Reliability of the NT when it comes to the prophecies and claims about Jesus

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t know who you’re trying to convince because you’ve already said it’s pointless in my case - a conclusion on your part that seems entirely sensible, though not entirely well-reasoned, by the way.

From my perspective, whenever you quote the NT to me, Randy, all you’re doing is asking me to indulge in ‘lit crit’, like arguing about the motivations of a Shakespeare character in English Literature class at School.

I’m a “glass half full” kind of person. I hold out hope for you, Kaninchen.

Now, you can treat the NT as a work of fiction if it helps you to avoid dealing with the strength of Christian arguments, but I’m not sure how willful ignorance is something to be proud of.

There are a minimum number of historical facts agreed upon by practically all critical scholars, and these facts are considered to be knowable history (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, page 158f)

• Jesus died by crucifixion;
• he was buried;
• his death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life had ended;
• many scholars hold the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty just a few days later;
• the disciples had ‘experiences’ which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus;
• because of these experiences, the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection;
• this message was the center of preaching in the early Christian church;
• it was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before;
• as a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew;
• Sunday became the primary day of worship;
• James, the brother of Jesus, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also saw the resurrected Jesus;
• a few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.

In his book, Jesus and Judaism (1985), E.P. Sanders listed eight “almost indisputable facts” about Jesus. He later added to this list in his popular treatment titled, The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993).

1. Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
2. he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
3. he was baptized by John the Baptist;
4. he called disciples;
5. he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
6. he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
7. about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
8. he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
9. he had a final meal with the disciples;
10. he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
11. he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.
12. his disciples at first fled;
13. they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death;
14. as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom;
15. they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God’s Messiah.

These lists should demonstrate, if nothing else, that historians take Jesus of Nazareth seriously. It isn’t just pious believers who study this intriguing first century Jew for devotional reasons. No, Jesus of Nazareth is being studied by thousands of historians in the leading universities around the world.

That’s more than can be said for Mr. Darcy or Jean Valjean

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Procurator and the Peasant
by Jimmy Akin
jimmyakin.com/2014/10/the-procurator-and-the-peasant.html

In the book of Acts, one of the key chronological benchmarks is in Acts 24:27, when the Roman procurator who presently has Paul in custody (Felix) is replaced by his successor (Festus).

You’d think that it would be easy to simply look up in secular sources when this change of government officials took place, but we can’t do that. We don’t have the records, and dating the beginning of Festus’s tenure is tricky.

In fact, as Ben Witherington points out:

About Felix’s successor, Porcius Festus, very little can be said, for our sources are limited to what we find in Acts 25–26 and in Josephus, Ant. 20.182–97 and War 2.271 [The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 717].

Got that?

The sources we have about Festus are limited to Acts and a couple of passages in Josephus. Now, Festus was an important man. He ruled the entire province of Judaea (more than just the Southern territory of Judea). He had a huge number of subjects. He’s one of the successors of Pontius Pilate. Further, he was one of the few (some say the only) good procurator that the Romans sent to Judaea. And yet we know only a tiny amount about him.

From this, several things suggest themselves…

1) The footprint left in ancient historical sources by even as important a person as the Roman procurator of Judaea can be very slight.

No doubt, in his own day, there were many more literary references to him–in all kinds of works, from official government documents to private letters–but except for the references in Acts and two passages of Josephus, they have all perished.

2) This should help us calibrate our expectations regarding other people in the ancient world.

If the Roman procurator has only two ancient authors mentioning him, then we would expect the vast majority of his subjects to go completely unmentioned in historical sources–as, indeed, they do. We know the names of only a handful of Festus’s subjects, and they are people who have significant stature, like the high priests of his day.

3) We should not make excessive demands about mentions of Jesus in ancient sources.

Jesus came from the peasant class (Luke 2:24; cf. Lev. 12:8), and we would expect the events of his early life to leave no traces at all in surviving secular sources. It was only after his ministry began that he became such a public figure that he might be expected to be mentioned in non-Christian sources, as he and the movement he founded is:

• Josephus, writing around A.D. 93 (including the undisputed passage regarding his brother James the Just)
• Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
• The Emperor Trajan, replying to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
• Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
• Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121

Comparing this to the single non-Christian source mentioning Festus (Josephus), and the number of early, non-Christian sources mentioning Jesus is quite ample!

