

is the new testiment accurate - first of all we have four gospels giving four different accounts of Christ - and i believe all of them

i believe it to be truth

is the new testiment an accurate historical account - probably not

i also think it depends on which translation you read - if you read modern translations you could get a completly different idea to reading the old king james bible or a translation of the german bible written by martin luther

overall i think i have forgotten what the point is that im trying to make - but in my oppinion the question "how can the new testiment be even remotely correct" is irrellivant to me because i believe it to be truth regardless of evidence to dissprove it

God Bless

A study of the Bible in the original languauges is a very profitable journey, blessings to you in your pursuit.

Jesus was not born in Dec, remember the acccount in Mathew, the shepards were in the fields tending their flocks, thy would not be there in Dec. Dec 25th was originally the pagan holiday of Saturnalia, and they worshiped trees as part of the ceremony.

See this link: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/Saturnalia.html

When Roman Emporer Constantine sought to implement Christianity in the empire, he had to appease the pagans as well, so the new combined "state" church was a combination of Christian and Pagan, this is how Christmas was established, likewise the use of statues in the church, and many other Pagan traditions. If you go to Rome you can still view the ruins of a pagan temple with a Catholic church built inside of it.

Sabio

 

[Mike182]

CONSTANTINE

of course it was constantine

silly me

i was sat at my computer for about an hour racking my brains out

God Bless you all

sabio and scott - i salute you - :woohoo:

 

[jeffrey]

I offer a bit of peace, a validation of what the bible contains and then this????

To quote from a famous movie "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." I was attempting some light hearted humor. Of all the people that are non believers in this forum, you have probably a better understanding of the Bible then anyone else. That is not a joke and it is a compliment.

 

[blueman]

You keep using the argument that so many people believe, it must be true. So again, can you give me a logical explanation why you are not Islam? That is the most popular religion, apparently it was able to get more believers, so it must be way truer! (yea yea, not proper grammer, oh well)
Wait... what.... er, umm... did you seriously just ask that question? Were you making a joke? Please tell me you were!

First off, you never heard me quote any particular numbers when it comes to a specific religion, whether it's Christian, Muslim, etc. You have always made the comment that if it has higher numbers and is popular, it must be true. You never have read a response I've written that makes reference to if you have popularity and numbers it must be true. The logical reason I'm not Muslim? Although I respect their beliefs, I don't agree with them, mainly due to the fact they reject the deity of Jesus Christ and don't believe He died through crucifiction. They relegate Him to a great prophet, but that's it. Secondly, you still have not in a logical way, demonstrated a reason for the impact of Jesus, as I mentioned in a previous post on today's culture. I am not making any reference to numbers, but tangible contributions in society (humanitarian, academia, the arts, literary, etc.) Do you have a logical reason?

 

[jeffrey]

And Michel, thank you for posting that info earlier. EXCELLENT READ!

 

[Pah]

To quote from a famous movie "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." I was attempting some light hearted humor. Of all the people that are non believers in this forum, you have probably a better understanding of the Bible then anyone else. That is not a joke and it is a compliment.

Thank for the compliment but Anders is undoubtably the better. I apologize for the mistake.

 

[Ryan2065]

Secondly, you still have not in a logical way, demonstrated a reason for the impact of Jesus, as I mentioned in a previous post on today's culture. I am not making any reference to numbers, but tangible contributions in society (humanitarian, academia, the arts, literary, etc.) Do you have a logical reason?

So what is more logical? Saying because of his impact he must be the son of god... Or saying because he had such an impact he was a great person? I think it is more logical to assume Jesus was just a really famous guy who had alot of myths about him after he died. These myths were compiled into a book and now it is called the bible.

 

[tkdrocks]

So you are relying upon the opinions of men who do not believe to disprove the Bible, wasn't this the same thing I was accused of earlier when using the bible to prove the bible.

Sabio

Okay, you asked for a reference. I gave you one, Pah gave several others. Yet this is your response. Hello ... this is all the opinions of men, unless you are now hearing audible voices.

 

[Ryan2065]

The last estimates I have seen placed (those who claim)Christianity above (those who claim)Islam in the numbers department to the tune of about 300 million.

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzreligion.htm

They break down Christianity into their own sects, because of that Christianity is not number 1. To group all the Christians together in a count like this would be like grouping people's nationalities based on "white, black, other"

 

[Sabio]

Okay, you asked for a reference. I gave you one, Pah gave several others. Yet this is your response. Hello ... this is all the opinions of men, unless you are now hearing audible voices.

That is where we differ, I believe the Bible to be the voice of God, and the wisdom of men to be foolishness in light of the wisdom God speaks.

Guess we have to agree to disagree.

Sabio

 

[blueman]

So what is more logical? Saying because of his impact he must be the son of god... Or saying because he had such an impact he was a great person? I think it is more logical to assume Jesus was just a really famous guy who had alot of myths about him after he died. These myths were compiled into a book and now it is called the bible.

