How do we know the NT authors were honest?

[EphelDuath]

If Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were all honest, then Jesus is certainly God: you cannot fake a resurrection by any means.

But how do we know they aren’t liars? This is the single most common argument non-Christians use against Christianity. The common reply is that “because they were willing to die for their faith,” but this is also true of Islam, Buddhism and other religions.

Certainly, we know Jesus must be God because (1) he did miracles, and (2) he claimed to be. But how do we know either is true, save for the Gospels? How do we know that this wasn’t added later or exaggerated, as Muslims and atheists claim?

Is there any other compelling arguments for why the Gospels must be accurate? Jesus Seminar historians think they aren’t.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

You must understand that the scholars of the “Jesus Seminar”
were ALREADY against the Gospels before they began their studies. Their minds were made up in advance. Their “findings” are purely subjective, nothing more, not worth the paper they are printed on.

Though you ask about the 4 gospels, I’ll tell you what convinced me. A few years ago, I was reading Evolution books written by atheistic evolutionists, as well as antireligious books written by atheists from the Freedom From Religion Foundation and I was
*** almost *** convinced that the whole Christian message
was fable and legend.

But then I would sit down and read St. Paul’s letters to the Churches. St. Paul agreed with the scenario taught in the 4 gospels. St. Paul’s evident heartfelt sincerity literally jumps off the pages of the bible at you. You can FEEL his honesty when you read his letters, his honesty, his deep love for the believers and for Jesus. And St. Paul had been visited by Jesus and by angels. And there is no hint of hypocrisy or falsehood or deception in his letters.
THAT convicted my spirit, along with the blessed help of the
Holy Spirit, that the whole Christian message is true.
It is true not only because Paul was sincere, but because he
was painfully, sometimes heartbreakingly, honest.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were all honest, then Jesus is certainly God: you cannot fake a resurrection by any means.

But how do we know they aren’t liars? This is the single most common argument non-Christians use against Christianity. The common reply is that “because they were willing to die for their faith,” but this is also true of Islam, Buddhism and other religions.

Certainly, we know Jesus must be God because (1) he did miracles, and (2) he claimed to be. But how do we know either is true, save for the Gospels? How do we know that this wasn’t added later or exaggerated, as Muslims and atheists claim?

Is there any other compelling arguments for why the Gospels must be accurate? Jesus Seminar historians think they aren’t.

Well I’m not sure you can make the jump from: the gospels writer were truthful thus Jesus is God. I think its a tad more complicated that than.

What we can say, is that although it may be the case that the Gospels are not factually accurate in all respects, they are accurate in so far as they pertain to the truths that we should reach after reading their testimony.

I would argue that if they had been mere fabrications they would not have come down to us in the form they have. The fact that they were saved, treasured in fact, must speak it seems to me to the fact that they were considered truthful and helpful worship and later in evangelizing.

True, one cannot fake a resurrection, and we take this on faith that witnesses did in fact meet Jesus after the cross. We believe they are referring to it as a real way, likened to Thomas. We believe they didn’t just “feel” Jesus’s presence, but actually felt, touched, heard Him.

The truths to be gleaned from the gospel accounts are what is important, not whether the actual details of events are told accurately or not. Thats the way I look at it anyhow.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You must understand that the scholars of the “Jesus Seminar”
were ALREADY against the Gospels before they began their studies. Their minds were made up in advance. Their “findings” are purely subjective, nothing more, not worth the paper they are printed on.
**I know many people dislike the results given by the Jesus Seminar. However, what evidence do you have that they purposefully set up a sham in order to destroy people’s belief in Jesus? Those are awfully strong charges to place against so many scholars. What reason did they have to do this? **

Though you ask about the 4 gospels, I’ll tell you what convinced me. A few years ago, I was reading Evolution books written by atheistic evolutionists, as well as antireligious books written by atheists from the Freedom From Religion Foundation and I was
*** almost *** convinced that the whole Christian message
was fable and legend.

But then I would sit down and read St. Paul’s letters to the Churches. St. Paul agreed with the scenario taught in the 4 gospels. St. Paul’s evident heartfelt sincerity literally jumps off the pages of the bible at you. You can FEEL his honesty when you read his letters, his honesty, his deep love for the believers and for Jesus. And St. Paul had been visited by Jesus and by angels. And there is no hint of hypocrisy or falsehood or deception in his letters.

**I’m not sure where Paul "agreed with the “scenario taught in the 4 gospels” since they are quite different from each other but otherwise i tend to agree what you have said.
**

 

[patg]

Certainly, we know Jesus must be God because (1) he did miracles,

That doesn’t tell you much - there were numerous Jewish holy men who performed similar miracles.

and (2) he claimed to be.

That doesn’t tell you anything - anyone can claim to be anything they want.

