How can the New Testament be even remotely correct?

[Lloyd]

The Gospels shouldn't be treated as histories because there's no reason to believe that was their intention. Sure, we don't positively know the intentions of the evangelists but most reasonable and informed people would agree that the purpose of the Gospels was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It was about the message and how the message was exemplified in the messenger. The Gospels can be read as historical texts but I think that to read them in such a way is to distort their intended purpose. From our perspective we may view the Gospels as historically flawed, but that wasn't the interest of the evangelists. They were on a spiritual mission, not an academic one.

 

[pandamonk]

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.

Yes, but the thing is, saying "my wife is beautiful" does not rule out that "My Wife's beauty could stop time." But firstly saying that Judas had "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" and secondly which had "Judas repent bitterly, throw the money back, and go hang himself."is a contradiction. Although he did die in both, there is still a major inconsistency in the way he died, which means both cannot be correct, which means there is a mistake in the bible, and seeing as no one in this forum witnessed it, no one in this forum knows which is true and which is false. This is the same with all other stories. So, seeing as we already know one is false, how can we accept any of them as true?

 

[pandamonk]

The Gospels shouldn't be treated as histories because there's no reason to believe that was their intention. Sure, we don't positively know the intentions of the evangelists but most reasonable and informed people would agree that the purpose of the Gospels was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It was about the message and how the message was exemplified in the messenger. The Gospels can be read as historical texts but I think that to read them in such a way is to distort their intended purpose. From our perspective we may view the Gospels as historically flawed, but that wasn't the interest of the evangelists. They were on a spiritual mission, not an academic one.

But to accept this, is to accept that the book of the Christian religion is(or may be) flawed, and, therefore, that the Christian religion is(or may be) flawed. And that may be, i feel, is enough to discard it.

 

[pandamonk]

Anyway I'm off to bed now, night night.

 

[jeffrey]

Yes, but the thing is, saying "my wife is beautiful" does not rule out that "My Wife's beauty could stop time." But firstly saying that Judas had "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" and secondly which had "Judas repent bitterly, throw the money back, and go hang himself."is a contradiction. Although he did die in both, there is still a major inconsistency in the way he died, which means both cannot be correct, which means there is a mistake in the bible, and seeing as no one in this forum witnessed it, no one in this forum knows which is true and which is false. This is the same with all other stories. So, seeing as we already know one is false, how can we accept any of them as true?

Like I said, your trying to find fault without finding the meaning.

 

[jeffrey]

I remember reading back in school about the Civil War in the U.S. I remember reading slight variations in the eye witness accounts. So by using your logic, I guess the Civil War never took place, right?

 

[Voxton]

... 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...

If you knew the first thing about bible translations, (and, that is, the bible) you would realize how horribly inappropriate it is to use a euphemism in your example... The KJV uses the phrase "those who pisseth upon the wall" for "men" and no one's using this as an example of inconsistencies in the bible. This is just missing the point entirely.

I remember reading back in school about the Civil War in the U.S. I remember reading slight variations in the eye witness accounts. So by using your logic, I guess the Civil War never took place, right?

Accounts of the civil war are not claimed by anyone as a holy book, written under divine inspiration. Bit of a difference there.

The bible is claimed to be a holy book, written through divine inspiration -- most Christians agree that this inspiration does not apply to the translations (although there are exceptions to this, in particular amongst the King James-Only movement), but they claim the book to be inspired by God. If this was the case, ergo facto, it'd be infallible, just like God. It' would have no contradictions or mistakes.

Since it does, we should be able to conclude that it isn't a holy book inspired by God.

This is an important, logical step for any Christian to take. I strongly doubt that this will set you on the road to atheism, but at the very least, it will set you free of making the sort of horrible mistakes that Christians do, when they rely on the bible to guide them in their life. The bible isn't an evil, or nasty thing. There are many good things about the bible. It can provide support and comfort -- and it can give you good guidance in life. But you have to realize that for all these positive things about the book, it is flawed.

