Is the New Testament historically accurate? (confess, revelations, Christians, heaven)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

No. He deserves a rep and you deserve some gentle correction for your rather footling and dunderheaded responses.
I'd respond to your comments myself, but your last few exchanges with me were so completely of the wall that I suspect that you have completely Lost It and there is no more point is debating with you on the Gospels and Paul than in debating with you on evolution.

In other words, "Eusebius, you got the best of me. I can't answer your wisdom so I have to resort
to making snide remarks."

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

Eusebius posted (#173):

>>Interesting that neither Matthew or Luke gave a date for Jesus' birth. It was the rulers they were born under which give the timing of his birth. So you can't say one said "4 BC" and another "6 AD."<<

RESPONSE:
Why don’t you quote what I actually posted?

"Others are doubtfully historical, such as two different dates in Matthew and Luke for Jesus birth (ie. before 4 BC and in 6 AD.)"


Matthew 2:1 “In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea…” (NRSV) That would be “before 4 BC” the date of Herod’s death.

Luke 2:2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. (NRSV). Quirinius’ census was take on the occasion of Archelaus, Herod’s son and inheritor, being sent into exile in 6 AD. (see Josephus' History of the Jews).

See, the above is what I mean by someone misunderstanding the two verses Aristotle's Child quotes.

Why don't you read Lardner's understanding of Luke 2:2 rather than just making an off the cuff remark that that had to be in 6 AD?

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by cupper3

You said:


[/b]

You are misrepresenting what Acts 22:9 actually says:

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


Why would you purposely misrepresent that?

The International Standard Version has it that they didn't understand the voice. I don't know why they changed the Greek word for "hear" to "understand" unless they thought that is what it meant in that verse.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The International Standard Version has it that they didn't understand the voice. I don't know why they changed the Greek word for "hear" to "understand" unless they thought that is what it meant in that verse.

Oh, so we are not only picking and choosing bible versus, but also bible versions themselves.

So, pick one you like, and your good to go, right?

You know this does NOTHING for credibility.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by StanJP

Herod the Great was the one that tried to eliminate Jesus by killing off all 2 year olds as we find in Matt 2:16-18. That Josephus, who recorded at the end of the 1st century AD, was not aware of what Herod perpetrated on those in and around Bethlehem at the beginning of that century is not surprising, unless you feel he was a perfect historian?

It won't do. not only is the story improbable in itself (Herod would of course have sent agents to shadow the wise men) contradict Luke (He says that the family went back to Nazareth after a week or so) but not only does no historian mention this atrocity but none of the other gospels do. Indeed Luke contradicts Herod even being alive. And what do you have? Blinkered insistence that the Bible is reliable no matter how clearly it isn't. You were out two strikes ago.

Doubtful, as Luke was not alive at that time, and the Romans were the one that appointed Herod in 40BC, as King of the Jews. They had conquered Israel in 60 BC. Regardless of the 2 or 3 year time discrepancy, Herod was the King when Augustus called for his census. A big reason was that Herod had previously forgiven a lot of taxes to curry favour with the Jews and Augustus realized this.

The reason was that you didn't collect Roman taxes in client kingdoms. you are making stuff up. As soon as Rome took over Judea as a province a census was made to assess tax. This is quite straightforwards and what Josephus tells us twice. I fail to see what is the relevance of the rest of your post.

It shows that the tax revolt was well and strong when Jesus called him. The Zealots were the one leading the revolt.

That makes no difference to the discrepancy between Luke and Matthew. at most it shows that Luke is wrong in using the 6 AD census (when the revolt broke out) as the mechanism to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. And you have so far produced nothing valid to backdate it to king Herod's time.

Does the Roman Census Prove Luke is Wrong About Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

Another apologetics site I have to refute. Thanks for wasting my time and making no case of your own.

I have seen this one before. It is simply fiddling the terms for governor to try to make Quirinus conduct a census in the time of Herod. This is improbable because Judea was part of Herod's client kingdom. The tax census carried out 'in the area' were in places that were governed by Rome. Judea wasn't. It is certainly improbable that Quirinus was available and he was campaigning in the Taurus' at that time and the terms of the Lucan census show that it was a normal Roman one, not one carried out secretly for Herod. It is improbable that such a census if it was known to Joseph would also be known to Josephus and finally, it is still impossible that Joseph would need to go to his ancestral city even though that apologetics site craftily tries to make ones own city look like it.

That site was out two strikes ago as well.

