Is the New Testament historically accurate? (miracle, demons, Roman, cross)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

RESPONSE:

"...and that many scholars recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Christ,"

Thank yuou for phrasing that claim as you did. 'They "believed" they saw...." Of course, we only have Paul's word for that from a letter he wrote the the Corinthians who live a long way from Jerusalem many years after the supposed event. And Paul wasn't an eyewitness. Yet the only record of this claim is in Paul's Epistle. And up until 40 years after the supposed vision of the risen Jesus, nobody had written anything about it. Does that seem likely?

In our own day we have many claims of Elvis being seen alive very soon after his death, and it didn't take long for those stories to develop.

Perhaps neither claim is true???

Yes. This is a good point. I don't doubt the crucifixion or the reality of Paul and thus the apostles. I even have to credit the empty tomb because all four agree on that. The don't agree on the angel, let alone his message.

Given that the utterly contradictory resurrection stories mean that they were invented - and that explained the longstanding question of why Mark has no ending - there never was one - it posed a problem of why, if there was no resurrection, the disciples believed there was -as they clearly did. I don't deny that for a minute.

It was Paul Shonfield's book with the speculation that the Pentecost event (Acts 2) was a hysterical (rather than historical...geddit ) event where they got the idea that Jesus wasn't dead but in heaven.

This was at least a good hypothesis. The body was there. Jesus was dead and nobody had seen it walking. If they had the accounts would not conflict. That understood, that explained why Paul's account of the appearances to the apostles didn't fit the Gospels. It also put the final appearance to Paul into perspective. It was an appearance in the spirit - or his head. That was how he 'first appeared to Simon'. And that explained Luke 24.34.
There is still the empty tomb. I don't deny. I could Invent all sorts of 'explanations' but I would prefer not to.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

I'm seeing references to Josephus quit often in this thread. If it's Flavious Josephus, the Jewish historian then he could not have been a witness to any of the events mentioned. He may have known about Jesus and indeed wrote about him but he was born after the death of Jesus (assuming Jesus was 32 at the time of his execution).



https://carm.org/regarding-quotes-hi...us-about-jesus

I agree. But Josephus is all we got. We have Philo and it is alarming that he only marginally confirms Josephus on what Pilate did. But he was based in Egypt and was writing at second -hand. Josephus was at least there.

P.s as I recall the siege of Masada was often claimed as unhistorical (or so I heard - the siege ramps must have been plain to see) until the excavation proved it true. Cor I remember that and what a sensation it was at the time. And Qumran after that.

afterthots

The debate about the Flavian testament is done, pretty much. The parenthetical nature of the insertion and the note that the early church fathers in referring to Josephus never mention this slam -dunk proof of Jesus, pretty much does for it. So the theologically PR additions of 'If it is lawful to call him a man' and so on were added to a testament that was a forgery when it was added to Josephus.

And the reference to James the brother of Jesus in Antiquites and the account of his death even then I was willing to accept as proof that Josephus knew of a Jesus and his brother James. Why wouldn't I? I have never really believed the 'total myth' theory. Paul was real, thus the apostles were real and thus Jesus was real. Or at least deserves BoD.
That's why I have no problem with sarcophagi of James, Caiaphas or even Jesus. Boy, do I ever not have problem with a sarcophagi of Jesus!

But the fact is that more consideration suggests that this James is a different James altogether and identifying him as Jesus' brother is looking like a Christian gloss. But the fact is that I don't mind even if it is true.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

Yup. Fact remains it was not intended to be taken literally. You can suggest all you want. You have been suggesting for a long time now and quite frankly its too thin. Yours is anti religion for revenge. You have spite as a weapon. that's just the way it is you.

When we compare the morals you make up to the bible you will see most of them in there already. The church fathers intended for religion to grow up and change what we needed to change as we learn more. They underestimated stupid.

You have to make it literal just like eubis has to make it literal to support your two world views as the only logical choices.

You don't understand me at all. And I don't really care. I am interested in the truth and the truth is to be found in evidence, not Faith. And if I find the NT unreliable it is not because I am an atheist - it is for the same reason as so many believers who tried to prove the Bible stood up factually became atheists - it doesn't.

