How can the New Testament be even remotely correct?

[tkdrocks]

Thank goodness Christianity makes no such claims of Dragons!

Dragons - No, Unicorns - Yes.

 

[Ryan2065]

Dragons - No, Unicorns - Yes.

When I was catholic I thought the Unicorn was just a bedtime story about noah's arc... you know, something to make sure the kids trust the crazy guy building the arc and saying the world would be flooded...

 

[Dayv]

hehehe, off subject, but a funny story. Me and a couple others at work got a hold of a book from one of Kent Hovind's seminars (a young-earther, but with some serious problems in the way he addresses issues) and he says that unicorns must have actually been accounts of Triceratops. We all were laughing about that for the rest of the night and it's become an inside joke of ours.
As for what tkdrocks said about other gospels that didn't make the cut, I heard somewhere that there are somewhere around 200 or so actual books that have been found, but obviously not all were used. Basically there was a vote on which ones would be in the final print.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Even the story of Paul Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed are remotely correct.

 

[tkdrocks]

As for what tkdrocks said about other gospels that didn't make the cut, I heard somewhere that there are somewhere around 200 or so actual books that have been found, but obviously not all were used. Basically there was a vote on which ones would be in the final print.

To say that the Canon was picked by a vote is similar to stating that the United States became independent of England by a bunch of guys signing the declaration of Independence. In a similar fashion, there was a lot of politicking going on.

Here is an interesting reference. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html#nt

Here are some tidbits from that reference:

According to Grant: "It should be added that in the writings of most of the Apostolic Fathers and some of the apologists, not to mention Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, there are quotations of sayings of Jesus not preserved in the canonical gospels. Some of the sayings doubtless came from oral tradition; other may well have been preserved in books. The gradual development of the Canon was a process of exclusion and it lasted at least to the fourth century."[103] And again, "The Canon of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process in the course of which the books regarded as authoritative, inspired, and apostolic were selected out of a much larger body of literature. "[104]

The process was not haphazard, but it was tied to theological controversies. "Only when it could be decided that something was really Christian, while something else was not, could Christians come to make definite decisions about the authoritative books. This means that the process was somewhat circular, or at least that the mode of procedure could not be stated with logical precision. One might say 'Bible' and 'Church' grew up together."[105]

Grant, R. M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
[102] Ibid., ch. 4-6.

[103] Grant, CHB, v. 1, p. 296.

[104] Ibid., p. 284.

[105] Grant, CHB, v. 1, p. 299; also Grant, Formation, p. 186.

[106] Grant, CHB, v. 1, p. 285.

And

Diversity of Early Christianity

Bart D. Ehrman provides the following points as summary of his introductory chapter on the New Testament and early Christian writings:

"1. Early Christianity was extremely diverse. It was not the unified monolith that modern people sometimes assume.

"2. This diversity was manifest in a wide range of writings, only some of which have come down to us in the New Testament.

"3. The New Testament canon was formed by proto-orthodox Christians who wanted to show that their views were grounded in the writings of Jesus' own apostles.

"4. Whether these writings actually represent the views of Jesus' own apostles, however, was in some instances debated for decades, even centuries."[107]

 

[tkdrocks]

Even the story of Paul Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed are remotely correct.

Put in that way, I guess you are correct. The New Testament may be remotely correct in passing on the legend of Jesus. I think, however, the spirit of this thread is whether it is accurate as God's holy word.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The word of God can be found in Green eggs and Ham if you look for it there. The word of God can be found in nature. The word of God can be found in others. But also, so can the 'lies' of Satan. It is up to us to separate the S*** from the Shinola.

 

[Ryan2065]

So, in a different thread I explained a story about Jesus and the Fig tree. I thought about posting it here, but I actually wanted to discuss and debate the meaning of it, so I posted it in its own thread. Things were said in that thread that I thought went well for this debate... I hope its ok to switch threads like this, I'm new here =)
I talked about the fig tree story and what I thought it meant, then this was said.

... and you take this as a literal event, why?

My response was this.

Because if even one story of the NT isn't a literal event (and this appears in 2 books) then what do you say is or isn't a literal event? Maybe the resurrection was just a fable for us to grow on. I think you can either say that the NT is 4 guys best attempt at a historical document, or you say it was 4 guys telling fables for us to grown on.

Any thoughts on this? I really don't think its alright to say one story of Jesus' life is not to be taken literally because it makes him look bad while others that make him look, well like the messiah, are to be taken literally...

 

[Scott1]

I really don't think its alright to say one story of Jesus' life is not to be taken literally because it makes him look bad while others that make him look, well like the messiah, are to be taken literally...

I really don't think its alright to say one story of Jesus' life IS to be taken literally because it makes him look "bad" , while others that make him look, well like the messiah, are NOT to be taken literally.

Poor exegesis is poor exegesis, no matter what thread you post on.

 

[Ryan2065]

I really don't think its alright to say one story of Jesus' life IS to be taken literally because it makes him look "bad" , while others that make him look, well like the messiah, are NOT to be taken literally.

But the difference is I am not saying to only believe the good stories about Jesus and dismiss the bad ones as them being parables. You believe that Jesus was resurrected? There is exactly as much proof that he was resurrected as there is proof that he killed this fig tree. You dismiss the idea that he killed the fig tree because it makes him look bad. You accept the idea of him resurrecting because it makes him look like the messiah. I only ask that if you believe one story about Jesus' life, don't dismiss another story for the only reason that it makes Jesus look bad.

