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

[Kaninchen]

That sometimes I post for the benefit of the lurkers.

Oh, and that the gospel writers were reliable in their accounts of the life of Jesus.

What you’ve posted does nothing of the sort, even if one accepted your interpretations, you end up with the idea that they knew something and that some outsiders later noticed something.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The thing is Randy that I’m quite aware that what you’re presenting as ‘Gospel Truth’ is, basically, smoke and mirrors - that libraries have been filled with Christian scholars arguing about the nature of the text, who wrote what and when, stuff like that.

Actually, it goes a bit further than that, Kaninchen.

Even atheist scholars such as Bart Ehrman and others concede that there is quite a bit of historical accuracy in the gospel accounts. IOW, there are some points about which there is really no dispute even from critics and skeptics.

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, it goes a bit further than that, Kaninchen.

Even atheist scholars such as Bart Ehrman and others concede that there is quite a bit of historical accuracy in the gospel accounts. IOW, there are some points about which there is really no dispute even from critics and skeptics.

And I haven’t suggested that there wasn’t certain historical accuracy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What you’ve posted does nothing of the sort, even if one accepted your interpretations, you end up with the idea that they knew something and that some outsiders later noticed something.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I haven’t suggested that there wasn’t certain historical accuracy.

Understandably.

 

[Kaninchen]

Can you be more specific?

Explain just how the comments of external authors prove the entire text of the New Testament to be ‘true’.

 

[Kaninchen]

Understandably.

Exactly, it was me who pointed out that the fact that a text contained references to things known to exist outside the text didn’t mean one had to accept the entirety of the text.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Kaninchen-

I’d like to shift gears for a few moments in preparation for my next point, so bear with me.

I’ve always been fascinated by the Holocaust.

I’ve read books, seen dozens of documentaries on television, and been to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC with a Jewish friend (my boss at the time, actually) where I stared at all those shoes and eyeglasses and pieces of luggage left behind. I’ve seen the play based on Anne Frank’s diary, and I hope to visit Auschwitz in person someday. I’m pro-Israel, I watched the recent speech by Benjamin Netanyahu before our congress in its entirety, and I agreed with every word he said.

But MY knowledge and experience with the holocaust is nothing like your own, is it?

Now, let me ask you this: would it be reasonable for anyone to doubt the accounts of the survivors of the Nazi death camps simply because these survivors are too passionate or too biased about the events they witnessed?

Or would it be reasonable for us to believe that the men and women who were both victims of and eyewitnesses to the atrocities of the Shoah are firmly committed to their careful and faithful accounts of what occurred so that nothing like it ever happens again?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Explain just how the comments of external authors prove the entire text of the New Testament to be ‘true’.

They don’t.

But they do put to rest any nonsense from skeptics who doubt that Jesus was a real person or that he was ever crucified.

One brick at a time.

 

[SonOfMan]

Actually, it goes a bit further than that, Kaninchen.

Even atheist scholars such as Bart Ehrman and others concede that there is quite a bit of historical accuracy in the gospel accounts. IOW, there are some points about which there is really no dispute even from critics and skeptics.

Most scholars are willing to concde that there really was a man named Jesus. What these scholars dont concede is that this man was God.

There are historical accuracies in the stories about Spider Man, but that doesnt mean Spider Man exists in real life.

 

[SonOfMan]

No, I’m using half a dozen authors whose historically reliable works are found in the Bible to say that the resurrection of Jesus is true.

And all the authors you cite were involved in the movement of Christianity. I would be afraid of there being some heavy bias there.

 

[Kaninchen]

Now, let me ask you this: would it be reasonable for anyone to doubt the accounts of the survivors of the Nazi death camps simply because these survivors are too passionate or too biased about the events they witnessed?

Or would it be reasonable for us to believe that the men and women who were both victims of and eyewitnesses to the atrocities of the Shoah are firmly committed to their careful and faithful accounts of what occurred so that nothing like it ever happens again?

Ah, the Holocaust analogy as apologetic - “deny Jesus and you’re denying the Shoah!” - I’ve not had this one thrown at me for some time.

The thing is that reports of the Shoah don’t include: virgin births, wine at weddings, miraculous catches of fish, raising people from the dead - including yourself, walking on water, massed catering with the odd baskets of fish and bread, stuff like that.