He left a bigger footprint on the literature of his day than did this Roman procurator!

4) We shouldn’t dismiss the historical value of biblical evidence

A historian of the Roman empire would have two early century sources to tell him about Porcius Festus: Luke and Josephus. It would be foolish to ignore either of these and, indeed, secular historians do not discount things Luke says simply because his works are in the New Testament. Only hyper-skeptical individuals dismiss the New Testament as a historical source out of hand. Sober historians treat it like they do other historical sources. One coming from a secular approach will not regard it as divinely inspired, but that does not mean it is without historical value.

The idea that everything the New Testament says should be considered false unless otherwise confirmed by outside sources is nonsense. Historical evidence found in the New Testament is just that . . . historical evidence.

 

[Kaninchen]

The idea that everything the New Testament says should be considered false unless otherwise confirmed by outside sources is nonsense. Historical evidence found in the New Testament is just that . . . historical evidence.

Just a technical question, when you’re selling cars, do you find the idea of spamming people into submission a successful ploy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just a technical question, when you’re selling cars, do you find the idea of spamming people into submission a successful ploy?

Just a simple question: why do you think I am a car salesman?

I have never worked in that profession, so either you have me confused with someone else or you are intentionally insulting me.

Which is it?

 

[Kaninchen]

These lists should demonstrate, if nothing else, that historians take Jesus of Nazareth seriously. It isn’t just pious believers who study this intriguing first century Jew for devotional reasons. No, Jesus of Nazareth is being studied by thousands of historians in the leading universities around the world.

These lists demonstrate that Christian historians take Jesus of Nazareth seriously.

Truly awesome argument, Randy.

 

[Kaninchen]

The idea that everything the New Testament says should be considered false unless otherwise confirmed by outside sources is nonsense. Historical evidence found in the New Testament is just that . . . historical evidence.

Works of fiction often mention all sorts of ‘real world’ events, it doesn’t make them works of non-fiction.

Do you think it’s possible for you to make an argument without all the copying and pasting? It’s such a waste of time having to scan through your posts trying to see whether there might be an argument in there somewhere, a non-Panglossian argument in particular.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Works of fiction often mention all sorts of ‘real world’ events, it doesn’t make them works of non-fiction.

Do you think it’s possible for you to make an argument without all the copying and pasting? It’s such a waste of time having to scan through your posts trying to see whether there might be an argument in there somewhere, a non-Panglossian argument in particular.

If I promise that everything I post to you from here on will be hand-typed by me (even if it contains a few quotes), will you promise to actually:

• Read it.
• Interact with it on a point-by-point basis rather than simply dismissing it or engaging in ad hominem attacks?

I’m not a used car salesman, kaninchen.

 

[DCNBILL]

Trouble is there that you’re using the NT to prove the NT which works with people who see the NT as scripture/reportage but not with those of us who don’t see it as anything of the sort. The advantage of the “they all died horribly so Jesus must be God” approach is that one is supposed to be able to verify the idea that they ‘all died horribly’ so that one then accepts that Jesus must be God because, otherwise, they’d not have been prepared to die horribly.

That might vaguely work if one could verify the idea that they all died horribly but it sort of comes down to something like “Tertullian said they died horribly” which means that, in effect, one is supposed to accept that Jesus was God because Tertullian said so.

Sorry to mislead, I was not trying to make a persuasive argument, I was merely stating the best evidence that I see in the New Testament for the Resurrection. It has never really occurred to me to doubt Scripture as I was always taught that it was the Word of God. Now as for the entirety of the works of the Early Fathers, well it would seem to me that there is some give and take.

 

[Kaninchen]

Sorry to mislead, I was not trying to make a persuasive argument, I was merely stating the best evidence that I see in the New Testament for the Resurrection. It has never really occurred to me to doubt Scripture as I was always taught that it was the Word of God. Now as for the entirety of the works of the Early Fathers, well it would seem to me that there is some give and take.

