How can the New Testament be even remotely correct?

[Ryan2065]

I put words in your mouth? Are you referring to this?

So you are saying most historians believe that the bible is a historical document?

And that comment was in reference to this comment...

My point is that most historians would not agree with you.

I could follow the line of quotes down, but eventually it ends at this statement...

Most historians also believe the bible to be inaccurate and likely written decades if not centuries later (by analyzing dialect and language)

Now I won't put any words in your mouth.... here is exactly what you said.

Ryan2065, Please don't put words in my mouth, or assume something I never said. Proof of God?

Now I'm guessing that you were referring to where I ASKED if you thought that most historians thought the bible was a historical document? And then I went on to say that I can't believe many historians would believe the creation story to be accurate... Whats up with these other posts? Saying that I asked to offer proof of god? No, I'm asking you to offer proof of exactly what you said. Who's putting words in who's mouth? Please do quote exactly where I asked for proof of god.

 

[blueman]

Even the most superficial glance at the bible gives you a clue that something is amiss.

What were Jesus' last words before he died? Now remember, he is the main dude in this religion -- if your records are even REMOTELY accurate, you'd expect that they'd make a note of what his dying words were, right?

Well, Matthew and Mark agrees -- they have it as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34). But the other two have completely different lines: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 25:46) and "It is finished!" (John 19:30).

Now, it isn't just that they don't agree on such a basic thing -- the first phrase is one of despair -- the guy thinks his almighty father has given up on him... The other two basically says, "Okay, it's done, I'm ready" -- whereas the other one means "Help! Can I get a hand here, please?"

Who discovered the empty tomb? Who did Jesus first reveal himself to, after his resurrection? They don't agree on those points either...

If you've got a couple of witnesses, and their stories match anywhere as poorly as this, hey, you're not gonna trust them -- if you have even a vaguely rational and objective mindset...

No wonder church leaders resisted having the bible translated into common languages for so long -- they thought people would lose their faith if they saw this stuff. Luckily for the churches -- and sadly for humanity -- people just aren't all that rational. If they really, really want to believe, it takes an awful lot to convince them otherwise...

The points you make are rather irrelevent when it comes to the context of those scriptures. It wasn't the intent of the authors to write verbatim quotes of reference regarding Christ's life, death and resurrection as opposed to emphasizing the factual accounts of what actually occurred. Your argument would have had more weight if Matthew had Him cruxified on the cross, Mark had Him stoned to death and John and Luke had Him beheaded by Herod. But the consistency of the message is what is key in the synoptic gospels. (1) He lived, (2) He died and (3) He rose again and ascended into heaven. Why? For man's salvation and redemption. Let me know after you've read all four gospels, if there is inconsistency in regards to those 3 points I raised above.

 

[jeffrey]

1st place, Voxton, please trying reading the Gospels before so blantantly misquoting them. Edit: Blueman, beat me to it. Excellent Points!

 

[pandamonk]

The points you make are rather irrelevent when it comes to the context of those scriptures. It wasn't the intent of the authors to write verbatim quotes of reference regarding Christ's life, death and resurrection as opposed to emphasizing the factual accounts of what actually occurred. Your argument would have had more weight if Matthew had Him cruxified on the cross, Mark had Him stoned to death and John and Luke had Him beheaded by Herod. But the consistency of the message is what is key in the synoptic gospels. (1) He lived, (2) He died and (3) He rose again and ascended into heaven. Why? For man's salvation and redemption. Let me know after you've read all four gospels, if there is inconsistency in regards to those 3 points I raised above.

So you're admitting there are inconsistencies in the bible, but say it doesn't matter because some parts are similar? So in saying this you're saying the bible has mistakes? But as it is so long since Jesus' life we do not know which parts are right and which are wrong, so how can we accept any of it to be true? and you're (3) is wrong, not every Gospel mentions this. Look back a few pages to see if you do not believe me

 

[jeffrey]

So you're admitting there are inconsistencies in the bible, but say it doesn't matter because some parts are similar? So in saying this you're saying the bible has mistakes? But as it is so long since Jesus' life we do not know which parts are right and which are wrong, so how can we accept any of it to be true? and you're (3) is wrong, not every Gospel mentions this. Look back a few pages to see if you do not believe me

With all due respect, your questions have already been answered a half dozen times by a number of people.

 

[Quiddity]

I think many people believe that the Bible was dictated by God to the human writer like Muslims think of the Qur'an, but that is not the case. Scripture is inspired by God, not dictated. There is a difference. God and the human author both have a hand in what was written. The skills and human faculities of the author are taken into consideration. This is why it is the themes and lessons and concepts that are important to extract from Scripture, not the fine details of how many days it took to create the earth. This could be why many see errors. They misunderstand it. It takes both your efforts and God's grace to come to understand the things of God.

