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

[_Abyssinia]

I ask this as a Catholic who would like to be clarified and who is called to defend Catholic Christianity.

One of the main reasons I’m a Christian is because of the Argument of the Resurrection of Jesus, Jesus’ fullfilment of OT prophecy Jesus’ claim to be God etc.

But a non Christian (especially a Jew or an atheist) could perfectly say that the Apostles exaggerated the story about Jesus and Jesus didn’t make those claims that are in the New Testament about his Divinity for example.

One argues that Jesus was the Messiah because of the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies. But the New Testament was written after the Old Testament so what if Jesus though a real historical figure didn’t fulfil the Old Testament prophecies?

What if his apostles and the NT writers read the OT to make the prophecies fit and maybe invented stuff about him that never really happened (such as Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments) so that Jesus could seem more credible as a Messiah?

I am asking this so that I can have a better defence for the Christian faith. Thank you and God bless.

This is not from a Catholic website but it looks at the Messianic prophecies and the information may be of interest:

The Messianic prophecies were written over the span of a millennium by several Old Testament prophets. They spoke of a Messiah who would one day come to earth and walk among mankind. These prophecies mentioned specific names, locations, and even the timing surrounding His appearance. The known date of completion for the Old Testament writings is 430 B.C., so these prophecies were in circulation at least 430
years before the time of Christ.

Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible these prophecies were written after the life Jesus?
Answer: There is simply too much evidence showing the Old Testament writings to be in circulation for this to be possible. One example is the Septuagint which predates the Masoretic texts by more than 1,000 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another example, with many scrolls dating back to 250 BC. Other (less reliable) sources include the Talmud and various authors which record the knowledge of certain messianic prophecies around the time of Christ. Even if you reject the Old Testament date of completion as 430 B.C. there is enough evidence to show a time gap of at least 250 years between the last messianic prophecy and the time of Jesus. If we accept the Mosaic authorship of the Torah in approximately 1400 B.C., some messianic prophecies were written up to 1,400 years before the life of Jesus.

Skeptic Interjection: I’ve read in some skeptic literature that the translation of the Septuagint didn’t begin until 250 B.C. and was finally completed in 50 B.C.
Answer: Even if this is true, this still allows for a 50 year gap before the life of Christ. Regardless, the fact of the matter is the Scriptures were in existence prior to 250 B.C. for the translators to begin their mission.

Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible the Christians interpolated the Messianic prophecies into the Hebrew Bible?
Answer: The odds of this occurring are practically impossible. The Jews were well acquainted with their Scriptures. If Christians tried to alter the texts, the Jews would have immediately pointed this out. If someone today altered the Christian Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or any other well known literary work, they would immediately be discredited once confronted with the original documents. There are simply too many extant manuscripts preceding Christianity that show the Messianic prophecies were well known and in circulation.

thedevineevidence.com/prophecy_jesus.html

 

[steve_b]

Josephus wasn’t even born until 37 A.D. and never had any direct, personal contact with Jesus Christ. What he says basically amounts to hearsay. However, most scholars believe his writings were tampered with or outright forged by early Christians. So Josephus doesn’t have much relevance here, I’m afraid.

Most “scholars”? Which one of these “scholars” was there?
S:

How does one show that the Catholic Church is legitimate without appealing to the Bible?

The Catholic Church preceded the bible.

I quoted Ignatius. He was bishop ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. He was a direct disciple of John the apostle. And Ignatius was thought to be the 1st to use Catholic Church in writing in this letter Epistle to the Smyrnæans (ch 8)
S:

Keep in mind that many other churches, such as the Orthodox Churches, believe they are the real deal and the ones who wrote, collected, and canonized the Bible.

Please find for me the 1st time “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. Please quote it properly referenced

 

[DCNBILL]

Please I would like to stick to the topic at hand. I’m not asking about the existence of Jesus or about the reliability of the OT, or about the persecution of Christian during the first 3 centuries. Those are different topics which even though are important is not what I came here to discuss.

My main question focuses on the NT alone and about the prophecies and claims attributed to Jesus. The apostles and the NT writers were very familiar with the OT. So what if to make Jesus more credible as the Messiah they decided to make like a copy and paste with the OT and incorporate into the NT? For example: the OT talks about casting lots for clothing, John the Evangelist sees this and writes down in his Gospel that they casted lots for Jesus’ clothing, or it says that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, so the Gospels say that Jesus was born of a Virgin, or in the OT it says he will be born of Bethelehem, so they say Jesus was born in Bethlehem and so on with all the OT texts which says that the Messiah will do this and do that. That’s what I mean.