I expect that for most believers it’s really a non-problem, it only really becomes a problem with people who believe that there are ‘knock-out’ arguments that ‘prove’ everything.

 

[Kaninchen]

If I promise that everything I post to you from here on will be hand-typed by me (even if it contains a few quotes), will you promise to actually:

• Read it.
• Interact with it on a point-by-point basis rather than simply dismissing it or engaging in ad hominem attacks?

I’m not a used car salesman, kaninchen.

I’m not going to be bothered to read the equivalent of you typing out - rather than just copy and pasting - the collected works of Josh McDowell (or whoever), Randy. Neither am I going to be prepared to wade through collections of assertions dressed up as argument. So keep it brief and clear, then conversation might be possible.

As to the question of ‘ad hominem’, look to what you say and look at how you deal with people who disagree with you before using terms like that about others.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not going to be bothered to read the equivalent of you typing out - rather than just copy and pasting - the collected works of Josh McDowell (or whoever), Randy. Neither am I going to be prepared to wade through collections of assertions dressed up as argument. So keep it brief and clear, then conversation might be possible.

As to the question of ‘ad hominem’, look to what you say and look at how you deal with people who disagree with you before using terms like that about others.

You’re a smart person. You know this is a Catholic web site. You know upfront, the materials important to Catholics for discussion. Given your frame of mind, your beliefs **and **negative opinions of these resources, WHY given all the possibilities of being on other web sites on the internet, have you chosen to be here at Catholic Answers?

 

[Kaninchen]

You’re a smart person. You know this is a Catholic web site. You know upfront, the materials important to Catholics for discussion. Given your frame of mind, your beliefs **and **negative opinions of these resources, WHY given all the possibilities of being on other web sites on the internet, have you chosen to be here at Catholic Answers?

I think you’re rather missing the point - the argument isn’t about whether there are good reasons for believing what Catholics believe, it’s whether it can be ‘proved’, particularly whether it can be ‘proved’ with the kind of approach taken famously by the Protestant apologist Josh McDowell - what might be described as a kind of blitzkrieg of (supposed) ‘evidence’.

A certain level of low-level proselytising is a bit inevitable when one is discussing religion, outright, overt proselytising is something else altogether. My ‘frame of mind’ is that I think that understanding what people believe (or don’t believe) and the consequences of that is rather important but, once you move into determined attempts to convert others, you have to be prepared for them to do other than smile and say ‘thank you so much’.

If somebody says to me “there are good reasons for believing what we believe,” then my response would be “I’m sure there are” but telling me that there is overwhelming proof that I must accept and, if I don’t, it’s because I’m a closed-minded, etc, etc my response is somewhat different.

 

[SonOfMan]

Those who did not “start” Christianity or Islam would not be in a position to know with certainty that they were dying for a lie.

The question before you is: why would the apostles who were with Jesus from the beginning be willing to die for their faith in Him as the risen Son of God if they knew that the resurrection did not happen?

It is written that Krishna prophesied his own death and freely accepted it. Why would Krishna die for a lie? Surely this proves that Krishna was God to you then, right?

And, perhaps you can share with us some of the benefits that the apostles received during their lifetimes (cut short by martyrdoms) when Christianity was anything BUT a global religion?

Thanks in advance.

Of course in the beginning phases you dont get much luxuries, except they still did, because in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, they rallied all of the Jews together and were very popular. The Jews thought they could overthrow their Roman rulers. The threat was so great that the Romans were scared of the thought of that happening, all this according to the Bible. You can see from this example how powerful religion is as a political tool.

 

[SonOfMan]

Okay. So what? Holocaust survivors are biased, too, but that does not mean that their accounts of Auschwitz are not reliable.

The difference being, of course, is that we have more than just one account of the Holocaust and a heap of corroborating evidence from multiple sources. You dont get that with the Bible.

 

[SonOfMan]

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Saying that the Church Christ wished to establish would be worldwide isnt the same as him labelling it as The Catholic Church. He is listing an attribute of this Church. There are several churches that are established worldwide from several denominations, they can all claim they are the Church started by Christ because they are all “katholikos” (worldwide).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The difference being, of course, is that we have more than just one account of the Holocaust and a heap of corroborating evidence from multiple sources. You dont get that with the Bible.

