• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can the New Testament be even remotely correct?

Sabio

Active Member
tkdrocks said:
The prophecies mentioned are about as clear as Nostradamus. Would you give him the same credit? In other words, they can be very loosely interpreted.


I think this could be topic by itself. I have read very little, but it seems that Josephus was involved in the politics of the time and his works may have been edited after the fact. I have not done the research and do not claim to be an expert. This is just my impression after doing some reading.


I think that we have already established that these were NOT eyewitness accounts (none of them). To state otherwise would be to ignore what has already been posted. In the future, please read previous postings before posting dogmatic talking points.

People die for religious beliefs all the time. Buhdists are still being martyred every day in Tibet. Does that make their belief more valid?


I will go along with Pah on this one: Legend.
I do not see where you or anyone else has "established" that the Gospels written by the Apolstles were not eyewitness accounts. Your statment is without merit. Show me the evidence that disproves? Where is your backup data?

Sabio
 

blueman

God's Warrior
tkdrocks said:
The prophecies mentioned are about as clear as Nostradamus. Would you give him the same credit? In other words, they can be very loosely interpreted.


I think this could be topic by itself. I have read very little, but it seems that Josephus was involved in the politics of the time and his works may have been edited after the fact. I have not done the research and do not claim to be an expert. This is just my impression after doing some reading.


I think that we have already established that these were NOT eyewitness accounts (none of them). To state otherwise would be to ignore what has already been posted. In the future, please read previous postings before posting dogmatic talking points.

People die for religious beliefs all the time. Buhdists are still being martyred every day in Tibet. Does that make their belief more valid?


I will go along with Pah on this one: Legend.
Who wrote the Book of Matthew? Was it Matthew, the former tax collector who walked with Jesus during his 3 1/2 year ministry? who wrote the Book of John? Was it John, one of Jesus's 12 Disciples? John Mark, who wrote the Book of Mark and whose mother's house was a meeting place of many saints, including, Peter, one Jesus' Disciples. Dr. Luke, who wrote the Book of Luke and Acts, had access to Peter and John and other eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. If this was a hoax, which some people believe, it's one of the greatest of all time. :)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
out of interest:- Flavius Josephus



Jewish historian, born A.D. 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101. He belonged to a distinguished priestly family, whose paternal ancestors he himself traces back five generations; his mother's family claimed descent from the Machabeans. He received a good education, and association with distinguished scholars developed his intellectual gifts, more especially his memory and power of judgment. He also made himself fully acquainted with and tried the leading politico-religious Jewish parties of his age -- the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.

Impressed by the outward importance of the Pharisees and hoping to secure through them a position of influence, he attached himself to their party at the age of nineteen, although he shared neither their religious nor political views. He went to Rome in the year 64 with the object of procuring from Nero the release of some imprisoned Jewish priests, who were friends of his. He succeeded in winning the favour of Poppæa Sabina, the emperor's consort, and through her influence gained his cause. But he was dazzled by the brilliant court life in the metropolis of the world, that he became ever more estranged from the spirit of strict Judaism, considering its struggle against paganism as useless. After his return to Jerusalem, the great Jewish revolt broke out in the year 66. Like most of the aristocratic Jews, Josephus at first discountenanced the rebellion of his countrymen, goaded into activity by their enslaved condition and outraged religious sentiments; when, however, fortune seemed to favour the insurgents, Josephus like the rest of the priestly nobility joined them, and was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were recruited from those who shared his political views. He guided the diplomatic negotiations as well as the military enterprises with prudence and astuteness. In the beginning the Jews were successful, but later when the Roman General Vespasian advanced with the main army from Antioch to Galilee, burning and murdering, the insurgents either fled or sought shelter in their fortresses. For six weeks Josephus and the boldest spirits among the insurgents defended themselves in the almost impregnable fortress of Jotapata. In the summer of 67, the garrison being now exhausted from lack of water and other necessaries, the Romans stormed the citadel; most of the patriots were put to the sword, but Josephus escaped the massacre by hiding in an inaccessible cistern, and emerged only after receiving an assurance that his life would be spared. Brought before the victorious general, he sought with great shrewness to ingratiate himself with Vespasian, foretelling his elevation, as well as that of his son Titus, to the imperial dignity. Vespasian, however, kept him as a prisoner, and it was only in the year 69, after he had actually become emperor, that he restored to Josephus his liberty.