Did the apostles invent some of these things up about Jesus to make him seem more like the Messiah who the Jews were expecting? If not then how do we know?

God bless

I would think that the Resurrection alone would be what the apostles were trying to preach, if your saying that the writers of the Gospels fabricated some parts of the NT then you might as well dismiss the whole thing. Anyone can “say” anything they want about Scripture, can believe anything they want about Scripture. The fact remains that the Apostles had an encounter with the risen Lord, Paul had an encounter with the risen Lord, thousands of saints have had an encounter with the risen Lord and I would guess that Millions of Christians have had an encounter with the risen Lord!

Yes the Bible is a product of The Catholic Church so I would assume that if anyone had anything to say about the Bible it would be the teaching authority of the Church, what others have to say about it is merely opinion.

 

[SonOfMan]

Most “scholars”? Which one of these “scholars” was there?

One quick example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_challenging_the_authenticity_of_the_3_passages

G. A. Wells has stated that the fact that Origen seems to have read something different about the death of James in Josephus than what there is now, suggests some tampering with the James passage seen by Origen.

And that wasn’t even the most fundamental part of what I wrote that you quoted above. Josephus was born in 37 A.D., he couldn’t have witnessed anything personally of Jesus’ life or the miraculous deeds. Josephus is just passing along the stories that he heard when he wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 A.D. Citing Josephus here isn’t a compelling argument.

The Catholic Church preceded the bible.

Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

I quoted Ignatius. He was bishop ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d.

That is years after Jesus Christ’s death and he had no direct personal contact with Jesus. Furthermore, Ignatius didn’t institue the Catholic Church, you’re alleging that Jesus instituted it, so you need to show where Jesus first used the term, not Ignatius.

Please find for me the 1st time “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. Please quote it properly referenced

On that same note, please directly quote Jesus where he specifies that the church he is creating is the "Catholic Church", and where “Catholic Church” appears in writing.

 

[steve_b]

One quick example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_challenging_the_authenticity_of_the_3_passages

There’s your problem. Wiki.

What reputable source has edit] after every single section where anybody can add or subtract what they want from that article?
SO:

And that wasn’t even the most fundamental part of what I wrote that you quoted above. Josephus was born in 37 A.D., he couldn’t have witnessed anything personally of Jesus’ life or the miraculous deeds.

I never said he did. Nor did I make any of that the issue. He’s a 1st century historian who is NOT a Christian. He is NOT there to promote Christianity. I said he has no dog in that hunt. He is NOT a Christian partisan. He is a Jew interested in Jewish history. Of which Jesus and His family would be of some interest only because they were Jews.
SO:

Josephus is just passing along the stories that he heard when he wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 A.D.

How is that a problem?
SO:

Citing Josephus here isn’t a compelling argument.

I don’t need Josephus to be compelling or to give me a compelling argument. I used him to show a non Christian source. That’s all.

However, In 93 a.d. John the apostle is still alive. He is a living eye witness to the events being discussed. He was at the foot of the cross of Jesus. In 93 John hasn’t written the book of Revelations yet.

Then there is Ignatius of Antioch, a direct disciple of John. There is also Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, (present day Turkey), who is a direct disciple of John as well. Their writings are all available to read.

If I want compelling arguments I quote THEM often and other ECF’s as well.
SO:

steve b

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Catholic Church preceded the bible.

SO

Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

Do you know when the bible was officially defined with 73 books (OT & NT) as the canon? Without that canon of books, you have no official bible.
SO:

That is years after Jesus Christ’s death and he had no direct personal contact with Jesus.

Never said he did nor did I say that was important for him to have. Josephus wrote history. Most of what he wrote about he didn’t live it.
SO:

Furthermore, Ignatius didn’t institue the Catholic Church, you’re alleging that Jesus instituted it, so you need to show where Jesus first used the term, not Ignatius.

I never said Ignatius instituted the Catholic Church. He is thought to be the first “in writing” to use Catholic Church because we have the letters he wrote. Which means from his time as bishop in ~69 a.d. he was using the name Catholic Church. And I will point out, if that was wrong, John the apostle certainly would have corrected that. But instead, we see Catholic Church, “in writing” whenever “Church” was defined or used by an ECF, for the next 250 years, such that the 1st ecumenical council of Nicea, in 325, not only identifies the 4 marks of the Church but makes One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church an article of faith.

