New Testament writer's bias

[coolduude]

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

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

This way leads to a circle of madness, sugar. “Inflating the truth?” You know, we have manuscript copies of the New Testament that are much, much earlier than “Constantine”. . .IOW, we have manuscript copies (Dead Sea Scrolls for example) that show no ‘change’ from what we see at Constantine when the Faith was finally permitted to be practiced and not persecuted.

So at the time the NT was written, the Christians were being rather bloodily persecuted. And so far as they knew, Christ was coming ‘soon’. . .what would it profit them to ‘inflate’ the truth? People who became Christians expected to die soon, and painful deaths at that. . .

If there were a bias, wouldn’t one expect to see a difference between what was not officially ‘known’ as canon in the early years, and what actually was put in place once the Faith was 'officially allowed?" But one doesn’t see a difference. . .

Do you trust that Christ (who after all died and rose from the DEAD and has the power to save YOU and everybody else in the universe for eternity) could ‘preserve’ His teachings free from error? If you do trust (and Scripture tells us that we can do so, and the Church reiterates that promise). . .then don’t let yourself be swayed by 21st century dingdongs with their lathspell of ‘skepticism’.

 

[JohnCS]

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

If you are saying that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John may have been biased, I am curious what their motive or agenda could have been? What do they get out of inflating the truth? If history showed that they were given great palaces, money, woman, and other extravagances for what they were teaching, then I’d say yeah maybe. But they were not, there were always in fear for their life (fear is not really the right word, but you catch my drift), they lived as refugees, drifters, and poor men… what would their agenda have been?

 

[StrawberryJam]

If you are saying that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John may have been biased, I am curious what their motive or agenda could have been? What do they get out of inflating the truth? If history showed that they were given great palaces, money, woman, and other extravagances for what they were teaching, then I’d say yeah maybe. But they were not, there were always in fear for their life (fear is not really the right word, but you catch my drift), they lived as refugees, drifters, and poor men… what would their agenda have been?

Maybe they were just fed up with all the dietary restrictions and laws they had to follow as Jews and decided it was worth all this to start a religion that did not require following so many restrictions.

 

[JohnCS]

Maybe they were just fed up with all the dietary restrictions and laws they had to follow as Jews and decided it was worth all this to start a religion that did not require following so many restrictions.

Dietary restrictions are bad enough to warrant being crucified or made into lion food?
Not to mention that if their belief in their religions were so weak that they would want to start a new one, why not just do like so many today do and just not follow the rules when no one is looking? I may be wrong, but I don’t think all of the New Testament writers were Jewish, so not all of them would have been running from Judaism.

 

[CalCatholic]

If you are saying that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John may have been biased, I am curious what their motive or agenda could have been? What do they get out of inflating the truth? If history showed that they were given great palaces, money, woman, and other extravagances for what they were teaching, then I’d say yeah maybe. But they were not, there were always in fear for their life (fear is not really the right word, but you catch my drift), they lived as refugees, drifters, and poor men… what would their agenda have been?

I agree! Why would the gospel writers show the weaknesses and the faults of the apostles (Peter denying Jesus, doubting Thomas, etc). Why mention the crucifixition, which was a scandalous way to be put to death? If they are inflating the gospels, why have Jesus born of a poor woman (betrothed but not married), born in a manger with animals present. These are not the things that I would have put in my inflated story about Jesus. And if these gospels were not true, why would Peter, Paul and the other apostles and disciples spend the rest of their lives proclaiming the truths of these gospels right up to their gruesome deaths?

 

[Danny_Clover]

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

Of course they were biased. All writers are biased and the NT authors had even more of a reason to be biased, because their very lives were on the line.

But that’s irrelevant. The question isn’t whether or not they were biased, but whether or not what they wrote was true.

When they wrote that Jesus is the Son of God, does their bias make Jesus any less the Son of God?

 

[coolduude]

You all make excellent points.

When I made this thread I almost put in “How can the New Testament (except the Gospels) be trusted if the writers are biased?” I erased it though

Anyway, what I had in mind when I posted were really passages like these:
1 Pet 1:19-20
Heb 7:26
1 Peter 2:22
2 Cor 5:21
1 John 3:5

Couldn’t the writers have had a bias toward Jesus and inflated His sinlessness? See what I mean? I guess that distills the question to what I’m really trying to ask.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You all make excellent points.