As a freedman of Vespasian, Josephus assumed in accordance with the Roman custom the former's family name of Flavianus. He accompanied the emperor as far as Egypt, when the latter had handled over to his son the prosecution of the Jewish War, but then joined the retinue of Titus, and was an eyewitness of the destruction of the Holy City and her Temple. At his personal risk he had tried to persuade the Jews to surrender. After the fall of the city he went to Rome with Titus, and took part in the latter's triumph. But these scenes did not trouble Josphus's sense of national honour; on the contrary, he accepted the privilege of Roman citizenship in recognition of his services, and was granted a yearly stipend and also lands in Judea. The succeeding emperors, Titus and his cruel brother Domitian, also showed themselves kindly disposed towards Josephus, and conferred on him many marks of distinction. At court he was allowed to devote himself unmolested to his literary work until his death, which occurred in the reign of Trajan (probably in 101). In his life, as in his writings, he pursued a policy midway between Jewish and pagan culture, for which he was accused by his Jewish countrymen of being unprincipled and hypocritical. His works were written in elegant Greek, to influence the educated class of his time, and free them from various prejudices against Judaism.

The first work of Josephus was the "Jewish War" (Peri tou Ioudaikou polemou) in seven books. This is mainly based on his memoranda made during the war of independence (66-73), on the memoirs of Vespasian, and on letters of King Agrippa. While his story of warlike events is reliable, the account of his own doings is strongly tinctured with foolish self-adulation. This work furnishes the historical background for numerous historical romances, among those of modern times "Lucius Flavius" by J. Spillmann, S.J., and "The End of Juda" by Anton de Waal.

 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Pt 2
Josephus's second work, the "Jewish Antiquities" (Ioudaike Archaiologia), contains in twenty books the whole history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the revolt in A.D. 66. Books I-XI are based on the text of the Septuagint, though at times he also repeats traditional explanations current among the Jews in later times. He also quotes numerous passages from Greek authors whose writings are now lost. On the other hand he made allowance for the tastes of his Gentile contemporaries by arbitrary omissions as well as by the free embellishment of certain scenes. Books XII-XX, in which he speaks of the times preceding the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity, are our only sources for many historical events. In these the value of the statements is enhanced by the insertion of dates which are otherwise wanting, and by the citation of authentic documents which confirm and supplement the Biblical narrative. The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:
About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.​

Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations. The fact that the "Antiquities" testifies to the truth of Divine Revelation among the Jews as among the Christians, and confirms the historical facts related in the Bible by the incontrovertible testimony of pagan authors, renders this work of Josephus of extreme value for the history of the chosen people. The accounts which he gives of the rise and mutual relations of the different Jewish sects, which are so important in the history and sufferings of the Saviour; his information regarding the corruption of the ancient Jewish customs and institutions; his statement concerning the internal conflicts of the Jews, and lastly his account of the last war with the Romans, which put an end to the national independence of the Jews, are of prime importance as historical sources.

In his "Autobiography" (phlaouiou Iosepou bios), written A.D. 90, Josephus seeks, not without attempts at self-glorification, to justify his position at the beginning of the Jewish rising. In plan and language the book is probably influenced by the writings of Nicholas of Damascus, which Josephus had also used in the "Antiquities". His work entitled "Against Apion" (Kata Apionos), divided in two books, is a defence of the great antiquity of the Jews and a refutation of the charges which had been brought against them by the grammarian Apion of Alexandria on the occasion of an embassy to the Emperor Caligula.

The early Christians were zealous readers of Josephus's "History of the Jews", and the Fathers of the Church, such as Jerome and Ambrose, as well as the early ecclesiastical historians like Eusebius, are fond of quoting him in their works. St. Chrysostom calls him a useful expounder of the historical books of the Old Testament. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin at an early date. After the art of printing had been discovered, they were circulated in all languages. The first German translation was edited by the Strasburg Reformer Kaspar Hedio, in 1531, and a French translation was issued by Burgoing in Lyons in 1558. Among the best-known translations in English is that by Whiston (London, 1737), revised by Shilleto (5 vols., London, 1888-9). In the middle of the nineteenth century the interest in the "Jewish Antiquities" was revived by a translation which the Society of St. Charles Borromeo induced Professor Konrad Martin, afterwards Bishop of Paderborn, to undertake in collaboration with Franz Kaulen (1st ed., Cologne, 1852-3; 2nd and 3rd ed. by Kaulen, 1883 and 1892). The test of Josephus's works has been published by Dindorf in Greek and Latin (2 vols., Paris, 1845-47) and Bekker (6 vols., Leipzig, 1855-6). There are critical editions by Naber, (Leipzig, 1888-96) and Niese (7 vols., Berlin, 1887-95; text only, 6 vols., Berlin, 1888-95). [size=-2]Consult SCHÜRER in Realencycl. für prot. Theol., s. v.; MÜLLER, Christus bei Flavius Josephus; EDERSHEIM in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. For fuller bibliography see SCHÜRER, Gesch. des jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1901), 98-106.[/size] KARL HOEBER
Transcribed by Stephen W. Shackelford
In Memory of my father, Carl W. Shackelford

Source:- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm:)
 

Sabio

Active Member
Pah said:
I agree that there is wisdom and a guide to personal life contained in the Bible. But, as in any other work, I reserve the intellectual right to bring forth critisism
Yes, you do have a right to bring forth criticism, I recognize that.