I will just say, Re: Ignatius, he taught what he received from the apostles and particularly what he got from John… Jesus died ~33 a.d. Ignatius was made bishop ~ 69 a.d. That’s 36 years since the death and resurrection of Jesus.
SO:

On that same note, please directly quote Jesus where he specifies that the church he is creating is the "Catholic Church"

, and where “Catholic Church” appears in writing.

Not so fast

Based on a previous comment you made, I asked you to answer this question

Originally Posted by steve b

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Please find for me the 1st time "Orthodox Church" appears in writing. Please quote it properly referenced

You can click on the arrow after my name to go to the actual response

 

[SonOfMan]

There’s your problem. Wiki.

What reputable source has edit] after every single section where anybody can add or subtract what they want from that article?

That was a quick link. Wiki is generally trustworthy for quick skims for facts.If anyone attempts to edit with false information, it is quickly deleted.

I don’t need Josephus to be compelling or to give me a compelling argument. I used him to show a non Christian source. That’s all.

That’s fine, but Josephus isn’t a contemporary of Jesus Christ. There are zero contemporary writings of the life and works of Jesus Christ, which is what I originally stated and you went ahead and cited Josephus, which is irrelevant here for the reason I just gave.

Do you know when the bible was officially defined with 73 books (OT & NT) as the canon? Without that canon of books, you have no official bible.

I’m aware of that and I’m not disputing that, only disputing where you arrive at the conclusion that the Catholic Church compiled them, when there are other churches that take responsibility for compiling the books of the Bible too. Without evidence, anyone and everyone, may make that claim.

Never said he did nor did I say that was important for him to have. Josephus wrote history. Most of what he wrote about he didn’t live it.

Josephus wrote what was told to him. His words on Jesus Christ carry no weight, since he’s just regurgitating what he’s heard.

I never said Ignatius instituted the Catholic Church. He is thought to be the first “in writing” to use Catholic Church because we have the letters he wrote.

I don’t know what Ignatius has to do with anything either, or what relevance him using the term “Catholic Church” has. Unless Jesus Christ specifically mentions “Catholic Church” himself, there’s no way of providing evidence for the assertion that the Catholic Church preceded the Bible or that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus is referring to.

I will just say, Re: Ignatius, he taught what he received from the apostles and particularly what he got from John… Jesus died ~33 a.d. Ignatius was made bishop ~ 69 a.d. That’s 36 years since the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Not sure that the use of the term “Catholic Church” 36 years after Jesus’ death, for the first time, qualifies as being the original Church Jesus was referring to, if such a term never existed before then.

Not so fast

Based on a previous comment you made, I asked you to answer this question

There is no use of the terms Orthodox Church or Catholic Church in writing, before or during the life of Jesus Christ. It seems there’s no proof for those assertions.

 

[DCNBILL]

There is no use of the terms Orthodox Church or Catholic Church in writing, before or during the life of Jesus Christ. It seems there’s no proof for those assertions.

There is no use of the terms internet or smart phones in the works of Einstein, since there is no proof for those assertions do you deny the existence of them?

Your statement makes no logical sense.

 

[steve_b]

That was a quick link. Wiki is generally trustworthy for quick skims for facts. If anyone attempts to edit with false information, it is quickly deleted.

Did you see their disclaimer?

Disclaimers

from the 1st paragraph.

“Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information”.
S:

That’s fine, but Josephus isn’t a contemporary of Jesus Christ.

Never said he was.
S:

There are zero contemporary writings of the life and works of Jesus Christ, which is what I originally stated and you went ahead and cited Josephus, which is irrelevant here for the reason I just gave.

I quoted Josephus merely because he was a non partisan. A 1st century Jew writing about Jewish history.

He mentioned many Jews who were named Jesus. #8 Oh but if he mentions Jesus the Christ, well…Holy COW then the explosion happens?

The apostles who walked with Jesus, therefore eyewitnesses, are Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

the ones in red wrote text as well. And Mark wrote for Peter as well.
S:

I’m only disputing where you arrive at the conclusion that the Catholic Church compiled them,

when there are other churches that take responsibility for compiling the books of the Bible too. Without evidence, anyone and everyone, may make that claim.

What Churches are the “other” churches you refer to? Name them and show them “in writing” properly referenced.

The Church has been Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

If one asks, where does kata holos ekklesia appear in scripture ?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = Kataholos Church. (the links are operational)

It’s the Church of the creed, making it an article of faith. There was no other Church.
S:

Josephus wrote what was told to him. His words on Jesus Christ carry no weight, since he’s just regurgitating what he’s heard.