 

[DCNBILL]

Ah, the Holocaust analogy as apologetic - “deny Jesus and you’re denying the Shoah!” - I’ve not had this one thrown at me for some time.

The thing is that reports of the Shoah don’t include: virgin births, wine at weddings, miraculous catches of fish, raising people from the dead - including yourself, walking on water, massed catering with the odd baskets of fish and bread, stuff like that.

Here is one miracle that came out of it.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Kolbe.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, the Holocaust analogy as apologetic - “deny Jesus and you’re denying the Shoah!” - I’ve not had this one thrown at me for some time.

I don’t see the connection, Kaninchen, and that is not what I said, and you know it.

I am asking you to consider whether the people who survived the holocaust would have feelings about the Nazis that were so biased as to make their reportage of their experiences in the concentration camps unreliable.

Do we dismiss their testimonies just because they may be “biased”?

The thing is that reports of the Shoah don’t include: virgin births, wine at weddings, miraculous catches of fish, raising people from the dead - including yourself, walking on water, massed catering with the odd baskets of fish and bread, stuff like that.

No, they do not. However, they do include gut-wrenching tales of life and death, of heroism, courage and cowardice, of unspeakable brutality and unexpected acts of kindness. They contain the first-hand accounts of experiences far beyond anything most of us have or, God willing, will never experience.

And since we have no personal, direct experience with either walking on water or mass genocide, we’re dependent on the testimony of others who witnessed these things for information about them. Of course, mass genocide happens more frequently than the raising of the dead or miraculous feeding of thousands, but that does not mean that it is not beyond what most of us know directly.

Can we trust the survivors of the Shoah to be truthful, Kaninchen? Or did their anger toward their captors cause them to embellish their stories?

I’m asking for rhetorical purposes only, of course. I have no doubts about what happened to the Jews during World War II. But their are deniers who refuse to accept the evidence that is presented and who claim that the survivors cannot be believed or trusted.

I think it is possible for someone to be very powerfully affected by an experience in life (whether positive or negative) and still capable of providing an accurate account of that experience.

Perhaps you disagree.

I also think it is interesting how important the concept of remembering is to the Jewish people. Remembering the past. Remembering what God has done for His people. Remembering Jerusalem. From the schema to celebration of the Passover to the telling of the tales of Hanukah, the Jews have carefully and accurately remembered their past for thousands of years.

This was the culture of the early followers of Jesus. This treasuring and preserving of the memory of the presence of God in their midst was just as important to the Jews who were present of the day of Pentecost as it was to the Jews who witnessed Pharaoh’s army swallowed by the Red Sea. And just as Jews have told and retold the stories of Abraham and Joseph and David to their children, so the Jews who were the first followers of the Christ wrote and studied and memorized in the books and letters we call the New Testament.

They wrote carefully and accurately because they were Jews seeking to glorify their God.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t see the connection, Kaninchen, and that is not what I said, and you know it.

Could be that my experience of people using the Shoah analogy has left me as seeing it as one of the last refuges of the scoundrel apologist. There are, of course, many examples of groups of people who have suffered dreadfully but the example of the Shoah tends to be the one chosen when attempting to work on Jewish susceptibilities.

I think it is possible for someone to be very powerfully affected by an experience in life (whether positive or negative) and still capable of providing an accurate account of that experience.

When you feel you’ve laboured this point long enough, perhaps you’ll move on?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could be that my experience of people using the Shoah analogy has left me as seeing it as one of the last refuges of the scoundrel apologist. There are, of course, many examples of groups of people who have suffered dreadfully but the example of the Shoah tends to be the one chosen when attempting to work on Jewish susceptibilities.

When you feel you’ve laboured this point long enough, perhaps you’ll move on?

You posted before I was finished editing my previous post…please make sure that you see the conclusion. I do apologize for a couple of typos…my 20 minutes ran out.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could be that my experience of people using the Shoah analogy has left me as seeing it as one of the last refuges of the scoundrel apologist. There are, of course, many examples of groups of people who have suffered dreadfully but the example of the Shoah tends to be the one chosen when attempting to work on Jewish susceptibilities.

Of course. But if I spoke of the Armenian genocide, you’d probably feel less connected. And so would I.

When you feel you’ve laboured this point long enough, perhaps you’ll move on?

