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

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, there are several sources to prove that 9/11 happened. There isnt a single source outside of the Bible (which may be biased) to corroborate the events of the Bible, and in fact many discoveries disprove the events found in the Bible (and Im not talking about Genesis). You cant force the creation of evidence where there is none.

So that is what many people who dont believe are asking themselves, “Does it make sense to live my whole life on something that isnt even proven as fact?”

The Bible is a big book, so let’s narrow this down to a more manageable amount of data to review, okay? Let’s stick with the New Testament, and the gospels specifically. You can read them for yourself in a few hours, so anything I say can be fact-checked by you easily enough.

The gospels say that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. So do several non-biblical works of history.

Josephus (c. 93-94 AD)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

Mara bar Serapion (c. after 73 AD)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

The “wise king” was Jesus referred to as the “King of the Jews” in the gospels, and the kingdom of the Jews was taken away by the Romans who destroyed the temple in AD 70.

Now, you wrote:

There isnt a single source outside of the Bible (which may be biased) to corroborate the events of the Bible

I’ve just given you two.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors
strangenotions.com/why-atheists-change-their-mind-8-common-factors/

1. Good literature and reasonable writing.
2. “Experimentation” with prayer and the word of God.
3. Historical study of the Gospels.

Lee Strobel, the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and author of the influential work, The Case For Christ, is a prime example of what happens when an honest atheist sets out to establish once and for all whether the claims of the Gospels are reliable or not.

Strobel writes at the end of his investigation in The Case For Christ:

“I’ll admit it:I was ambushed by the amount and quality of the evidence that Jesus is the unique Son of God… I shook my head in amazement. I had seen defendants carted off to the death chamber on much less convincing proof! The cumulative facts and data pointed unmistakably towards a conclusion that I wasn’t entirely comfortable in reaching.” (p. 264)

Modern historical scholars like Craig Blomberg and N.T. Wright have advanced the area of historical theology and the study of the claims of the Gospels to exciting new heights. The results of such ground-breaking studies are one of the greatest threats to modern day atheism.

Referring specifically to the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ in the Gospels (discussed below), former atheist and freelancer, Philip Vander Elst, writes:

“The more I thought about all these points, the more convinced I became that the internal evidence for the reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole was overwhelming."

4. Honest philosophical reasoning.
5. Reasonable believers.
6. Modern advances and limitations in science.
7. Evidence for the Resurrection.

Thanks to the phenomenal work of leading New Testament scholars, including Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and N.T. Wright, the case for Christ’s resurrection has become more airtight than ever.

Modern historical studies have left little doubt about what the best explanation is for the alleged postmortem appearances of the risen Jesus, the conversions of Paul and James, and the empty tomb: Jesus really was raised from the dead. Even most of today’s critical New Testament scholars accept these basic facts as historically certain (the appearances, conversions, empty tomb, etc); but they are left limping with second-rate alternative explanations in a last ditch effort to refute the true resurrection of Christ and “signature of God”, as scholar Richard Swinburne has tagged it.

The case for the resurrection of Jesus had a significant impact on the former atheist, now Christian apologist, Alister McGrath. He recalls in one of his articles:

“My early concern was to get straight what Christians believed, and why they believed it. How does the Resurrection fit into the web of Christian beliefs? How does it fit into the overall scheme of the Christian faith? After several years of wrestling with these issues, I came down firmly on the side of Christian orthodoxy. I became, and remain, a dedicated and convinced defender of traditional Christian theology. Having persuaded myself of its merits, I was more than happy to try to persuade others as well.”

8. Beauty.

 

[Kaninchen]

The gospel writers were constrained by facts, kaninchen, under the watchful eyes of living witnesses who came down on both sides of the issue concerning who Jesus of Nazareth really was. Any deviation from the truth would have met stiff opposition from Jesus’ own supporters as well as from his critics.

It’s ‘Silver Blaze’ time Randy.

You don’t see it, do you? A really, really big problem with this story you’ve been telling? It might be all the smoke and mirrors around, I suppose.