As I have linked to, that is not necessarily so, and not enough IMO to warrant disbelief in what is written in the Bible.

It is one extra reason to doubt that Luke knew what he was talking about. Since Gadara was the place, that was the name he should have used. Since he didn't, he was referring to some other place. Gergesa doesn't match so Jerash is the best bet. And howcome all of a sudden the overwhelming acceptance that Luke mistook the place is of not concern to the person who is appealing to numbers in support of 'committment to God' as a reason to accept or reject evidence-based assessments.

You mean when one asserts such, but cannot support it with clear corroboration?

When did I assert that Jesus never visited Gadara? I said it is impossible to know.

Again LOOK at the map...there is border between Galilee and Samaria so unless you can show there was no road THERE, there is no reason to doubt the Lukan account.

You look at the map and tell my who on earth there should be a road running along the border and why Jesus would using ut when of course he would follow the routhe from Lake Galilee south to Jerusalem?

You have no evidence to support your argument and some cogent reasons to doubt it. You are simply playing the 'no 100% proof against..so it must be true' card.

l of course bias. It exists in all areas of life and is not discounted simply because someone who believes in their POV won't accept what God's word say. The POINT is that the Bible is to be accepted above APPARENT contradictions or errors. [/quote]


Not unless you are totally biased.

As we walk in faith, we learn that God's word is always faithful and true. It is apparent you know a lot about your side of this issue, but not much about God's side of the issue.

I know enough to see that it leads to total bias

So who are you committed to? God or historians? The majority of Biblical and archeological scholars disagree with your conclusions, but I'm not going to saturate this site with all the links I could, given you apparently will find reason to NOT accept the conclusions given.

cAcessing this or that website (especially as Christians saturate the net with their propaganda) proves nio more than more Bibles printed than any othr book makes it ture.

The only valid criterion for assessing it is reason and evidence. Faith leads only to bias.

Again, there was more than one Judas, and it has already been established that Josephus did NOT record all that happened in Jesus' days. IMO, it is food enough that he did establish Jesus and His followers were real. I'll trust the FIRST hand accounts of that time for details.

But you don't. The first hand accounts - Josephus - show that Luke conflicts with Matthew and cannot be correct anyway. You are rejecting these accounts in favour of an imaginary earlier Judas who reviolted against a tax census imposed by Quirinus, in Herod's time, without an atom of evidence for it.

Actually you are postulating. Do you believe ALL historical accounts are 100% accurate or account for 100% of what transpired? Again, I go with the first hand witness accounts by those who were actually there. Most do.

It doesn't matter whether you insist that the gospels were eyewitness and reject any history that doesn't suit you. It doesn't alter the fact that Luke and Matthew contradict totally even if you propose an earlier Roman census in Herod's time nor does it make sense of the pointless trip to Bethlehem when you registered in your own city.
You are grasping at straws that aren't even there.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by cupper3

You said:


[/b]

You are misrepresenting what Acts 22:9 actually says:

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


Why would you purposely misrepresent that?

I didn't misrepresent Acts 22:9. I used the NASB translation. Many Bible translations translate the phrase οὐκ ēkousan (not hear) as 'did not understand', because that is the meaning. Check the following link which lists twenty-four different Bible translations, nine of which translate it as 'did not understand.' - Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.


Concerning Acts 22:9 I. Howard Marshall, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, comments;

Somewhat inconsequentially Paul interrupts his description of the conversation to point out that his companions were not able to hear what was said, although they saw the light. They were conscious of something unusual, but only Paul experienced the event as a divine revelation. They saw the light, but did not see it as a revelation of Jesus in glory. They heard the voice, but only as a noise, and did not make out the words.

[I. Howard Marshall, Acts, p.375]

And then in the footnote at the bottom of the page with regard to the above comment, Marshall states;

This distinction may be reflected in the use of the verb 'to hear' with the accusative here of the sound heard, but with the genitive in 9:7 of the source of the sound; but the fact that both constructions are used with regard to what Paul himself heard (accusative in 9:4; 26:14; genitive in 22:7) suggests that the grammatical difference may not be significant.

Stanley D. Toussaint, senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes;

9:7. An apparent discrepancy stands between verse 7 and 22:9. In 9:7 Luke recorded that the men who traveled with Saul . . . heard the sound (phōnēs), but in 22:9 Luke wrote that ''they did not understand the voice'' (phōnēn). Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, ''They did not hear the sound.'' The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb ''to hear'' with the genitive case may mean ''to hear a sound'' and with the accusative case ''to hear with understanding.'' The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9).