I can anticipate many declaring that they studied the Bible trying to find things to disbelieve (Yeah..sure.. ) and they became convinced that it was All True. Very well, I say they haven't really understood it. I am willing to discuss it and put my case and let others decide who has the best one.

But I actually find more historical fact in the gospels than you do. You say it was not intended to be taken literally. You are dismissing the very real reasons to believe that quite a lot is fact - simply on your own personal preferences. So don't presume tell me that what I demonstrate is 'too thin'.

[StanJP]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There is nothing here. Nothing whatsoever. I have sorta lost track. But the discussion was mainly about the Nativity discrepancy. I have presented good reasons to doubt them. Mainly Matthew's is set in King Herod's time. Luke's in what appears to be the 6 AD census of Qurinus. Attempts to show that it is a Tax census in Herod's life fail. You haven't even validated your claim that Herod paid tribute. From all I heard, client kingdoms got funded by Rome. Never mind any shred of evidence for a Roman tax census conducted by Quirinus.

Thankfully others can see and read so again your denials mean nothing. If you didn't deflect so much by dissecting everything I say, you would have no problem maintaining focus, but that is what happens when you leave the truth for lies. As the old saying goes; "Oh the tangled web we weave, when we practise to deceive."

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Even then there is no reason for Joseph to sign on in Bethlehem rather than Sepphoris of Capernaum, let alone drag Mary along. The only purpose is to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem. That in fact is only thing Matthew and Mark agree on.

That you fail to understand what the SYOPTIC gospels are meant for doesn't justify your attempt to discredit what most accept as factual.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

They don't even agree on where they lived. In Matthew they live in Bethlehem and relocate to Nazareth to avoid Archelaus. In Luke they live in Nazareth and go back there as soon as the circumcision rites are done. No trip to Egypt. No Herodian threat.

Again, you obviously haven't read what you allude to. Try reading it and then base your assertions of actual scriptural references, not just hearsay.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Do I need to labour the case? Mark doesn't have a nativity at all. Nor does John. In fact 7.42 is close to saying that John knows that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem - but according to scripture, he should have been. That is why Luke and Matthew wrote contradictory accounts: to put that right.

Nothing in these books are contradictory to themselves, only you say so and again offer NO proof or corroboration of such...as you do with John 7:42, which is showing nothing but the words of unbelievers, when in fact Jesus was born in Bethlehem and His parents came from Nazareth which IS in Galilee. Have grown up there most of His life, He had a Galilean accent.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is a touchstone case to show that the Gospels are not reliable and the Resurrection accounts are just as bad. And written for the same reason: the empty tomb would not do. Jesus had to be seen shanking round full of holes. So three contradictory stories were written to put that omission right.

Again your claim, NOT fact. All you do is opine with NO facts supplied, whereas the gospels and history support each other. As your modern day mindset won't allow you to relate to historical facts of 2000 years ago, you invent issues, that are not factual.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Now, you old chum and anyone else is welcome to try to refute this, but you haven't produced a shred of credible refutation. And on this showing I truly doubt that you will.

I as well as others already have, despite your continued denial and prevarication. Like I said before, don't say you were never told, because you have been, and I assume many more times than I.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

P.s Ah..the good ol' hellthreat. Ever heard of the Reverse Pascal's wager? Love to explain it to you sometime.

It's not a threat, it's a fact, and the Reverse Pascal Wager is based on the sole premise that, "IF strong atheism is true", which of course it ISN'T, and can't be proven. Suffice it to say you are hooked, line and sinker, but there is always a chance you can wriggle off, IF you are honest with yourself and God.
Otherwise, you will go from the frying pan into the proverbial fire.

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by StanJP

Try reading it and then base your assertions of actual scriptural references, not just hearsay.

Isn't the Bible, hearsay?