 

[Scott1]

But the difference is I am not saying to only believe the good stories about Jesus and dismiss the bad ones as them being parables.

I did no such thing.

You believe that Jesus was resurrected? There is exactly as much proof that he was resurrected as there is proof that he killed this fig tree.

Not even CLOSE to being right... but you've figured everything out for yourself... we're all just trying to "catch up" with your knowledge... right?

Ahhh.. youth.

 

[Ryan2065]

Not even CLOSE to being right... but you've figured everything out for yourself... we're all just trying to "catch up" with your knowledge... right?

So there is more evidence to say that Jesus was resurrected (meaning he came back to life, NOT that he died) than there is evidence that says he killed a fig tree? I thought we only had eye-witness accounts of both of the stories.. Please shed some light on this if I am wrong here.
And you are saying that you do not say some stories of Jesus you say are just parables? Things that he really did not do. I won't argue what you did or did not say...

OK... here's my view: it's a parable.

Well, I'll just quote...

 

[Scott1]

So there is more evidence to say that Jesus was resurrected (meaning he came back to life, NOT that he died) than there is evidence that says he killed a fig tree? I thought we only had eye-witness accounts of both of the stories.. Please shed some light on this if I am wrong here.

... and you'd immediately convert, right? HA.... The Catholic Church was around a few hundred years before the Bible... I guess they just compared the Resurection with a parable from a verse not yet written....:biglaugh:

And you are saying that you do not say some stories of Jesus you say are just parables?

Yes... some things are parables... and some things are stories passed on by the oral and written traditions of the Apostles. It takes a bit more education to be able to understand which is which.

Good luck,
Scott

 

[Ryan2065]

Yes... some things are parables... and some things are stories passed on by the oral and written traditions of the Apostles. It takes a bit more education to be able to understand which is which.

Now I do agree with you that Jesus told many many parables. I don't agree that we are supposed to interpret somethings that the bible literally says he did as just parables and say that he didn't actually do them.

The Catholic Church was around a few hundred years before the Bible

Oh great, so something that was around a few hundred years before the bible was compiled is supposed to tell me what went on in the heads of the bible writers and tell me that they actually meant one passage to be a parable, even though they left no indication of that in the bible?

 

[Scott1]

Now I do agree with you that Jesus told many many parables. I don't agree that we are supposed to interpret somethings that the bible literally says he did as just parables and say that he didn't actually do them.

AGAIN... just because you read something a certain way does not mean that you are any more correct than I am.

Oh great, so something that was around a few hundred years before the bible was compiled is supposed to tell me what went on in the heads of the bible writers and tell me that they actually meant one passage to be a parable, even though they left no indication of that in the bible?

Naaaah.... what the heck good would it do educate yourself?

Or maybe you could take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current......

.... or you could just wing it.:bonk:

Oy vey... I'm done.

 

[Sabio]

The reliability of the Bible can be proved, here is just a taste...

40 Authors, most had no contact with one another
66 Books
Written over a period of 1500 years
Written in 3 different languages
Written in multiple countries
Complete harmony of all major themes and teachings

We routinely place our faith in books of math, science, and history with far less available evidence, and allow their principles to guide our lives.

Why not put your faith in God's Word, the Bible, and partake of the wisdom, knowledge and understanding that God imparts to us?

Sabio

 

[Pah]

The reliability of the Bible can be proved, here is just a taste...

40 Authors, most had no contact with one another
66 Books
Written over a period of 1500 years
Written in 3 different languages
Written in multiple countries
Complete harmony of all major themes and teachings

We routinely place our faith in books of math, science, and history with far less available evidence, and allow their principles to guide our lives.

Why not put your faith in God's Word, the Bible, and partake of the wisdom, knowledge and understanding that God imparts to us?

Sabio

I'm sorry Sabio, but none of that is "proof" of reliability. That you have faith in it is fine but the acceptance of the Bible is done without conclusive evidence.

 

[tkdrocks]

The reliability of the Bible can be proved, here is just a taste...

40 Authors, most had no contact with one another
66 Books
Written over a period of 1500 years
Written in 3 different languages
Written in multiple countries
Complete harmony of all major themes and teachings

We routinely place our faith in books of math, science, and history with far less available evidence, and allow their principles to guide our lives.

Why not put your faith in God's Word, the Bible, and partake of the wisdom, knowledge and understanding that God imparts to us?

Sabio

I was wondering when the generic talking points would pop-up.

Hmmmm. 40 authors with no contact? Could they read each others works? Did they copy from each other?

Complete Harmony? I would say that is quite a stretch.

 

[Sabio]

I was wondering when the generic talking points would pop-up.

Hmmmm. 40 authors with no contact? Could they read each others works? Did they copy from each other?

Complete Harmony? I would say that is quite a stretch.

Thanks for your reply!

Generic talking points, no.

Specific facts, yes.

Subjective questions, why bother?

Lets talk about harmony, how do you define it, and what are the threads of harmony that run through your life? Please give specific examples.

Sabio

 

[tkdrocks]

I have no problem discussing these items, however, this topic is about the New Testament. Your scope has gone beyond that. I would suggest creating another topic about the Harmony of the Bible.