If I don’t move on, will you actually answer my question?

Can the survivors of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing (to switch analogies) possibly be relied upon for accurate accounts of those events given their close connectons to them?

Why is it that only Christian authors are considered to be unreliable witnesses because - OMG - they actually believe what they are writing about?

By this line of reasoning, you should ignore your own rabbi because he’s obviously a believer. And that Moses fellow was clearly in waaaaaay too deep to report what happened on Mt. Sinai in an unbiased manner.

And talk about motivation for personal gain…David got to be king and Solomon had more women than Tiger Woods. Now, there’s a reason to tell a few tall tales.

No, Kaninchen, if Christian testimony regarding miracles is to be dismissed simply because the motivations of the early leaders is suspect or because supernatural events are incredible, then we have to throw out the ark built by Noah and to dismiss the burning bush. We must forget about the commandments written on stone tablets and pay no attention to the battle of Jericho because trumpet blasts don’t destroy city walls. The list of things we choose not to believe would go on and on.

I’m not prepared to go there. Are you?

 

[Kaninchen]

No, Kaninchen, if Christian testimony regarding miracles is to be dismissed simply because the motivations of the early leaders is suspect or because supernatural events are incredible, then we have to throw out the ark built by Noah and to dismiss the burning bush. We must forget about the commandments written on stone tablets and pay no attention to the battle of Jericho because trumpet blasts don’t destroy city walls. The list of things we choose not to believe would go on and on.

Actually, Randy, we don’t have to anything of the sort. I don’t have to stop believing in anything just because I don’t accept the Christian scriptures just as you don’t have to stop believing in the divine nature of Jesus just because you don’t accept Muslim claims about the supernatural events surrounding Mohammed and on through other religions. In other words this particular argument can very quickly be reduced to absurdity.

You’re still trying to create proof out of smoke and mirrors.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, Randy, we don’t have to anything of the sort. I don’t have to stop believing in anything just because I don’t accept the Christian scriptures just as you don’t have to stop believing in the divine nature of Jesus just because you don’t accept Muslim claims about the supernatural events surrounding Mohammed and on through other religions. In other words this particular argument can very quickly be reduced to absurdity.

You’re still trying to create proof out of smoke and mirrors.

I’m not trying to create a proof of anything. I’m trying to foster logical reasoning.

The authors of the NT were VERY passionate about what they believed and wrote. Well, gee, that’s the kind of believers God wants us to be. Lukewarm He can get anywhere.

But that doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY mean that we cannot trust what they wrote because objective evidence supports the view that they are historically accurate. It’s possible that they made stuff up in order to make Jesus look good. But it’s just as possible and more plausible that the Jews who converted to Christianity were just as conscientious about the accuracy of the sacred books and letters of the Church as their brothers in the synagogue next door were about the Torah.

It was a cultural thing, and early on, I’m not sure the disciples of Jesus even realized that there was going to be an eventual separation between Judaism and Christianity. Needless to say, the Christians weren’t going to win many converts in Jerusalem with fictional accounts when all of the people of that city had witnessed the last days of Jesus for themselves.

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.

 

[SonOfMan]

Of course. But if I spoke of the Armenian genocide, you’d probably feel less connected. And so would I.

If I don’t move on, will you actually answer my question?

Can the survivors of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing (to switch analogies) possibly be relied upon for accurate accounts of those events given their close connectons to them?

Why is it that only Christian authors are considered to be unreliable witnesses because - OMG - they actually believe what they are writing about?

By this line of reasoning, you should ignore your own rabbi because he’s obviously a believer. And that Moses fellow was clearly in waaaaaay too deep to report what happened on Mt. Sinai in an unbiased manner.

And talk about motivation for personal gain…David got to be king and Solomon had more women than Tiger Woods. Now, there’s a reason to tell a few tall tales.

No, Kaninchen, if Christian testimony regarding miracles is to be dismissed simply because the motivations of the early leaders is suspect or because supernatural events are incredible, then we have to throw out the ark built by Noah and to dismiss the burning bush. We must forget about the commandments written on stone tablets and pay no attention to the battle of Jericho because trumpet blasts don’t destroy city walls. The list of things we choose not to believe would go on and on.

I’m not prepared to go there. Are you?

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?”