The Least in Christ
~Victor

 

[Dayv]

here we go again, everytime I have this sort of argument it eventualy gets down to someone saying 'the bible was inspired by god.' Of everything you have said that has the least credability. How do you personally know that the bible was inspired by god? How can you possibly know this? I'm not even going to be hypotheyical with this, I'm just going to say it with as much sense as the bible. Everything I write from here on out is inspired by god! All my poetry, the short stories and novel I am working on, all my college work and each and every post I write on this forum. God just talked to me now, he said he's going to lead me through it from here so you might as well just take everything I say as scripture. No point in arguing anymore, god's right here telling me everything.
No? Doesn't work for ya? But you can't anymore prove god is talking to me than he inspired the writers of the bible.

 

[Quiddity]

How do you personally know that the bible was inspired by god? How can you possibly know this?

Personally I don't know. I can only reason to much of it, after that, faith kicks in. How can you possibly know that he didn't?

No? Doesn't work for ya? But you can't anymore prove god is talking to me than he inspired the writers of the bible.

I can't disprove you no more then I can't disprove my belief. Although, as catholics we believe public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. So I am not bound to what you say even if God did talk to you.

~Victor

 

[tkdrocks]

I guess that is the bottom line of this discussion. You will believe the New Testament is correct if you want to. No matter what facts are or are not presented, if you want to believe it, you will and call that faith.

Victor, why do you believe that public revelation ended with the last apostle? Is that written somewhere or a tradition? I am really curious and not trying to be sarcastic.

 

[Quiddity]

No matter what facts are or are not presented, if you want to believe it, you will and call that faith.

Facts to disprove the Bible? Or to disprove God exist?

Victor, why do you believe that public revelation ended with the last apostle? Is that written somewhere or a tradition? I am really curious and not trying to be sarcastic.

Oral Tradition. Although you can implicitly extract it from the Bible itself.

 

[Scott1]

I guess that is the bottom line of this discussion. You will believe the New Testament is correct if you want to. No matter what facts are or are not presented, if you want to believe it, you will and call that faith.

Just remember that it works both ways.... YOU will not believe the NT is correct if you want to. No matter what facts are or are not presented, if you don't want to believe it, you won't and call that reason/logic/intelligence/whatever.

 

[pandamonk]

With all due respect, your questions have already been answered a half dozen times by a number of people.

I would not need to ask if i felt they were answered. Please re-answer them/quote me the answers.

 

[Voxton]

...Your argument would have had more weight if Matthew had Him cruxified on the cross, Mark had Him stoned to death and John and Luke had Him beheaded by Herod. ...

If this had been the case, your argument would have been that this was irrelevant, but that my argument would have had more weight if (something else). And on, and so forth it goes...

Or to address your point -- lets take Judas, the guy who betrayed him. I'd say his fate would be just about as an important thing, as how Jesus died.

According to one of the gospel writers, he used his ill-gotten gains to buy a field, but then he fell down on that very field, and his body burst open, and he died. Another has Judas repent bitterly, throw the money back, and go hang himself.

This isn't just a glaring discrepancy between the actual events surrounding his death -- there's an extremely important difference between the two accounts, seeing that one has him showing remorse, whereas the other doesn't.

The discrepancy of Judas' death is kinda funny, because of the way Christians try to explain it away: That Judas did hang himself, but the rope snapped so he fell to the ground, where his body burst open -- but one gospel didn't bother mentioning the hanging part, whereas the other did, but just didn't think it imporant to mention the rope breaking, or the falling down and bursting open parts... Yeah, m'kay...

 

[blueman]

So you're admitting there are inconsistencies in the bible, but say it doesn't matter because some parts are similar? So in saying this you're saying the bible has mistakes? But as it is so long since Jesus' life we do not know which parts are right and which are wrong, so how can we accept any of it to be true? and you're (3) is wrong, not every Gospel mentions this. Look back a few pages to see if you do not believe me

You know what? You have a real talent of putting words in people's mouths. I never said or acknowledge there were inconsitencies in the New Testament. What I said was that it was not the intent of the author to chronological quote references verbatim to the other authors regarding the ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It was more important to them and those to whom they were writing to, to emphasize the attributes of Christ. For example, Matthew's primary audience was the Jews, and he wanted to reinforce to them that Christ was the promised Messiah as foretold by the prophets and there was a lot of focus on the lineage, along with other major accounts during His ministry. Mark wanted to show his readers thar Christ was also a servant, an advocate for the neglected and scorned by the wealthy and religious elite of that time. Dr. Luke wanted emphasize the sinless man that was born of a virgin and remained spotless throughout His life and John articulated the "God in the flesh" attribute and focused more on His diety. The purpose was to relay the various attributes of Jesus Christ, the Lord, the living Son of the Almighty God. Take time the read the books of the synoptic New Testament Gospels, and if you are looking at it with an objective eye, you will see these attributes reign true. At the end of the day, you will also see the consistency in terms of the purpose of Christ's time on earth: (1) He lived and minister, (2) He was rejected, chastised and cruxified and (3) He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. When you take time to read the books of the New Testament Gospels, let me know if those facts ring a bell with you.