But how do we know either is true, save for the Gospels? How do we know that this wasn’t added later or exaggerated, as Muslims and atheists claim?

It’s all a matter of faith - your faith (through the church) tells you what is true and what is not.

Is there any other compelling arguments for why the Gospels must be accurate?

Only faith.

Jesus Seminar historians think they aren’t.

The Seminar scholars did an objective historical-critical analysis of the gospels to answer the question as to what did Jesus say and do based solely on a historical analysis. Many people ignore that criteria and wrongly assume the seminar was trying to answer the question “What did Jesus really say and do?” Their conclusions do not consider those things, such as faith, that may cause you to believe in the accuracy of the gospels but you have to remember what their goal was.

 

[EphelDuath]

If he truly performed legitimate miracles, then he’s a prophet of God. A prophet of God wouldn’t lie about something so significant as claiming to be God, especially without God reaving judgment upon him. Thus, if the Gospel of John is accurate and honest, Jesus is certainly God.

It’s all a matter of faith - your faith (through the church) tells you what is true and what is not.

That’s a lame reason. How should we convert atheists, then? If they need faith to believe, and faith to gain faith, then they seem to be caught in a paradox where they’re guaranteed to be sent to Hell. There has to be some level of confidence.

The Seminar scholars did an objective historical-critical analysis of the gospels to answer the question as to what did Jesus say and do based solely on a historical analysis.

Most of their conclusions are based on the premise that Jesus had no supernatural powers, which is something they didn’t prove. For example, they presume that Jesus didn’t say “I am the bread of life” because they think it’s unlikely that he would claim to be a prophet.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I guess in the end I think that its just intellectually dishonest to insist that somehow we must prove the truth of the Gospels or any part of the NT. Faith is just that faith, the acceptance of things that cannot be proven.

The atheist seems to find this approach impossible to accept, since they desire to rely only on what is provable. You cannot IMO intellectualize someone into faith. Its a feeling. One either has it or doesn’t. It can be sparked by the most odd and unbelieveably ordinary things. It cannot be forced onto someone or onto oneself for that matter. We state our reasoning for faith, hoping that it sparks that special moment for someone.

I have faith that all who wrote of matters of faith were men and women of integrity and intense desire to express their beliefs as they understood them to be. Hope is, after all the hallmark of Christianity.

 

[Della]

I guess in the end I think that its just intellectually dishonest to insist that somehow we must prove the truth of the Gospels or any part of the NT. Faith is just that faith, the acceptance of things that cannot be proven.

Nor can faith be disproven, which is something the intellectually dishonest will not admit.

The atheist seems to find this approach impossible to accept, since they desire to rely only on what is provable. You cannot IMO intellectualize someone into faith. Its a feeling. One either has it or doesn’t.

Faith is much more than a feeling. According to Heb.11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. There’s nothing mentioned in Scripture or Church teaching that faith is a feeling. Faith is not unreasonable. It is not believed in spite of reason, but is supported by reason.

It can be sparked by the most odd and unbelieveably ordinary things. It cannot be forced onto someone or onto oneself for that matter. We state our reasoning for faith, hoping that it sparks that special moment for someone.

True! That is the Holy Spirit working in our lives. As Our Lord said, the Spirit blows where he wills and we see the evidence of his effect on our lives.

I have faith that all who wrote of matters of faith were men and women of integrity and intense desire to express their beliefs as they understood them to be. Hope is, after all the hallmark of Christianity.

And I have such faith, too. And I too hope in the truths of the NT. However, my faith isn’t based on their writings alone, but on the total witness of the whole of Sacred Tradition, which encompasses not only the 1st century but the entire history of God’s dealings with men, as seen in the Bible, as well as the lives of all who have believed and trusted in him.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If they were being dishonest, then the writers and critics of their day would have exposed this.

In fact, you should read what those outside the christian church did say about the early christians.

Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c.113 AD) was the Roman Governor of Bithynia (present-day northwestern Turkey). Around 111 or 112 AD, he wrote the following letter to Emperor Trajan of Rome asking for advice on how to deal with Christians.

It is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them. Whether any difference is to be allowed between the youngest and the adult; whether repentance admits to a pardon, or if a man has been once a Christian it avails him nothing to recant; whether the mere profession of Christianity, albeit without crimes, or only the crimes associated therewith are punishable – in all these points I am greatly doubtful.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel not doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither.