[Aristotle's Child]

[quote=Mike555;41678735]>>No, we do not only have Paul's word for that. <<


RESPONSE:

Yes, we only have the claim of Paul, a nonwitness writing 25 years after the fact to people who lived hundreds of miles away (800 miles?) who in no way could check the fact that Jesus had appeared to 500 people at one time, but none of the claimed 500 people left any written evidence nor did anyone they told at that time. Nor any Roman soldier.

>>Despite the fact that you still do not understand<<

I understand perfectly as I have just stated. What other report do we that Jesus appeared to 500 persons? Did any Apostle confirm that?


>>Despite the fact that you still do not understand after having had it explained to you at least two other times on this thread, that what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition from the beginning of the church. It precedes the Gospels and it precedes Paul. Whether you like it or not, and whether you understand it or not, scholars recognize this. Christians from the beginning believed they saw the risen Christ. And the best explanation for why they believed it is because Jesus was in fact resurrected and really did appear to them. The naturalistic explanations that have been given in the past to explain why the disciples saw the risen Christ, and which scholars are moving away from are simply not valid. <<

RESPONSE:
>>Despite the fact that you still do not understand.<<

On the contrary, your attempt at an explanation not withstanding, your inability to cite any other witness to the event is reasonable evidence that it never happened. A few of the 500 "witnesses" and the additional thousands of people they would reasonably been expected to have told would have left at least a few written reports. Certainly theer was a Roman presense in Jerusalem. Did they make any reports of Jesus' appearance to 500 peopl?

>>And this article explains why such explanations as hallucinations don't cut it. <<

https://warrantedbelief.wordpress.co...ection-part-3/

>>This is part 3. You can access the other parts of the article from the link<<

RESPONSE:

We are talking about the evidence that Paul presented of his claimed 500 person whom Jesus appeared to (not confirmed in any Gospel). Not another of your claims that "Jesus’ disciples believed that He had risen from the dead and appeared to them"

We can examine that separately if you'd like to start a post. (Incidently. How many of the disciples did Jesus supposedly appear to, and when did they write their accounts)?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by StanJP

Thankfully others can see and read so again your denials mean nothing. If you didn't deflect so much by dissecting everything I say, you would have no problem maintaining focus, but that is what happens when you leave the truth for lies. As the old saying goes; "Oh the tangled web we weave, when we practise to deceive."



That you fail to understand what the SYOPTIC gospels are meant for doesn't justify your attempt to discredit what most accept as factual.



Again, you obviously haven't read what you allude to. Try reading it and then base your assertions of actual scriptural references, not just hearsay.



Nothing in these books are contradictory to themselves, only you say so and again offer NO proof or corroboration of such...as you do with John 7:42, which is showing nothing but the words of unbelievers, when in fact Jesus was born in Bethlehem and His parents came from Nazareth which IS in Galilee. Have grown up there most of His life, He had a Galilean accent.



Again your claim, NOT fact. All you do is opine with NO facts supplied, whereas the gospels and history support each other. As your modern day mindset won't allow you to relate to historical facts of 2000 years ago, you invent issues, that are not factual.



I as well as others already have, despite your continued denial and prevarication. Like I said before, don't say you were never told, because you have been, and I assume many more times than I.



It's not a threat, it's a fact, and the Reverse Pascal Wager is based on the sole premise that, "IF strong atheism is true", which of course it ISN'T, and can't be proven. Suffice it to say you are hooked, line and sinker, but there is always a chance you can wriggle off, IF you are honest with yourself and God.
Otherwise, you will go from the frying pan into the proverbial fire.

Sorry. Nothing here to see folks, move along...

[Michael Way]

[quote=Aristotle's Child;41685837]

Originally Posted by Mike555

>>No, we do not only have Paul's word for that. <<


RESPONSE:

Yes, we only have the claim of Paul, a nonwitness writing 25 years after the fact to people who lived hundreds of miles away (800 miles?) who in no way could check the fact that Jesus had appeared to 500 people at one time, but none of the claimed 500 people left any written evidence nor did anyone they told at that time. Nor any Roman soldier.

>>Despite the fact that you still do not understand<<

I understand perfectly as I have just stated. What other report do we that Jesus appeared to 500 persons? Did any Apostle confirm that?