To the contrary.

In the NT specifically, we have half a dozen or so different authors all corroborating one another.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not going to be bothered to read the equivalent of you typing out - rather than just copy and pasting - the collected works of Josh McDowell (or whoever), Randy. Neither am I going to be prepared to wade through collections of assertions dressed up as argument. So keep it brief and clear, then conversation might be possible.

If I am to avoid wasting your time while maintaining your interest, how should I proceed?

Should I begin by building a case for the historical reliability of the NT first and go from there? This has the advantage of being a methodical approach. The downside is that putting a proper foundation in place takes time - but this is the topic of the thread.

Or would you rather tell me the biggest objection you have to the claims of Christianity and let me see what I can offer in response? This has the advantage of getting to the heart of the matter quickly. The downside is that sometimes the cart gets ahead of the horse.

I’m happy to go either way…whichever you prefer, Kaninchen.

One other question: the arguments for the reliability of the NT are well-known and used by any number of authors including (but not limited to) Josh McDowell. So, how will I be able to present the evidence without you objecting that I have simply done a “cut and paste”?

The evidence is what it is…I think if we are to discuss it, you’re going to have to be a little flexible on this point.

 

[steve_b]

I think you’re rather missing the point - the argument isn’t about whether there are good reasons for believing what Catholics believe, it’s whether it can be ‘proved’, particularly whether it can be ‘proved’ with the kind of approach taken famously by the Protestant apologist Josh McDowell - what might be described as a kind of blitzkrieg of (supposed) ‘evidence’.

I’ve read your responses. Nothing seems to rise higher than the level of supposed with you… Admit it, no matter what is given you, you reject it.
K:

A certain level of low-level proselytising is a bit inevitable when one is discussing religion, outright, overt proselytising is something else altogether.

Giving a defense (apologia) for the hope that is in us, is what we are asked to do and be ready to do when asked. It doesn’t mean argue with someone who has no interest in the subject to begin with.
K:

My ‘frame of mind’ is that I think that understanding what people believe (or don’t believe) and the consequences of that is rather important but, once you move into determined attempts to convert others, you have to be prepared for them to do other than smile and say ‘thank you so much’.

That’s not what’s going on here and you know it.
K:

If somebody says to me “there are good reasons for believing what we believe,” then my response would be “I’m sure there are” but telling me that there is overwhelming proof that I must accept and, if I don’t, it’s because I’m a closed-minded, etc, etc my response is somewhat different.

You’ve got over 8000 posts here. You are well familiar with this site and the position of the Catholic Church. So…what keeps you here? What are you getting out of this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course in the beginning phases you dont get much luxuries, except they still did, because in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, they rallied all of the Jews together and were very popular. The Jews thought they could overthrow their Roman rulers. The threat was so great that the Romans were scared of the thought of that happening, all this according to the Bible. You can see from this example how powerful religion is as a political tool.

You do not know the scriptures.

John 21:15-19
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Peter was told in advance by Jesus that he would die a martyr’s death, and, in fact, Peter was crucified in Rome around AD 62 during the persecution of the Church by Nero.

The apostles were not expecting to become rich or powerful.

 

[mikekle]

Despite the amazing claims of these biographies, we do not have record of anyone trying to disprove it for several hundred years after it was written. If it had been a fabrication, don’t you think there would have been droves of people working to disprove it, especially considering its claims?

Ya know, this is strange the more I think about it, in our times, whenever some extraordinary claim is made, usually there are always a certain number of people/groups that try to either debunk it, or otherwise prove it false, looking back thru history, we can see evidence of this same thing over and over again, yet with the bible…absolutely NOTHING, NOT ONE single document trying to say a single fact mentioned in the bible was wrong…?? I dont know about anyone else, but that seems suspicious to me.

Seems like Satan would attempt to debunk the life of Christ using tactics like these, seems like this would be right up his alley.

Does anyone know of ONE SINGLE thing written that even attempted to disprove ANYTHING in the bible (written at about the same time)?