New Testament writer's bias

[chaunceygardner]

But from a skeptic’s perspective (i.e., one who does not accept the NT inspire), how can we show Jesus was sinless? Obviously the writings are still valid, but the skeptic doesn’t accept their inspiration. So how can Christ be shown sinless using the same documents but leaving inspiration out of it?

Your question has changed. One can easily see that writer’s of the NT books have varying and personal points of view, just like the writers of the OT books had or any other author has. What they say, what they don’t say, how they say it, what they emphasize, how much detail they include, etc., all contribute to how the reader perceives what is written. “Bias” is often looked at negatively (but everyone has it), while “view point” has a more neutral tone. Also, the different Gospel and Epistle writers were targeting specific audiences, which also contributed to what they wrote. If the writer was addressing a predominantly Jewish-Christian group, they will include and emphasize different things than an author writing to a gentile group. We can see that the books of both the NT and OT are not homogenous, but that contributes to their value.

Your new question is more direct, and addresses what particular writers said about Jesus, focusing on his sinlessness. It is interesting that you refer to at least three different authors, who all say generally the same thing. One could argue that Paul would not have enough first hand knowledge of Jesus to make such a claim, but the circumstances of his conversion tend to overcome that difficulty. The distinct probability that each author wrote at different times, to different people, from their own (different) perspective, and without likely influence or knowledge of what the others wrote, and said essentially the same thing, should tell you something.

There is no doubt that many people who were there had the same idea about Jesus, and said similar things about who and what he was. Can we accept that as undisputable proof? Not really; the final step must come from faith. So a skeptic can say that there is no proof that the Bible is inspired, or that the writers were telling the truth and not exaggerating or making up stories. And you will never be able to prove to a skeptic’s satisfaction what you believe to be true about Jesus. You are attempting the impossible. So why waste the time?

They have the same opportunity as you to discover truth and understanding. You can not force it on anyone.

 

[Danny_Clover]

There can be more than one reason for His sinlessness. That you have a different reason does not mean mine was wrong.

Whatever. I can only tell you what the Bible says. I can’t make you believe it.

Jesus’ human nature was sinless because Mary, His mother, was also sinless by nature, as a special gift of God. Jesus’ sinlessness therefore is proof of Mary’s own sinless nature.

Actually, Mary was a sinner. Again, this is not my opinion but something that Romans 5 says: the sin nature is passed down through the father. Jesus did not have a father with a sin nature, Mary did.

Therefore, she inherited her father’s sin nature.

Sometimes, to get around the implication of Mary’s sinlessness, Protestants will say that Jesus was purified at conception from sin.

Actually, no Protestants say that and if they do, then they’re espousing heresy, just like Catholics who claim that Mary is sinless.

Catholics have better explanation of all this; Mary was created and preserved sinless in order to be a worthy vessel of Christ, and His own sinlessness is proof of her sinlessness, since He would have inherited a sin nature from her if she had had a sin nature.

And this is why Catholic doctrine gets so silly without the Bible. The Bible is very clear that the sin nature comes through the father, not through the mother. So, unless you’re claiming that Mary is Jesus’ father, too, He could not have inhereted her sin nature.

Again, please read Romans 5.

That would mitigate against the line of reasoning I just used, which is certainly fine since my opinion is no dogma. But in fact I do not agree with your reading of that passage. Romans 5 nowhere says that original sin is passed down by the father alone; the original sin is simply an inherited deprivation of sanctifying grace, and I think it is certain that a man, were he to have no father, would not therefore inherit a grace-filled nature from his mother. That implies that women still have a grace-filled nature, and only men have the original sin, which is a heresy. Or at least, that is how it seems to me. I’d love to know your perspective on this.

My perspective is that you’ve gotten into some pretty serious heresy and that you need to rely on the word of God and not what you’ve made up.

But, like I said, whatever. This just goes to further illustrate the difference between Catholics and Christians.

 

[JustaServant]

But, like I said, whatever. This just goes to further illustrate the difference between Catholics and Christians.

Catholics ARE Christians.
Are you claiming they are not?

 

[dmar198]

Actually, Mary was a sinner.

And here I thought you went by the Bible.

Again, this is not my opinion but something that Romans 5 says: the sin nature is passed down through the father. Jesus did not have a father with a sin nature, Mary did.

Even if the sin nature WAS passed down through the father, Romans 5 does not deny that Mary was preserved from inheriting original sin. It does not even mention Mary; it simply says that, unless God intervenes, all men inherit a sin nature. This does nothing against our belief about Mary, since we assert simply that God intervened to prevent her from being a sinner.

this is why Catholic doctrine gets so silly without the Bible. The Bible is very clear that the sin nature comes through the father, not through the mother.

Then it should be easy for you to point to the passage. You refer me to Romans 5; I have read it and find nothing about the sin nature being passed on solely paternally.

Original sin is an absence in our nature of that grace which makes us do God’s will. If a man born of woman alone would ipso facto receive a gracious nature, that implies that his mother had that gracious nature, and on your premise that conclusion must be false (since she supposedly inherited a sin nature from her father) and yet, at the same time, true, since her son had to get his gracious nature from her. Thus your idea seems to me to be contradictory.

But, like I said, whatever. This just goes to further illustrate the difference between Catholics and Christians.

Oh, how I would LOVE to hear more about this. You, who stand with neither Scripture nor Christ’s Church, can call yourself a Christian while resenting what Christ says. And now you deny that we are Christian, simply because we do not adhere to your private opinions about Scripture.

It is as Peter says: “In them there are some things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable wrest to their own destruction.” (2 Pet. 3:16) You speak of what you do not know and twist the arm of Scripture to make it agree with your private opinions. Well would you do to learn that NO Scripture is for private interpretation; rather, submit to the Church of God which, as pillar and foundation of truth, cannot lead astray.

God bless
-Dmar198

 

[PJM]

=coolduude;6674448]Hi all,

Just a quick question. The title really says it all:

How can the New Testament be trusted if the writers are biased? Couldn’t they have a motive or agenda toward inflating the truth? Catch my drift?

Thanks for any insight,
coolduude

Either the Entire Bible is true [BUT not necessary factual] or it has NO value for religious education in ANYFaith!

2Tim.3 Verses 16 to 17: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

** John 14: 16-17 ** And I [Jesus] will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you." Done Deal; God cannot deny Himself!

**John 17: 14-19 **14 I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I **[Jesus who am God] **consecrate myself, that they also may be [DONE DEAL!] consecrated in truth.

Because not only Only because God said so; But also because BOTh God the Holy Spirit and Jesus Himself remain Present in the Church He founded until the end of time.

Matt.28 Verses 18 to 20 "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; **and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” **

Love and prayers,
Pat