There were lots and lots of witnesses to what did or didn’t happen, weren’t there?

What did they do, Randy?

Cutting a long story short, they didn’t believe a word of all the supernatural Jesus stuff and, in the century after Jesus, they and their descendants went to their deaths in their hundreds of thousands for their faith with the survivors going into diaspora, exile.

Having little success with real witnesses and their descendants, the early Christians turned their efforts elsewhere - to the descendants of people who hadn’t been around at the time, people less constrained by the facts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s ‘Silver Blaze’ time Randy.

You don’t see it, do you? A really, really big problem with this story you’ve been telling? It might be all the smoke and mirrors around, I suppose.

There were lots and lots of witnesses to what did or didn’t happen, weren’t there?

What did they do, Randy?

Cutting a long story short, they didn’t believe a word of all the supernatural Jesus stuff and, in the century after Jesus, they and their descendants went to their deaths in their hundreds of thousands for their faith with the survivors going into diaspora, exile.

Having little success with real witnesses and their descendants, the early Christians turned their efforts elsewhere - to the descendants of people who hadn’t been around at the time, people less constrained by the facts.

That’s it? That’s your reason for believing that Christianity is false?

Because some Jews rejected Jesus, the Jews who didn’t reject him took the message to the Gentiles who were less interested in or familiar with the facts?

It appears you are willing to accept the indirect, circumstantial evidence (ie, the behavior or response) of the Jews who rejected Jesus, but you overlook the indirect, circumstantial evidence (ie, the behavior or response) of the Jews who accepted him.

That’s not terribly consistent, is it?

 

[Kaninchen]

That’s it? That’s your reason for believing that Christianity is false?

Hey, I’m just pointing out that this particular part of your triumphal march of proofs is as much a sleight of hand as the rest of it - all in the interests of fostering ‘logical reasoning’, of course.

Because some Jews rejected Jesus, the Jews who didn’t reject him took the message to the Gentiles who were less interested in or familiar with the facts?

The use of the word ‘some’ Jews is interesting, isn’t it? A subtle hint that most Jews followed Jesus, while only ‘some’ didn’t. Of course it allows you to move on to:

It appears you are willing to accept the indirect, circumstantial evidence (ie, the behavior or response) of the Jews who rejected Jesus, but you overlook the indirect, circumstantial evidence (ie, the behavior or response) of the Jews who accepted him.

That’s not terribly consistent, is it?

You might want to rethink that part because it’s patently obvious that I’m being no less consistent than you (just reverse it and you’ll see).

 

[DCNBILL]

It’s ‘Silver Blaze’ time Randy.

You don’t see it, do you? A really, really big problem with this story you’ve been telling? It might be all the smoke and mirrors around, I suppose.

There were lots and lots of witnesses to what did or didn’t happen, weren’t there?

What did they do, Randy?

Cutting a long story short, they didn’t believe a word of all the supernatural Jesus stuff and, in the century after Jesus, they and their descendants went to their deaths in their hundreds of thousands for their faith with the survivors going into diaspora, exile.

Having little success with real witnesses and their descendants, the early Christians turned their efforts elsewhere - to the descendants of people who hadn’t been around at the time, people less constrained by the facts.

A lot of big things start small.

Little success?

A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion.Dec 19, 2011

 

[SonOfMan]

The Bible is a big book, so let’s narrow this down to a more manageable amount of data to review, okay? Let’s stick with the New Testament, and the gospels specifically. You can read them for yourself in a few hours, so anything I say can be fact-checked by you easily enough.

The gospels say that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. So do several non-biblical works of history.

Josephus (c. 93-94 AD)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

Mara bar Serapion (c. after 73 AD)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

The “wise king” was Jesus referred to as the “King of the Jews” in the gospels, and the kingdom of the Jews was taken away by the Romans who destroyed the temple in AD 70.

Now, you wrote:

I’ve just given you two.

Notice Josephus says “They reported…” He wasnt a guy in the crowd reporting a news story. He just wrote about what stories were circulating.