Your low opinion of people passing information on faithfully is duely noted.
S:

I don’t know what Ignatius has to do with anything either, or what relevance him using the term “Catholic Church” has.

Unless Jesus Christ specifically mentions “Catholic Church” himself, there’s no way of providing evidence for the assertion that the Catholic Church preceded the Bible or that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus is referring to.

Jesus never wrote text. He didn’t command the apostles to write. Some did write.

The Church preceded the bible because the writers were writing to and for the Church they were already in.
S:

Not sure that the use of the term “Catholic Church” 36 years after Jesus’ death, for the first time, qualifies as being the original Church Jesus was referring to, if such a term never existed before then.

Given the huge persecution going on, 36 years is nothing.

Re:Acts 9:31
the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = Kataholos Church.

That’s where Catholic Church comes from that the ECF’s use.
S:

There is no use of the terms Orthodox Church or Catholic Church in writing, before or during the life of Jesus Christ. It seems there’s no proof for those assertions.

I challenged you to make the case for “Orthodox Church” whose case you advanced earlier #13 , and that’s the answer you give?

Here’s a quick 1st 400 years of Catholic Church history #34

 

[SonOfMan]

There is no use of the terms internet or smart phones in the works of Einstein, since there is no proof for those assertions do you deny the existence of them?

Your statement makes no logical sense.

It makes perfect sense.

No one is claiming Einstein created an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy. If they did claim that these brands of smartphone originated with him, you’d better believe we’d be looking for reference to these specific brands by Einstein, if he in fact did create them.

Vague references to “a church” and then later different groups trying to claim “Oh yeah, that’s us. See it says there” are a little far-fetched. Unless, of course, you have the proof to back that up. So where is it?

 

[SonOfMan]

I quoted Josephus merely because he was a non partisan. A 1st century Jew writing about Jewish history.

Name one non-partisan, contemporary eyewitness Christ. Just one.

He mentioned many Jews who were named Jesus. #8 Oh but if he mentions Jesus the Christ, well…Holy COW then the explosion happens?

No explosion happens. It’s just what he heard, nothing special about that.

The apostles who walked with Jesus, therefore eyewitnesses, are Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.

They are alleged to have witnessed these miraculous deeds, but they were directly involved from the movement, so I’d be leary of some bias there.

What Churches are the “other” churches you refer to? Name them and show them “in writing” properly referenced.

Talk to any member of any of the Orthodox Churches and they will tell you that they are the original church founded by Christ, passed on by the Apostles.

The Church has been Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole.

Exactly, the use of the word “whole” or “universal” was meant to describe the Church, not it’s direct title such as “The Catholic Church.” There are Orthodox Christians worldwide, though, so I guess they’re universal in that sense. Are they the true Church, then?

 

[Hockeygurl]

Check out A Case for Christ. Lee Strobel who was a Chicago tribune journalist and former non-believer, investigates this very issue. Was Jesus the man that the gospels claim to be and how can we trust the NT?

after almost 2 years of investigation, he became a Christian and has written several books. A case for a Creator, a case for faith, a case for easter etc.

You tube has a seminar where he speaks about his findings that is very good to watch (and free).

He makes it very interesting and actually states that after he learned all he did that it would take MORE faith NOT to believe in Jesus.

What is really nice is that you can’t tell if he is Lutheran, Methodist, or Catholic. There is no theological debate, just the raw evidence.

 

[steve_b]

Name one non-partisan, contemporary eyewitness Christ. Just one.

Jacob. He lived in Nazareth.
S:

They are alleged to have witnessed these miraculous deeds, but they were directly involved from the movement, so I’d be leary of some bias there.

Yeah…and I could say you’re alleged to be discussing this matter with me. I don’t know it’s really you. You might be somebody else. You might be computer generated, and not even real.
S:

Talk to any member of any of the Orthodox Churches and they will tell you that they are the original church founded by Christ, passed on by the Apostles.

You still haven’t given me the first time “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. Don’t feel bad. I’ve asked that question many times over the years to Orthodox posters, going back to 2005, and no answer from them when the first time “Orthodox Church” appears in wiiting.
S:

Exactly, the use of the word “whole” or “universal” was meant to describe the Church, not it’s direct title such as “The Catholic Church.” There are Orthodox Christians worldwide, though, so I guess they’re universal in that sense. Are they the true Church, then?