These accusations spread (as is usually the case) from the mere fact of the matter being investigated and several forms of the mischief came to light. A placard was put up, without any signature, accusing a large number of persons by name. Those who denied they were, or had ever been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ – none of which acts, it is into performing – these I thought it proper to discharge. Others who were named by that informer at first confessed themselves Christians, and then denied it; true, they had been of that persuasion but they had quitted it, some three years, others many years, and a few as much as twenty-five years ago. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and **bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, **however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

I therefore adjourned the proceedings, and betook myself at once to your counsel. For the matter seemed to me well worth referring to you, especially considering the numbers endangered. Persons of all ranks and ages, and of both sexes are, and will be, involved in the prosecution. For this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts; it seems possible, however, to check and cure it

allaboutthejourney.org/pliny-the-younger.htm

 

[patg]

If he truly performed legitimate miracles, then he’s a prophet of God. A prophet of God wouldn’t lie about something so significant as claiming to be God, especially without God reaving judgment upon him. Thus, if the Gospel of John is accurate and honest, Jesus is certainly God.

There’s that big “if” again. And there is no way of “knowing” other than through faith. There are no independent sources which verify any of this information, all of which was written by “insiders” who already believed he was God.

That’s a lame reason. How should we convert atheists, then? If they need faith to believe, and faith to gain faith, then they seem to be caught in a paradox where they’re guaranteed to be sent to Hell. There has to be some level of confidence.

We’re dealing with the supernatural here - things totally outside our experience, our tools of analysis, our history, and our experience - how else do you epect to come to terms with belief in all this other than through faith?

Most of their conclusions are based on the premise that Jesus had no supernatural powers, which is something they didn’t prove.

Which, as I said, was not their goal. They used the human tools of scientific historical analysis to see what they could learn, strictly from that perspective. They did not consider the supernatural because the supernatural is not in the realm of those tools.

For example, they presume that Jesus didn’t say “I am the bread of life” because they think it’s unlikely that he would claim to be a prophet.

If that is a valid assumption based on all the historical analysis, then that is a reasonable conclusion. It may not be the conclusion a person of faith would make, but based on their process and procedure, it is not unreasonable.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nor can faith be disproven, which is something the intellectually dishonest will not admit.

**Oh i doubt that. Of course you are quite right. Faith by definition cannot be disproven either. that would be obvious. If it could be disproven there would be no religion in the world today, quite obviously. **

Faith is much more than a feeling. According to Heb.11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. There’s nothing mentioned in Scripture or Church teaching that faith is a feeling. Faith is not unreasonable. It is not believed in spite of reason, but is supported by reason.

I think you are being a bit picky. Faith like love, hate, anger, compassion, are not really things that one can make oneself feel. They are emotions. Faith may be arrived at purely intellectually I would argue, but I doubt that is what happens for most people. It is an emotional belief, a feeling. The fact that it is not defined in the bible as such is of no import. We are merely talking about the feeling of faith. I submit, you cannot make yourself be faithful. The mind is not it appears subject to that type of control. When we say that we will obey the Church in its teaching, regardless of how much we might think it wrong, we are not changing our mind really, but we are agreeing we will not speak or write contrary to the teaching and will make every effort to belief as we are told. However…and its a big however, we cannot make the mind believe what it does not believe, no matter how dearly we may wish to.

 

[Della]

Della:

Faith is much more than a feeling. According to Heb.11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. There’s nothing mentioned in Scripture or Church teaching that faith is a feeling. Faith is not unreasonable. It is not believed in spite of reason, but is supported by reason.

SpiritMeadow:

I think you are being a bit picky. Faith like love, hate, anger, compassion, are not really things that one can make oneself feel. They are emotions. Faith may be arrived at purely intellectually I would argue, but I doubt that is what happens for most people. It is an emotional belief, a feeling. The fact that it is not defined in the bible as such is of no import. We are merely talking about the feeling of faith. I submit, you cannot make yourself be faithful. The mind is not it appears subject to that type of control. When we say that we will obey the Church in its teaching, regardless of how much we might think it wrong, we are not changing our mind really, but we are agreeing we will not speak or write contrary to the teaching and will make every effort to belief as we are told. However…and its a big however, we cannot make the mind believe what it does not believe, no matter how dearly we may wish to.

Discussing this here would take the thread off topic. So, I’ve started a new thread to discuss these points with you, and anyone who wishes to join the conversation.

 

[Spirithound]

But how do we know they aren’t liars? This is the single most common argument non-Christians use against Christianity. The common reply is that “because they were willing to die for their faith,” but this is also true of Islam, Buddhism and other religions.

The difference is that the Apostles were in a position to KNOW that Jesus is God. In other religions, ppl havent had direct contact with God.

 

[porthos11]

If Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were all honest, then Jesus is certainly God: you cannot fake a resurrection by any means.

But how do we know they aren’t liars? This is the single most common argument non-Christians use against Christianity. The common reply is that “because they were willing to die for their faith,” but this is also true of Islam, Buddhism and other religions.

Any idiot can die for what he believes, no matter how false.

However, I have yet to hear of anyone else dying for a Resurrection (outrageous!) he claimed to witness, as the apostles did.

And no, Joseph Smith didn’t die professing what he witnessed. He was shot in a prison riot.