>>Despite the fact that you still do not understand after having had it explained to you at least two other times on this thread, that what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition from the beginning of the church. It precedes the Gospels and it precedes Paul. Whether you like it or not, and whether you understand it or not, scholars recognize this. Christians from the beginning believed they saw the risen Christ. And the best explanation for why they believed it is because Jesus was in fact resurrected and really did appear to them. The naturalistic explanations that have been given in the past to explain why the disciples saw the risen Christ, and which scholars are moving away from are simply not valid. <<

RESPONSE:
>>Despite the fact that you still do not understand.<<

On the contrary, your attempt at an explanation not withstanding, your inability to cite any other witness to the event is reasonable evidence that it never happened. A few of the 500 "witnesses" and the additional thousands of people they would reasonably been expected to have told would have left at least a few written reports. Certainly theer was a Roman presense in Jerusalem. Did they make any reports of Jesus' appearance to 500 peopl?

>>And this article explains why such explanations as hallucinations don't cut it. <<

https://warrantedbelief.wordpress.co...ection-part-3/

>>This is part 3. You can access the other parts of the article from the link<<

RESPONSE:

We are talking about the evidence that Paul presented of his claimed 500 person whom Jesus appeared to (not confirmed in any Gospel). Not another of your claims that "Jesus’ disciples believed that He had risen from the dead and appeared to them"

We can examine that separately if you'd like to start a post. (Incidently. How many of the disciples did Jesus supposedly appear to, and when did they write their accounts)?

Try to understand this. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul was addressing people of his own day. And he stated to people of his own day that most of the five hundred people to whom Jesus had appeared were still alive at that time. This means that his claim could be verified at that time by people simply asking those people that Paul said were still alive at that time to whom Jesus had previously appeared. Paul did not falsely make a claim which he knew could be disproven. If there had not been five hundred people to whom Jesus appeared, and if most of them were not still alive, the people to whom he made the claim would have known that he was making a false claim. It doesn't matter that the Gospels don't record what Paul said. He made a claim that could easily have been disproven at that time if it had been a false claim. But, as I have explained to you a few times now, what Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and actually verses 6-7 as well, is a tradition, an oral pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church. And scholars recognize that, whether you choose to believe it or not. In other words, that Jesus had appeared to over five hundred people was part of an oral tradition going back to the beginning of the church.

Paul was not a non-witness. The risen Christ appeared to him some two or three years after He was crucified. It is even possible that Paul was in Jerusalem at least at times during Jesus' ministry and therefore might have heard Jesus speak on occasion.

There were over five hundred witnesses, and Paul, and Peter, and the other disciples, including the women who first saw the risen Christ.

Another one of my claims that Jesus' disciples believed that they saw the risen Christ?

“Jesus really did appear to the disciples, and skeptics after his death.” 40 Quotes by scholars.

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.co...s-by-scholars/

I'm not interested in your opinions and your objections. What I have posted on this thread is the view of the majority of trained scholars who study the subject. That view being that Jesus existed, that He was crucified, that the tomb was empty, and that the early disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus.

I am not going to keep going over this with you. If you choose not to believe what the scholars are saying, that's your choice. We're done.

People reading this who haven't seen post #42, may wish to do so.

[StanJP]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Sorry. Nothing here to see folks, move along...

Must be kinda likes train wrecks...people can't help looking even though they know you're headed for disaster. Guess they just want to see how long you will keep up the pretense.

[TRANSPONDER]

[quote=Mike555;41687033]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

Try to understand this. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul was addressing people of his own day. And he stated to people of his own day that most of the five hundred people to whom Jesus had appeared were still alive at that time. This means that his claim could be verified at that time by people simply asking those people that Paul said were still alive at that time to whom Jesus had previously appeared. Paul did not falsely make a claim which he knew could be disproven. If there had not been five hundred people to whom Jesus appeared, and if most of them were not still alive, the people to whom he made the claim would have known that he was making a false claim. It doesn't matter that the Gospels don't record what Paul said. He made a claim that could easily have been disproven at that time if it had been a false claim. But, as I have explained to you a few times now, what Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and actually verses 6-7 as well, is a tradition, an oral pre-Pauline tradition which goes back to the beginning of the church. And scholars recognize that, whether you choose to believe it or not. In other words, that Jesus had appeared to over five hundred people was part of an oral tradition going back to the beginning of the church.