If you want to read the NT because it contains "wisdom", that is admirable and I encourage you to go deeper.

Sabio
 

tkdrocks

Mellowing with Age
blueman said:
Who wrote the Book of Matthew? Was it Matthew, the former tax collector who walked with Jesus during his 3 1/2 year ministry? who wrote the Book of John? Was it John, one of Jesus's 12 Disciples? John Mark, who wrote the Book of Mark and whose mother's house was a meeting place of many saints, including, Peter, one Jesus' Disciples. Dr. Luke, who wrote the Book of Luke and Acts, had access to Peter and John and other eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. If this was a hoax, which some people believe, it's one of the greatest of all time. :)
Blueman, I had to check back, but you have been following this topic from the beginning. The very premise of this topic is how the NT could be accurate after SO MANY years it was written after the events. While it is true that the Gospels bear the name of potential eyewitness, it is more accurate to state that it was oral tradition carried on for years prior to being put into written words.

Was it a hoax, probably not. More likely a legend that grew over time. However, it is not impossible for it to be a hoax. How much effort has been done to create fake Big Foot tracks and sightings? Humanity is capable of creating and being fooled by such things.

To my example earlier: I had access to eyewitness accounts of the Korean War, can I write an eyewitness account?
 

tkdrocks

Mellowing with Age
Sabio said:
I do not see where you or anyone else has "established" that the Gospels written by the Apolstles were not eyewitness accounts. Your statment is without merit. Show me the evidence that disproves? Where is your backup data?

Sabio
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html

Here is one of many. A simple Google search will yield a multitude of such links. This is like asking me to provide references to prove that energy = mass times the speed of light squared. There is soooooooooooooo much documentation, that it no longer needs to be brought up in a debate.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Sabio said:
You are misinformed here.

The Apostles wrote their eyewitness testimonies in the four Gospels of Mathew , Mark, Luke, John, as well as other writings througout the NT. These have all stood the test of time and converted millions to Christianity during the lsat 2 thousand years.
The test of time is due to ignorance.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status
There is more in the series.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ gives a list of Early Church writings in the time frame of when they were written, Links are also provided to further information. You can chase some of ignorance by reading.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
Mark, not an apostle himself, was an associate of the apostle Paul for a short time, but the gospel bearing his name is (to some minds) based on the preaching of Peter. It's generally assumed to have been the first gospel written, coming in right before Matthew at about 65 AD.

The author of Matthew is traditionally held to be the tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, sometimes referred to as Levi. However, Matthew borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. It's hard to believe someone who was in close contact with Jesus would have had to rely on secondary sources. Since this gospel has the most quotations from the Old Testament, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to try to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it's assumed that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. There is suspicion that it might have been originally written in Hebrew, although only Greek texts have ever been found. Scholars differ on the composition date, but most agree on roughly 65 - 70 AD with a few placing at as late as 100 - 134 AD.

The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are assumed to have been written by the same person, since they are addressed to the same individual, a Roman named Theophilus. The author was a doctor, Paul notes in Colossians 4:14. If Mark represents the teachings of Peter about Jesus, Luke most likely represents the teachings of Paul. Luke claims to have researched his material, but his dating, especially in the early chapters regarding Jesus' birth, is inconsistent with other sources.

The book of Acts can be seen as a sequel to the gospel of Luke, starting where the previous book ends. But where in the earlier work Luke needed to research the story, in Acts he is a character in it. He was a companion of Paul on his missionary journeys and was present during his imprisonment. In this sense, Luke had more first-hand experience of Paul than he had of Jesus. Both books were probably written after Matthew and Mark, probably around 65-70 AD but before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The Gospel of John differs markedly from the other three books both in tone and in some historical details. John does not follow the timeline in the other three and adds quite a few stories and details not found in them. For this reason, it's thought that John's gospel was not a child of Q, but a completely original work either by someone who knew Jesus directly or by one of his associates. The three letters of John found near the end of the New Testament are generally assumed to have been written by this same individual.

The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.

Sabio said:
Here are some of the Prophecies Jesus fulfilled for you to study and respond to:
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm

You have not given any backup data to support your claims, please provide for examination.