And pagans reported their gods doing miraculous things…

And Hindus said…

And Buddhists said…

See what I mean? Anyone can say anything, it doesnt mean it happened. Going by what “They said” isnt objective, which is why these writings lose all their credibility.

Now, if we found a diary of the woman at the well who encountered Jesus, saying what an experience it was, that would be one corroborating source. If just one person in the crowd who witnessed Lazarus rise from the dead wrote just an excerpt about what he saw, that would be another source. And on and on. The thing is, we have none. All we have is inner circle writings that say so that may be biased, but nothing to support it.

 

[DCNBILL]

Notice Josephus says “They reported…” He wasnt a guy in the crowd reporting a news story. He just wrote about what stories were circulating.

And pagans reported their gods doing miraculous things…

And Hindus said…

And Buddhists said…

See what I mean? Anyone can say anything, it doesnt mean it happened. Now, if we found a diary of the woman at the well who encountered Jesus, saying what an experience it was, that would be one corroborating source. If just one person in the crowd who witnessed Lazarus rise from the dead wrote just an excerpt about what he saw, that would be another source. And on and on. The thing is, we have none. All we have is inner circle writings that say so that may be biased, but nothing to support it.

Well, throw out the history of the world pretty much. Please try to understand that the overwhelming majority of the history that we have was not written by the actual observers of the events. Especially in the time that we are talking about here, there were not a whole lot of people who were literate. Those who chose to write histories had to gather their information from various sources, just as modern historians do.

 

[SonOfMan]

Well, throw out the history of the world pretty much. Please try to understand that the overwhelming majority of the history that we have was not written by the actual observers of the events. Especially in the time that we are talking about here, there were not a whole lot of people who were literate. Those who chose to write histories had to gather their information from various sources, just as modern historians do.

The bolded is the point I am making, thank you. With the Bible, there arent various sources, just one group claiming something.

As for Josephus, saying “They reported…” isnt various sources, thats taking their word for it and passing it down. That isnt objective.

 

[DCNBILL]

The bolded is the point I am making, thank you. With the Bible, there arent various sources, just one group claiming something.

As for Josephus, saying “They reported…” isnt various sources, thats taking their word for it and passing it down. That isnt objective.

You might want to check out the Bible some time. There are at least 10 different authors in the New Testament, they were not a group, they were different authors writing at different times for different reasons.

You may believe anything you like and can make all of the assertions that you wish but to deny what thousands of scholars over the centuries have held as truth is not very rational.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Notice Josephus says “They reported…” He wasnt a guy in the crowd reporting a news story. He just wrote about what stories were circulating.

True. Which means that before the end of the first century, a extra-biblical source corroborated what the gospels said.

Which make it REALLY hard for deniers to make Christianity a second-century phenomenon, doesn’t it?

So, that’s one rabbit trail closed permanently.

And pagans reported their gods doing miraculous things…

And Hindus said…

And Buddhists said…

Great! Let’s see the supporting evidence. :compcoff:

See what I mean? Anyone can say anything, it doesnt mean it happened. Going by what “They said” isnt objective, which is why these writings lose all their credibility.

Then your history books will be completely blank up until about 200 years ago or so.

Did Hannibal cross the Alps? Dunno…what if the historians were were lying?
Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Dunno…maybe it was just a metaphor.
Did Paul Revere really ride to warn that the British were coming? Dunno…who can say?

Seriously, dude…you need to read up on how professional historians approach their subject matter.

Now, if we found a diary of the woman at the well who encountered Jesus, saying what an experience it was, that would be one corroborating source. If just one person in the crowd who witnessed Lazarus rise from the dead wrote just an excerpt about what he saw, that would be another source. And on and on. The thing is, we have none. All we have is inner circle writings that say so that may be biased, but nothing to support it.

Let me get this straight…if the woman at the well recorded what happened when she met Jesus, that would be believable, but because John wrote it instead, it’s not?

We know that the woman became a believer along with many of her friends:

John 4:39-42
39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers.

42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

…but you’re saying her testimony would not be biased.

However, because John ALSO believed Jesus and had seen MORE miracles performed, he was biased.