When I made this thread I almost put in “How can the New Testament (except the Gospels) be trusted if the writers are biased?” I erased it though

Anyway, what I had in mind when I posted were really passages like these:
1 Pet 1:19-20
Heb 7:26
1 Peter 2:22
2 Cor 5:21
1 John 3:5

Couldn’t the writers have had a bias toward Jesus and inflated His sinlessness? See what I mean? I guess that distills the question to what I’m really trying to ask.

Sugar, how can you ‘inflate’ sinlessness? If you’re sinless, you’re sinless. If you’re not. . .you aren’t God. Only God can forgive sins, and we are told in Matthew that when the paralyzed man was put in front of Jesus, Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven you”. . .which of course stunned the crowd because only GOD could forgive somebody’s sins. And then Jesus went on to say, "Which is easier, to say ‘your sins are forgiven’ (and how could anybody ‘see’ if that had been done, so it was an easy ‘claim’ for Jesus to make that nobody could ‘verify’). . .OR “get up and walk”? And the man got up and walked. There Jesus made a statement and EVERYBODY saw that He was able to make the man walk. . .therefore it appeared pretty likely that when He said “your sins are forgiven” he was able to do THAT too. . .making Him God.

Again the gospel has Jesus tell us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. If He is casting out devils by the power of the Devil (as some accused Him), then the Devil is working against himself! But if He is casting out devils through the power of God. . .then something is at work which we need to heed.

 

[coolduude]

Sugar, how can you ‘inflate’ sinlessness? If you’re sinless, you’re sinless.

Well, Jesus could have been like some saints and committed only venial sins, or He could have sinned in thought, but the writers could have glossed over it and said “He was sinless”. That’s how I think of it anyway.

If you’re not. . .you aren’t God. Only God can forgive sins, and we are told in Matthew that when the paralyzed man was put in front of Jesus, Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven you”. . .which of course stunned the crowd because only GOD could forgive somebody’s sins. And then Jesus went on to say, "Which is easier, to say ‘your sins are forgiven’ (and how could anybody ‘see’ if that had been done, so it was an easy ‘claim’ for Jesus to make that nobody could ‘verify’). . .OR “get up and walk”? And the man got up and walked. There Jesus made a statement and EVERYBODY saw that He was able to make the man walk. . .therefore it appeared pretty likely that when He said “your sins are forgiven” he was able to do THAT too. . .making Him God.

Again the gospel has Jesus tell us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. If He is casting out devils by the power of the Devil (as some accused Him), then the Devil is working against himself! But if He is casting out devils through the power of God. . .then something is at work which we need to heed.

Now maybe I’m just dumb (which I very well may be! ) because I don’t really understand the point here, especially the last paragraph

 

[edwest2]

The actual author of the Bible is God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[John7]

The actual author of the Bible is God.

Yes.

Also,

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

applies to New Testament writers too, since they both were filled with and moved by the Holy Spirit

 

[dmar198]

Well, Jesus could have been like some saints and committed only venial sins, or He could have sinned in thought, but the writers could have glossed over it and said “He was sinless”.

That’s impossible, since He was the all-holy God. God cannot sin. He is the standard of justice and goodness. Anything He did, is the standard of holiness. So if He lied, that would mean we can lie too, or if He sinned in thought, we’d be allowed to too, since His actions are the model of holiness which we are to strive for.

I don’t really understand the point here, especially the last paragraph

She was trying to establish His divinity, with the implication that because He is God, we cannot hold Him to be sinful. Another line of reasoning, which the Catechism uses in #578, #592, and #602, is that Jesus was the “lamb without blemish or spot” which was offered for our sins. He kept the Law for us since we could not do it on our own. “He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly.” “[He] fulfilled it with such perfection that he revealed its ultimate meaning and redeemed the transgressions against it.”

Without God’s Law being kept in its entirety, we could not attain the standard necessary for Heaven to be opened. So it is a matter of our salvation that Jesus actually kept the whole Law without failure.

I hope that helps.
-Dmar198

 

[Verbum]

Hi Cool,

Jesus is two natures in one person, and that person is divine. He is God. He cannot sin. The apostles are just stating the obvious. No need for bias or lack of it.