[The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, And Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 376]

Again then, there is no contradiction.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

In other words, "Eusebius, you got the best of me. I can't answer your wisdom so I have to resort
to making snide remarks."

You don't think that pointing out that you were failing even to address the problem of absent Thomas and the '11' is you getting the better of me? Well, you keep fooling yourself. I doubt whether you are fooling anyone else.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

See, the above is what I mean by someone misunderstanding the two verses Aristotle's Child quotes.

Why don't you read Lardner's understanding of Luke 2:2 rather than just making an off the cuff remark that that had to be in 6 AD?

Why don't you make your own case rather than telling someone to go off and research some apologist or other? I can tell you that none so far have come up with anything but quibbles and irrelevance. Why don't you go and research the reasons why the Lucan census rerally has to be the 6 AD one and even that doesn't work, rather than dismissing it out of hand?

Originally Posted by badlander

This thread is one answer to the question of why would an unbeliever visit this forum. I find it interesting to see the different intrepetations of the Bible as well how people emphaisis one part of it why others different parts and how their personal views or that of their religion colours how they preceive bibical scholars.

Please do not take this above as having any meaning other than I find this discussion interesting,

Glad you said that last I was half anticipating the 'If you don't believe, why are you here?' argument.

I don't usually get involved in Christian discussions, but sometimes something pops up that demands a response. It is true that there are more and more threads started to pose questions of Christianity and we get a response and I feel that I have to get involved. I just can't rely on religion or A/A to keep my daily hits above 10,000.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Ingenious, but totally imaginary on your part. I point up a very clear difference and you come up with some imaginary and improbable deal between the Nabateans and the Jews in order to reconcile Acts with paul - with Paul omitting to mention the Jewish plot and Luke omitting to mention the Nabatean plot. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Well of course, since many will not care how unlikely and imaginary tou 'explanation' is so long as it enables them to posh away any doubt that Paul and Luke were telling the complete truth.

Of course - on the evidence. You say you do believe - in spite of the evidence. But again you are being evasive in pretending that my remark applies also to Luke's alteration of what Paul wrote. That is not what I say or believe it is what is demonstrable and you first try to deny and then invent a scenario in order to explain the evidence away.

I repeat that I see ...of course, in order to anticipate your crafty evasion , I should say I demonstrate a complete contradiction between Luke and Paul and you appeal to those who want to believe that there are no contradictions being happy to grab your improbable and totally imaginary 'explanation' with both hands.

And you don't. You say that there was a plot between the Jews and Nabateans because you doubt that the evident contradiction between Paul and Acts can really be one. The difference is that contradiction exists on paper. You explanation exists only in your own head.

And get it wrong. It should be evident that whoever wrote Luke and acts could not really be the Luke who know Paul


Yes it is. Bible apologists often appeal to the argument from silence fallacy. But the fact is that it is valid where the omission of something so important that its omission cannot be rationally explained, is a valid one. It is the Bible apologist claim that there was probably some good reason that is the invalid argument. Now of course it is my opinion that the omission by Paul of the Damascus conversion is inexplicable other than he didn't know about it. It is your opinion that there is no reason for him to give it - probably the most important thing that happened in his life. Again you are explaining away negative evidence without a decent argument just as you explain away evidence with some invented and rather far fetched conspiracy between the Jews and the army of Aretas.

And your opinion that Paul's failure to even hint as the most important thing in his life - Jesus appearing to him is somehow more sound than mine? I at least have the evidence of the omission. you have only weak excuses.

And it is your opinion that a vague remark like that will do as the Damascus conversion. Well, this is the way all 'contradictions' are overcome. Inventing extra bits of Gospel in order to explain away a problem, no matter that there is not evidence for it and shrugging off a glaring omission and dismissing some very cogent doubts about it just opinion. Well people must make up their own minds, and if they are not convinced by my argument and are convinced by yours, then that is up to them. But I certainly find no real merit in your arguemnt.

Again the problems with acts - it isn't just this lie of Damascus and invention of the conversion, but the mangling of OT text, the impossibility of Peter's speech and the reversing of history in Gamaliel's speech that piles up the reasons to reject the idea that Luke was the Luke that Paul spoke of and got his information from Paul. There is a legal 'clean hands' principle. When someone is caught out fiddling (and the Amos misquote is pretty undeniable) then one gives them less benefit of doubt on each dubious claim and your invention of explanations in order to get Luke off shows your bias, not mine.