People who regard the book as the infallible word of God use the bible to justify misogyny and hatred of just about any group of people: gays, people of different faiths, etc. The book has been used to justify slavery, crusades, murder, witch-hunts, and just about every deranged act known to man.

This is why it is important to recognize that however good the Good Book is, it is also flawed.

 

[Scott1]

People who regard the book as the infallible word of God use the bible to justify misogyny and hatred of just about any group of people: gays, people of different faiths, etc. The book has been used to justify slavery, crusades, murder, witch-hunts, and just about every deranged act known to man.

This is why it is important to recognize that however good the Good Book is, it is also flawed.

Very well said opinion.... I wish more Christians would understand and follow this way of thinking.

 

[jeffrey]

Voxton, I'll repeat again. inspired does not mean written.

 

[Scott1]

Voxton, I'll repeat again. inspired does not mean written.

Maybe I missed something in an earlier post... but are you saying that God did not write the Bible?

 

[jeffrey]

Maybe I missed something in an earlier post... but are you saying that God did not write the Bible?

God did not write the Bible, man did, INSPIRED by God. It is the word of God, written by men.

 

[Scott1]

God did not write the Bible, man did, INSPIRED by God. It is the word of God, written by men.

... right, but God is the primary author of Scripture, correct?

 

[jeffrey]

... right, but God is the primary author of Scripture, correct?

No. Scott, God did not write the Bible. God filled certain people with the Holy Spirit, which told people what God had spoken to them. In the OT, this was passed down by word of mouth for centuries before they where actually wrote down. When the Pope delivers a message he might have recieved from God, it's the Pope talking, inspired by God.

 

[Scott1]

No. Scott, God did not write the Bible. God filled certain people with the Holy Spirit, which told people what God had spoken to them.

You seem confused, my friend.... if God filled men with the Holy Spirit (who is God) and told them what to write... God wrote the Bible. Just because he used men to do it is not what I'm talking about... the Bible is truly the word of God.

When the Pope delivers a message he might have recieved from God, it's the Pope talking, inspired by God.

No, that's quite a different thing.... the Church (Pope included) may not add or subtract from the deposit of faith of which the Sacred Scriptures are a part of.... the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, but it does not reveal anything new. I hope you understand the difference.

 

[jeffrey]

We'll just have to differ on this one.

 

[Scott1]

We'll just have to differ on this one.

I don't mind when you and I differ... but you should be concerned that you are going against a teaching of the Church.:tsk:

 

[jeffrey]

I don't mind when you and I differ... but you should be concerned that you are going against a teaching of the Church.:tsk:

I'll Disagree with you on that one too. The part I talked about where the stories where passed down by word of mouth came from one of the Brothers who is teaching myself and my wife Catholic beliefs.

 

[tkdrocks]

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.

See, that is where the problem lies. There are no facts to present, only ancient texts. This is the problem that I have with revealed religion as a whole. I am suppossed to believe based upon someone else's experience.

To borrow from a Carl Sagan analogy: If I told you that I had an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage. Would you believe me? Would you want to measure the heat of his breath? I could say it was a spiritual fire that generated no physical heat. In fact this dragon does not register on the physical realm at all. Am I lying or do you not have the faith to see my dragon?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Thank goodness Christianity makes no such claims of Dragons!

 

[tkdrocks]

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

That depends. If one is a Bible Literalist, then disproving the Bible would be equivalent to disproving the Christian God as it would demonstrate that the properties that make up Jehovah God are not, in fact true. However, if one is more of a traditionalist concerning the Bible, then they are not expecting perfection from his word.

To stay on point, I am not really interested in disproving anything. I am just saying that given the major discrepencies between the gospels, I would not personally trust it as historical fact.
There are also many other things that we have not discussed here.
For example, there was evidently some large contraversies in the early church as to which gospels would be cannonized. Much of that had to do with competing doctrines. Also, the earliest versions of Mark did not have the resurrection (it appears to have been added later).

Man this is a broad subject.

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

Can you possibly give some examples?