Verbum

 

[Danny_Clover]

That’s impossible, since He was the all-holy God. God cannot sin. He is the standard of justice and goodness. Anything He did, is the standard of holiness. So if He lied, that would mean we can lie too, or if He sinned in thought, we’d be allowed to too, since His actions are the model of holiness which we are to strive for.

She was trying to establish His divinity, with the implication that because He is God, we cannot hold Him to be sinful. Another line of reasoning, which the Catechism uses in #578, #592, and #602, is that Jesus was the “lamb without blemish or spot” which was offered for our sins. He kept the Law for us since we could not do it on our own. “He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly.” “[He] fulfilled it with such perfection that he revealed its ultimate meaning and redeemed the transgressions against it.”

Without God’s Law being kept in its entirety, we could not attain the standard necessary for Heaven to be opened. So it is a matter of our salvation that Jesus actually kept the whole Law without failure.

I hope that helps.
-Dmar198

You’re right, but you’re right for the wrong reason. Jesus wasn’t sinless because He was God, although He was certainly sinless in His divine nature. Jesus wasn’t sinless in His humanity because He did not receive a sin nature because He didn’t have a human father (Romans 5).

 

[puzzleannie]

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

it depends on what their agenda was. Since they were guided by the Holy Spirit in their writing, their agenda was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[dmar198]

You’re right, but you’re right for the wrong reason.

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

Jesus wasn’t sinless because He was God, although He was certainly sinless in His divine nature.

If He was sinless in His divine nature, it follows that He was sinless in His human nature too, via the hypostatic union of those two natures.

Jesus wasn’t sinless in His humanity because He did not receive a sin nature

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. Sometimes, to get around the implication of Mary’s sinlessness, Protestants will say that Jesus was purified at conception from sin. (E.g. the Lutheran Missouri Synod denomination says on its website that “some miraculous ‘exception’ was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child.” goo.gl/6tkO) This attempt implies that God Himself needed “salvation” from sin, a blasphemy. 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.

He did not receive a sin nature because He didn’t have a human father (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.

God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[coolduude]

it depends on what their agenda was. Since they were guided by the Holy Spirit in their writing, their agenda was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

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?

 

[dmar198]

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?

If the inspiration of the Scriptures is not granted, there is no way to prove that they are correct in any of their more extraordinary claims. Two things occur to me here:

1. The claim that God-made-flesh was sinless is not such an extraordinary claim, but a simple exercise in basic philosophy of God.
2. If it was an extraordinary claim, I would not believe it unless a compelling reason convinced me. Example: if I were a skeptic of the Bible, but a believer in God’s power, I would not think it impossible that a man should be swallowed by a great fish and kept alive for three days. The claim is not unreasonable, once divine intervention is allowed as a possibility. However, even though I would believe it to be possible, I would not believe it actually happened unless an infallible authority assured me. (This, by the way, is why we believe the Church is necessary to believe in the inspiration of the Bible. If the Church is not infallible, her claim that the Scripture is true is unconvincing; and the Bible is so fantastic that no one should believe it without an infallible authority assuring them.) So in regards to the sinlessness of Christ, if that were so extraordinary a claim, I would only believe it if the Church which teaches this was granted as infallible.

Fathers Rumble and Carty wrote, "A thing is credible or incredible according to the presence or absence of a sufficient cause. I grant that the events in the Book of Jonah can be explained only by a miraculous intervention on the part of Almighty God. But once I say that God was the Agent at work, then the cause alleged could account for it, and the question is not, ‘Could it happen?’ but, ‘Did it happen?’ " And the only sufficient cause to bring us from “it could” to “it did,” would be infallibility claiming it so. That is why it is true to say, I would not believe the Gospel, except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so.

 

[puzzleannie]

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?

either the skeptic accepts the evidence and testimony of witnesses, or he rejects it. you can’t leave inspiration out of it. That would be like going into court and leaving out the testimony of witnesses, or deliberations of the jury. The system works because of the assumption that they are doing their best to tell and arrive at the truth. you are aware that the NT does not state in so many words all the doctrines we believe about Christ but that our understanding of those doctrines has developed out of study of the record, in scripture and sacred tradition, of what Jesus said and did. You can prove things about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit etc. which can by known by the use of reason and examination of evidence in nature and history. You cannot prove what has been revealed by God and can be known only when and as he reveals it, which is why we use the word mystery to describe those things.