Yeah, the conspiracy theory to create a mythical Jesus that was God incarnate, that's real logical. Do not blame the authors for origin of the claim that Jesus was the Son of God, for Jesus prclaimed it Himself before the Sanhedrin Council when interrogated by the religious leaders (Read Matthew 26:64) before His crucifiction and God Himself after Jesus's baptism (Matthew 3:16,17). By all accounts, Jesus appeared to be more than just a great person and his impact to this day lays claim to that fact, since His ministry was short and sweet and He never really ventured outside of a 100 mile radius from where He was raised throughout His lifetime, with the exception of a trip to Egypt with His earthly parents. There have been many great people all throughout history, none even scratches the surface of the impact of Jesus. He appeared to be more than a great person.

 

[Ryan2065]

Yeah, the conspiracy theory to create a mythical Jesus that was God incarnate, that's real logical. Do not blame the authors for origin of the claim that Jesus was the Son of God, for Jesus prclaimed it Himself before the Sanhedrin Council when interrogated by the religious leaders (Read Matthew 26:64) before His crucifiction and God Himself after Jesus's baptism (Matthew 3:16,17). By all accounts, Jesus appeared to be more than just a great person and his impact to this day lays claim to that fact, since His ministry was short and sweet and He never really ventured outside of a 100 mile radius from where He was raised throughout His lifetime, with the exception of a trip to Egypt with His earthly parents. There have been many great people all throughout history, none even scratches the surface of the impact of Jesus. He appeared to be more than a great person.

So I say the NT could be a collection of myths about Jesus that came about after his death and you say they are not because in the NT Jesus said that he was the son of man... Just doesn't seem like the strongest argument one can make. Please define impact. I would be willing to bet Abraham made a greater impact on the world than Jesus. =) Just to name one...

 

[dan]

You are quite right. Transcriptions and translations have added mistakes to the bible, but there are mistakes in it, that had nothing to do with these later efforts. There are self-contradictions in the bible, that were there from the start.

Like what?

 

[Mister Emu]

They break down Christianity into their own sects, because of that Christianity is not number 1.

Yes if you break it down, but we are all one body of Christ.

To group all the Christians together in a count like this would be like grouping people's nationalities based on "white, black, other"

To break it down, is like grouping race as "American caucasian, German Caucasian, English Caucasian, ect. ect" they are all still caucasian.

 

[Ryan2065]

To break it down, is like grouping race as "American caucasian, German Caucasian, English Caucasian, ect. ect" they are all still caucasian.

But the break down is needed... There are lots of differences between different groups of Christians. If there wern't that many differences between the different groups then each group would have no problem of saying they were another group... My Lutheran friend always wonders if she will burn up when she enters a Catholic church, even though they have the same base belief. =)

 

[Mister Emu]

There are lots of differences between different groups of Christians.

Our core beliefs are the same. We are all one religion. Catholocism is not a seperate religion. Protestantism is not a seperate religion. We may have some doctrinal differences, but the ones who claim we are not the same religion are few and far between.

No matter what the differences are, we are all one universal church of Christ.

 

[Hazel]

I didn't look at the recent posts, but as for the original post...

It will be hard for you to be swayed to believe in the validity of the New testement by this...however Christians (like me) believe that the Holy Spirit talked directly to the men and told them what to write...

On a more practical level, at least practical to your beliefs...

Today experts (both NonChristian and Christian) say that the gospels were passed by word of mouth and then only about 25 years after Christ's death...and ressurection (depending on your belief). The authenticity of Herodotus and Thucydides is never questioned despite the fact that the earliest manuscripts of their works that we used were written 1,300 years after the originals, which were presumably lost/destroyed.

There are many examples like this including The Iliad etc.

There is also the internal evidence in verses like Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, John 19:35, and Luke 3:1 obviously too many to type out at this moment, though I would be more than happy to if there is more interest in this.

 

[Pah]

Our core beliefs are the same. We are all one religion. Catholocism is not a seperate religion. Protestantism is not a seperate religion. We may have some doctrinal differences, but the ones who claim we are not the same religion are few and far between.

No matter what the differences are, we are all one universal church of Christ.

The devil is in the details. It's an old expression but shows that generalizations are not accurate.

Christians you are, but not the Body of Christ. I doubt there is one of the many hundreds of Christian "flavors" that can substantiate that claim and the rest can not if one can. You can not dismember body parts and each claim to be part of the body. You can not remove walls from a house and claim it is a house. A house (the Body of Christ) divided against itself can not stand.

Some of faith can make a strong argument that there has not been a Body of Christ since the Apostles were with Christ. Certianly Paul was not concordant with the very early church. Division is deep within Christianity as evidenced by the Gnostics. There are too many examples in history and even today to make that a serious claim of truth.

 

[Voxton]

Like what?

Was Adam and Eve created at the same time, or Adam first, and Eve from his breastbone?