Sabio
:biglaugh: Most of the first page are not even prophecies. - You'll have to find a source that doesn't bend the Bible to "what sounds good".
 

Pah

Uber all member
jgallandt said:
Pah, you have the right to burn the Bible if you wish. No one in this forum is going to convince you that God exists, just as no one in this forum will convince myself that God does not exist. And if you are right and he does not exist, when we die, that's the end of it, and no one will be able to gloat. But if I am right and God does exist, ...... Wait a minute. I'm a Christian and still will not be able to gloat! UGH! :D
I offer a bit of peace, a validation of what the bible contains and then this????
 

Sabio

Active Member
tkdrocks said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html

Here is one of many. A simple Google search will yield a multitude of such links. This is like asking me to provide references to prove that energy = mass times the speed of light squared. There is soooooooooooooo much documentation, that it no longer needs to be brought up in a debate.
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
 

Pah

Uber all member
Sabio said:
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
I don't think you should compare your opinions to those of scholars
 

blueman

God's Warrior
tkdrocks said:
Blueman, I had to check back, but you have been following this topic from the beginning. The very premise of this topic is how the NT could be accurate after SO MANY years it was written after the events. While it is true that the Gospels bear the name of potential eyewitness, it is more accurate to state that it was oral tradition carried on for years prior to being put into written words.

Was it a hoax, probably not. More likely a legend that grew over time. However, it is not impossible for it to be a hoax. How much effort has been done to create fake Big Foot tracks and sightings? Humanity is capable of creating and being fooled by such things.

To my example earlier: I had access to eyewitness accounts of the Korean War, can I write an eyewitness account?
If you look at the majority of my posts on this issue, I have emphasized time and time again, the overarching message of the NT Gospels and if you want to question the validity of the sources, that's fine and well within your right. But the overarching message presents no ambiguity and does not contradict itself. If it was a hoax, it is a pretty elaborate one and would more than likely have no staying power in the lives of people. As I've stated before, look at the impact of the short ministry of Jesus (3 1/2 years) and how it has had an indellible impact on the scholastic, humanitarian, political, literary and the arts (music, theater and art) than any other historical figure known to man. I have yet to see a logical explanation as of yet in that regard. :)
 

Sabio

Active Member
Pah said:
The test of time is due to ignorance.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
There is more in the series.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ gives a list of Early Church writings in the time frame of when they were written, Links are also provided to further information. You can chase some of ignorance by reading.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html



:biglaugh: Most of the first page are not even prophecies. - You'll have to find a source that doesn't bend the Bible to "what sounds good".
This is not Bible bending, it is clearly correlation between OT Prophecies and NT fulfillement by Jesus.

I am highly suspect of the writings of Robert Kysar which you provide as reference, these are his own private intrepretation of scripture, and not in harmony with the teachings of Martin Luther (Kysar is a Lutheran). Kysar's opinions and interpretations prove nothing...

Sabio
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
blueman said:
If you look at the majority of my posts on this issue, I have emphasized time and time again, the overarching message of the NT Gospels and if you want to question the validity of the sources, that's fine and well within your right. But the overarching message presents no ambiguity and does not contradict itself. If it was a hoax, it is a pretty elaborate one and would more than likely have no staying power in the lives of people. As I've stated before, look at the impact of the short ministry of Jesus (3 1/2 years) and how it has had an indellible impact on the scholastic, humanitarian, political, literary and the arts (music, theater and art) than any other historical figure known to man. I have yet to see a logical explanation as of yet in that regard.
smile.gif
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)
Sabio said:
This begs the question; "How can scholars be even remotely correct?"
Wait... what.... er, umm... did you seriously just ask that question? Were you making a joke? Please tell me you were!
 

Sabio

Active Member
Ryan2065 said:
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!
A little tongue in cheek humor...
 

Sabio

Active Member
Ryan2065 said:
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)

I can tell you why I am not Islam, the same reason I am not Mormon, because both religions rely upon a book written (they say interpreted) by a single man.

Also I beleive that Islam decended from the ancient Babaloynian religion (of Abraham's day) which worshiped the moon...

Sabio
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
TKD said:
Here is one of many.
Actually this does nothing to disprove that Matthew and John were not the Author's of the repsective Gosples.

TKD said:
A simple Google search will yield a multitude of such links
TKD said:
There is soooooooooooooo much documentation, that it no longer needs to be brought up in a debate.
I won't do your research for you. If you say there is "soooooooooooooo much documentation" bring some forth.

Ryan said:
{Islam} is the most popular religion
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.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
Sabio said:
This begs the question; "How can scholars be even remotely correct?"
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
 
Top