Really?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The bolded is the point I am making, thank you. With the Bible, there arent various sources, just one group claiming something.

Luke 1:1-4
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Did you catch that? MANY had already drawn up accounts of the life of Jesus before Luke ever began his research.

As for Josephus, saying “They reported…” isnt various sources, thats taking their word for it and passing it down. That isnt objective.

Prior to the invention of the camera and the record player, that’s pretty much how historians did their work. By talking to reliable witnesses.

But tell me, can you name the historian(s) who volunteered to brave the winter of 1777 at Valley Forge with Washington’s army just so he could write accurately about it later?

Or do we know of this because historians relied on someone else’s word about what happened in that camp?

:dancing:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey, I’m just pointing out that this particular part of your triumphal march of proofs is as much a sleight of hand as the rest of it - all in the interests of fostering ‘logical reasoning’, of course.

The use of the word ‘some’ Jews is interesting, isn’t it? A subtle hint that most Jews followed Jesus, while only ‘some’ didn’t. Of course it allows you to move on to:

You might want to rethink that part because it’s patently obvious that I’m being no less consistent than you (just reverse it and you’ll see).

I’m curious, Kaninchen.

When you are thinking about going out to see a movie or a play, do you first check to see what the critics or your friends thought of the show before making your decision? I don’t know about you, but I tend to think that anything that is “popular” is probably going to bit a bit too “low-brow” for my tastes. (For example, I prefer Waking Ned Devine over Iron Man.)

And if you hear of a play or a restaurant that sounds interesting to you, do you go DESPITE any negative feedback you may hear because you are independent and want to make up your own mind? I’ve made it a policy to avoid the big franchise restaurants preferring instead to find the little out-of-the-way places (seating for 30 or less) where dedicated chefs are doing amazing things.

What about you?

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m curious, Kaninchen.

When you are thinking about going out to see a movie or a play, do you first check to see what the critics or your friends thought of the show before making your decision? I don’t know about you, but I tend to think that anything that is “popular” is probably going to bit a bit too “low-brow” for my tastes. (For example, I prefer Waking Ned Devine over Iron Man.)

And if you hear of a play or a restaurant that sounds interesting to you, do you go DESPITE any negative feedback you may hear because you are independent and want to make up your own mind? I’ve made it a policy to avoid the big franchise restaurants preferring instead to find the little out-of-the-way places (seating for 30 or less) where dedicated chefs are doing amazing things.

What about you?

Sounds like the precursor to some copy and past stuff on the theme of “Why I stopped being a silly Jew/Atheist/Whatever and came to Jesus . . .” to me. Some of them might even have a Phd to make it sound even more impressive.

 

[Kaninchen]

True. Which means that before the end of the first century, a extra-biblical source corroborated what the gospels said.

Do you really think you can get away with saying things like that to people with even vaguely critical minds?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sounds like the precursor to some copy and past stuff on the theme of “Why I stopped being a silly Jew/Atheist/Whatever and came to Jesus . . .” to me. Some of them might even have a Phd to make it sound even more impressive.

Nope. Just curious.

Do you investigate on your own and make up your own mind? Or do you prefer to go with the crowd since there’s safety in numbers?

One way is not necessarily better…they’re just different approaches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you really think you can get away with saying things like that to people with even vaguely critical minds?

I know so.

 

[Kaninchen]

Nope. Just curious.

Do you investigate on your own and make up your own mind? Or do you prefer to go with the crowd since there’s safety in numbers?

One way is not necessarily better…they’re just different approaches.

Um, I’m a Jew, I’ve grown up in a world full of Christians, I’m here on a set of forums that are heavily Catholic, I’d have thought that even you might have managed to make some kind of deductions from that.

 

[Kaninchen]

I know so.

Somehow that explains even more.

 

[SonOfMan]

True. Which means that before the end of the first century, a extra-biblical source corroborated what the gospels said.

Which make it REALLY hard for deniers to make Christianity a second-century phenomenon, doesn’t it?

It doesnt corroborate what the Bible claims. Josephus’ statement is hearsay, not corroboration.