That argument popped up during the time of Irenaeus. It’s not new. Others wanted to hijack the name Catholic for themselves. So Irenaeus wrote against them. He said, no matter the pedigree, all had to agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s pre-eminent authority and because that’s the tradition passed on by the 2 greatest apostles Peter and Paul, and those faithful to their teaching passing on this teaching faithfully. Then if you keep reading from the link Irenaeus names 12 bishops of the Church he’s talking about just in case his readers have any questions. All the bishops named were bishops of Rome.

see #35

 

[DCNBILL]

It makes perfect sense.

No one is claiming Einstein created an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy. If they did claim that these brands of smartphone originated with him, you’d better believe we’d be looking for reference to these specific brands by Einstein, if he in fact did create them.

Vague references to “a church” and then later different groups trying to claim “Oh yeah, that’s us. See it says there” are a little far-fetched. Unless, of course, you have the proof to back that up. So where is it?

Here is one, from your favorite source. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church

A study of the Early Fathers of the Church would also be a good approach to discovering the truth of the faith, I would recommend William Jurgens 3 volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers

 

[SonOfMan]

Jacob. He lived in Nazareth.

Who is Jacob? Some details and citing some evidence would be nice.

Yeah…and I could say you’re alleged to be discussing this matter with me. I don’t know it’s really you. You might be somebody else. You might be computer generated, and not even real.

Yes, you could say that. However, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for my existence, if you were serious about proving that.

You still haven’t given me the first time “Orthodox Church” appears…

I already stated that it doesn’t appear in writing (to my knowledge), and neither does “Catholic Church” for that matter. So I’m afraid you haven’t met your own standard there and have yet to show me where "The Catholic Church"appears in the Bible as well (citing something written** 36 years after the fact **actually proves my point more than it does yours). Surely if the Catholic Church preceded, wrote, and canonized the Bible, it would make perfect sense if they would have specified that in their own writing. The fact that it doesn’t, is suspicious. Claiming something after the fact doesn’t work, much like someone trying to claim the winning numbers on a Lotto ticket after the winning numbers were already revealed.

It seems the verdict is that the Bible is vague on who this church is, leaving it open for anyone and everyone to claim authenticity.

That argument popped up during the time of Irenaeus. It’s not new. Others wanted to hijack the name Catholic for themselves. So Irenaeus wrote against them. He said, no matter the pedigree, all had to agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s pre-eminent authority and because that’s the tradition passed on by the 2 greatest apostles Peter and Paul, and those faithful to their teaching passing on this teaching faithfully. Then if you keep reading from the link Irenaeus names 12 bishops of the Church he’s talking about just in case his readers have any questions. All the bishops named were bishops of Rome.

This likely falls under a whole new topic in which I disagree with, but that still doesn’t demonstrate that Jesus instituted “The Catholic Church”, it is just written that Jesus wished to institute “*a *church.” Unspecified and very vague, anyone can make the claim that he was refering to them.

 

[steve_b]

Who is Jacob? Some details and citing some evidence would be nice.

It was a sarcastic remark. My bad. I thought about changing it but time ran out to do so.

The real answer to your question

Originally Posted by SonOfMan forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Name one non-partisan, contemporary eyewitness Christ. Just one.

Saul of Tarsus.

A contemporary of Jesus, a pharisee, definitely an adversary to Jesus and His Church. On the road to Damascus, Saul had an encounter with the risen Jesus. Besides being blinded by the encounter, Saul was also converted. And his converted name became Paul.

read about this in Acts 9
S:

Yes, you could say that. However, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for my existence, if you were serious about proving that.

And the same is true for the existence of the Catholic Church using quotes I’ve used.
S:

I already stated that it doesn’t appear in writing (to my knowledge),

So why keep bringing them up as if they DID appear in early writing?
S:

and neither does “Catholic Church” for that matter.

“Catholic Church” DOES appear early in writing . And I showed you where the name came from
S:

So I’m afraid you haven’t met your own standard there and have yet to show me where "The Catholic Church"appears in the Bible as well (citing something written** 36 years after the fact **actually proves my point more than it does yours).

While the name Catholic doesn’t appear in scripture, I showed the Greek words from scripture where katholicos, (Catholic in English) comes from. Katholicos (Catholic) is a compound word from Kata & holos. I showed you where in scripture that comes from.