Paul was not a non-witness. The risen Christ appeared to him some two or three years after He was crucified. It is even possible that Paul was in Jerusalem at least at times during Jesus' ministry and therefore might have heard Jesus speak on occasion.

There were over five hundred witnesses, and Paul, and Peter, and the other disciples, including the women who first saw the risen Christ.

Another one of my claims that Jesus' disciples believed that they saw the risen Christ?

“Jesus really did appear to the disciples, and skeptics after his death.” 40 Quotes by scholars.

https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.co...s-by-scholars/

I'm not interested in your opinions and your objections. What I have posted on this thread is the view of the majority of trained scholars who study the subject. That view being that Jesus existed, that He was crucified, that the tomb was empty, and that the early disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus.

I am not going to keep going over this with you. If you choose not to believe what the scholars are saying, that's your choice. We're done.

People reading this who haven't seen post #42, may wish to do so.

Nope, sorry. This is still reiterating the claim that the Church is inexplicable without a true basis. It isn't. None of the gentiles could know that it was true. One of those quotes simply says that he believes it happened. Another just says that everyone accepts that it is historical fact. I can't speak for the poster you are responding to and you say you've done with me.

Neverthless, I have given my reason why I accept the tradition of a resurrection was there from the start, but it was no more than a belief. The 'evidence' iof the gospels was fabricated later, because they contradict so much. That is not going to be altered by pushing the same arguments that don't stand up and appealing to a lot of people who believe it.

It is time people looked and thought, and realized that the bodily resurrection claim is not believable.

[Aristotle's Child]

[quote=Mike555;41678735]No, we do not only have Paul's word for that. Despite the fact that you still do not understand after having had it explained to you at least two other times on this thread, that what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is a pre-Pauline tradition from the beginning of the church. It precedes the Gospels and it precedes Paul.

RESPONSE:

Stories about Jesus rising from he dead much like the stories of Elvis sightings after he died may have begun to appear soon after Jesus' death.

It's important to separate legend from the facts of history, no matter how may time you try to "explain" otherwise.

Lets look at the historical facts we can establish:

Let’s examine the time and locations of Paul’s first report of Jesus’ appearance following Jesus’ resurrection.

1. Jesus was crucified on Passover between 30 and 33 AD.

2. Jesus was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem.

3. It is reported that Jesus was raised from the dead (or rose from the dead) on the first day of the week.

4. Paul converted to Christianity in 33-36 AD. It is said that this occurred about three years after the crucifixion on the Road to Damascus (see Acts). Paul does not report the experience in any of his writings.

5. Paul established a Christian community in Corinth about the year 51.

6. Corinth is 817 miles from Jerusalem.

7. Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians in 53-54 AD.

8. This would be 20 or more years after the death of Jesus.

9. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NRSV) “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

10. Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven either on the evening of the day he was Resurrected (Luke) or “40 days” later (Acts)

Summary:
The first report we have of a Resurrection of Jesus is Paul’s letter (1 Corinthians) written at least 20 years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Paul does not claim to have ever seen Jesus in the flesh himself, either before or after the Resurrection.

The letter was written to a community located 817 miles from Jesus was said to have appeared to 500 people. Rather obviously these people would not usually encounter people from Jerusalem who could better describe the facts.

Note:
So in the 20 years following Jesus death we have no writings claiming that he was resurrected. We have no writings from the “500” whom Paul says witnessed Jesus’ risen appearance, nor from anyone that these 500 would have told. If it had occurred, there is the obvious presumption that the Romans and the Jewish leadership had also heard about Jesus alleged appearance but didn’t record the event.

The alternate explanation is that no appearance of Jesus had actually occurred. Thus Paul would be reporting a fiction or legend, but not historical facts.