Ah the 'did many other things' excuse. This is a palpable bit of apologetics dishonesty. The objections are based on what is actually said or what is omitted that is so significant that its omission is not honestly explicable other than the writer did not know about ot.

So...Paul didn't bother to recount the most important event in his life because everyone knew it but reported some footling claims about whom he saw and whom he didn't? If everyone knew that, then explain why Luke (Acts) has to explain it not one but thrice. This is the same sort of evasive apologetics as shrugging off Mark's omission of the resurrection 'because everyone knew it'. And is just as invalid.

I'll make this short. I am not imagining anything. A comparison of the accounts of Luke and Paul shows that both the Jews and the governor under King Aretas were on the watch for Paul. But you have stated that you don't believe either Luke or Paul. You accuse them both of lying. However, your accusations do not make it so. Your unwillingness to believe the accounts does not render them untrustworthy. The problem is with you. Not with the accounts.

Nor do I appreciate your asinine and childish accusations that I indulge in 'crafty evasions.'

And again, Paul did state in Galatians 1:16 that God revealed His Son to him. He simply didn't go into the details of the encounter.

We're done here Arequipa. You have accused me of evasion, using a mocking, grinning smiley in doing so, and of dishonesty. And I am not going to put up with it. There are others on this forum who will trade insults and childish behavior with you, but I am not one of them. You can just go on believing that Paul and Luke are lying, and that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples, something which most scholars do not believe by the way,

'Today comparatively few scholars opt for the alternatives to belief in the resurrection that have been most commonly offered down through the ages, and that still surface more often in popular literature. These include the swoon theory, according to which Jesus did not quite die on the cross, but revived in the tomb, managed to escape, and appeared to his disciples before expiring shortly thereafter, the original counterclaim of the Jewish authorities that Jesus' disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:13); the notion that Jesus' followers went to the wrong tomb and thus found it empty; and the idea that all the witnesses of the resurrection experienced some kind of mass hallucination. Such 'explanations' require more faith for one to believe in them than does the supernatural explanation that Jesus did in fact rise bodily from the grave.
Instead, the most common approach today to the Gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection is to treat them as at least partially legendary.

[The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig L. Blomberg, pp. 136-37]

But as has already been pointed out in post 42, scholars (both Christian and secular) recognize Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline tradition going back to the very beginning of the church. The early disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus. And not a spirit Jesus, but a bodily physical Jesus. And I have already shown on this thread that it was a bodily physical resurrection. I am not going to keep repeating myself regarding these things.

For anyone who is still reading this thread, my reason for being on this thread is what I posted in post #42. Read it, and take it or leave it. And Arequipa, as I said, we are done here, and I have spent enough time on this thread.

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

>>See, the above is what I mean by someone misunderstanding the two verses Aristotle's Child quotes.

>>Why don't you read Lardner's understanding of Luke 2:2 rather than just making an off the cuff remark that that had to be in 6 AD?

1. You've given no evidence of my "misunderstanding' of the traditional date (before the death of Herod (Matt) and the 6 AD date of the census of Quirinius (Josephus) conducted to establish the tax base of Judea when Archelaus was exiled by the Romans in 6 AD.

2. You have not provided "Ladner's" dates or proof for their accuracy if they are different differnt from a date of before Herod's death in 4 BC and the date of the Judean census conducted by Quiriniusm the Roman governor of Syria following the exile of Archelaus.

Assertions without evidence are to be rejected. Those making the assertion are responsible for providing the evidence any rebutal is necessary.

So the ball is in your court. Since you haven't provided any evidence or any reason for doubting the traditional evidencemay we reasonably suspect that you have no such evidence?

But the essence of the matter is that these are radically different dates so either Matthew or Luke (or both) are in error. Their gospels are of course said to be inspired by God so I guess God is in error in at lease one of these cases too.

[Aristotle's Child]

Stanjp posted:

Actually you are postulating. Do you believe ALL historical accounts are 100% accurate or account for 100% of what transpired? Again, I go with the first hand witness accounts by those who were actually there. Most do.

RESPONSE: What "first hand accounts" are you referring to exactly? Paul never know Jesus when Jesus was alive and joined his movement three years after Jesus' death. Neither Mark nor Luke were Apostles. What evidence do you have that Matthew (who copied the vast majority of Mark's gospel) anad whos name never appears in the Gospel called his, and John who doesn't even agree with Matthew, Mark, and Luke with something as basic as the day Jesus was crucified.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."