 

[pandamonk]

Facts to disprove the Bible?

Well I see point out huge mistakes in the bible as disproving it. Obviously we cannot prove that every event did not happen, that every small part is false(because some parts must be true). But in showing there are mistakes, is that not disproving it(showing it is wrong, in some way)? And seeing as no one was around to witness it, how can anyone decide which parts are true and which parts aren't, without historical/scientific evidence(which there must obviously be some. But with this some it does not mean the whole thing is true)

 

[blueman]

Well I see point out huge mistakes in the bible as disproving it. Obviously we cannot prove that every event did not happen, that every small part is false(because some parts must be true). But in showing there are mistakes, is that not disproving it(showing it is wrong, in some way)? And seeing as no one was around to witness it, how can anyone decide which parts are true and which parts aren't, without historical/scientific evidence(which there must obviously be some. But with this some it does not mean the whole thing is true)

There were people around to witness it. the unfortunate thing is, their all dead. It's nothing wrong with questioning it's validity, but historians, so-called theologians and acamedicians were reaching for straws attempting to characterize it as a fable or a myth, some 1700-2000 years later after the events in question ocurred. It then becomes a purely speculative theory at best.

 

[jeffrey]

I would not need to ask if i felt they were answered. Please re-answer them/quote me the answers.

I'm posting with a PDA APP, so I cannot copy and paste. So I'll just touch on one. Someone else wishes to, please do. Inconsistencies in the wording, yes. But not in the idea that has been conveyed. Example. I could say I think my wife is beautiful. Someone else could say I said "My Wife's beauty could stop time." Basically the same thing. But someone, like yourself, that was trying to find fault with what was said could say "He just said his wife's face could stop a clock. You have 4 people that wrote what they saw, or heard from someone they where close to, what they saw. Words to describe what was witnessed will not be exactly the same. But the message will be the same. Unless of course, you are looking for faults, instead of the meaning.

 

[Scott1]

Nice job blueman and jgallant!! Very well said.

 

[pandamonk]

You know what? You have a real talent of putting words in people's mouths.

Thanks

I never said or acknowledge there were inconsitencies in the New Testament.

Yet someone has shown the inconsistencies, or did you just decide to miss that bit?

What I said was that it was not the intent of the author to chronological quote references verbatim to the other authors regarding the ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It was more important to them and those to whom they were writing to, to emphasize the attributes of Christ. For example, Matthew's primary audience was the Jews, and he wanted to reinforce to them that Christ was the promised Messiah as foretold by the prophets and there was a lot of focus on the lineage, along with other major accounts during His ministry. Mark wanted to show his readers thar Christ was also a servant, an advocate for the neglected and scorned by the wealthy and religious elite of that time. Dr. Luke wanted emphasize the sinless man that was born of a virgin and remained spotless throughout His life and John articulated the "God in the flesh" attribute and focused more on His diety.

I do know all this and don't doubt it. But the inconsistencies that were mentioned were not(all anyway)where bits were written in some but not in others, the inconsistencies were that in one it says such and such happened and in the other it said that some thing else happened, when they cannot both be true

The purpose was to relay the various attributes of Jesus Christ, the Lord, the living Son of the Almighty God. Take time the read the books of the synoptic New Testament Gospels, and if you are looking at it with an objective eye, you will see these attributes reign true.

I have taken the time and read"the books of the synoptic New Testament Gospels", and to be honest, it was a great waste of time.

At the end of the day, you will also see the consistency in terms of the purpose of Christ's time on earth: (1) He lived and minister, (2) He was rejected, chastised and cruxified and (3) He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. When you take time to read the books of the New Testament Gospels, let me know if those facts ring a bell with you.

At the end of the day, the very long day in fact lol, I did not "also see the consistency in terms of the purpose of Christ's time on earth", i did though see more and more inconsistencies. I do not doubt (1) and (2) but (3) is a no no. I, like i have said before in another debate(i think), have seen a video that shows this should not be accepted as true. I unfortunately saw it a while ago and lent it to a friend who i think has lost it. As soon as i get it back, if i get it back, i will post some of what is says.:jam:

 

[Quiddity]

That's a good example jgallant...nice job.

Victor