Re: prophesies in the NT and the reliability of the NT, (the subject of this thread), we see 2000 years of history in one institution, the Catholic Church.

the first 4 centuries

· Clement of Rome during apostolic times is a Catholic bishop. 3rd successor to Peter in Rome. He settles sedition among the Catholic bishops of Corinth Greece during apostolic times. John is alive at this time of Clements actions in Corinth
· Ignatius during apostolic times, is a Catholic bishop of Antioch Syria. He wrote 6 letters. I gave you 2 of them
· Polycarp, during apostolic times, is a Catholic bishop of Smyrna, Turkey. His letters are available to read online
· Irenaeus is a Catholic bishop of Lyon France, who was originally from Smyrna. He listed the names of 12 Catholic bishops of the Church of Rome who succeeded Peter, down to the present day of Irenaeus writing. THAT’s the Church everyone is to agree with. I’ve given you his work on “Against Heresies”
· Cyprian is a Catholic Bishop of Carthage his letters are online
· Council of Nicea’s decree, “we believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
· And I could go on and on
S:

Surely if the Catholic Church preceded, wrote, and canonized the Bible, it would make perfect sense if they would have specified that in their own writing. The fact that it doesn’t, is suspicious. Claiming something after the fact doesn’t work, much like someone trying to claim the winning numbers on a Lotto ticket after the winning numbers were already revealed.

• The writers of NT scripture were already in the Church they wrote to and for.

S:

It seems the verdict is that the Bible is vague on who this church is, leaving it open for anyone and everyone to claim authenticity.

The evidence is overwhelming for the Catholic Church.

Jesus is going to build His Church on Rock, correct?

• Who did Jesus rename Rock? Cephas (Peter) = Rock
• Who did Jesus promise the keys of the kingdom to? Peter
• Who did Jesus say would be able to single handedly bind and loose? Peter
• Who did Jesus say was the greatest among the apostles? Peter
• Who did Jesus give the authority to feed and rule over His Church? Peter
• Who is the 267th successor to St Peter in Rome? Pope Francis

There’s only one Church on the planet who has the successor to Peter over it. The Catholic Church
S:

doesn’t demonstrate that Jesus instituted “The Catholic Church”, it is just written that Jesus wished to institute “*a *church.” Unspecified and very vague, anyone can make the claim that he was refering to them.

I think this quote from Aquinas, sums up what’s really happening here

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

[eddie_too]

what evidence has been produced to prove that the bible is a group of fictional stories?

absent such evidence, why is such a claim even discussed?

please all of you doubters, provide the evidence that proves your doubts are based on facts?

once that has been done, there is a reason to discuss the veracity of the bible. without evidence proving the bible is fiction, believers have nothing to refute.

 

[eddie_too]

all available evidence supports the authenticity of the bible. there is no evidence that supports the idea that the bible is fictional.

 

[SonOfMan]

It was a sarcastic remark. My bad. I thought about changing it but time ran out to do so.

The real answer to your question

Saul of Tarsus.

Saul/Paul was a believer, directly involved in the movement of Christianity. I wouldnt call that non-partisan.

A contemporary of Jesus

Saul/Paul never met Jesus. He claims to have had an encounter. There is no proof that he ever was anti-Christianity and then converted, the Bible merely alleges that.

Are there any non-partisan, contemporary writings that support what the Bible alleges? It seems to be the answer still remains at zero.

I will get to the rest of your post later.

 

[steve_b]

Saul/Paul was a believer, directly involved in the movement of Christianity. I wouldnt call that non-partisan.

You’re not even reading what is given.
S:

Saul/Paul never met Jesus.

HE WAS THERE IN JERUSALEM DURING JESUS MINISTRY. That makes him a contemporary. Albeit a hostile contemporary.
S:

He claims to have had an encounter. There is no proof that he ever was anti-Christianity and then converted, the Bible merely alleges that.

I gave you ch 9 in Acts to read. Now go back to ch 7 and start reading from there. Saul before he converted persecuted the Church AND Stephen a Deacon was stoned to death at Sauls feet for no other reason than Stephen was a deacon in the Church. That made Saul anti Christian as well…Why else would Jesus say to Saul, “why are YOU persecuting ME”?

As for your comments about the bible “alleges”… there is “no proof”… all is “hearsay”… etc etc etc, all you’re doing is rejecting, which is no answer at all.
S:

Are there any non-partisan, contemporary writings that support what the Bible alleges? It seems to be the answer still remains at zero.

I will get to the rest of your post later.

Don’t bother.

This was my final response to you

 

[eddie_too]

encounter means meet.