Is the New Testament historically accurate? (tradition, scriptures, disciples, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arequipa asked: Do discrepancies mean unreliable testimony or are they understandable witness error and -as is often pointed out - proof that they were not colluding but telling their own stories?
RESPONSE:
(Providentissimus deus, 20)
“Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.”
ANSWER: It demonstrates that scripture is NOT divinely inspired, by virtue of the fact that it contains contradictions (hence error) which would not be found if God were really the author.
Yes. In fact to give theist apologetics a fair shake, they by no means insist that the bible is the word of God. They do not even demand that everything in it is true, but they do seem to require that it has some historical reliability, and most particularly in the NT.
After all, when you come to think if it -and as Paul says - if the resurrection didn't really happen, then that pretty much much knocks Christianity on the head. Except of course as a book of Morals (see the Jefferson Bible) and those are of course as debatable as any other book of ethics and less good than most. It certainly does not justify a church, God -claims and threatening unbelievers with Hell. Though to be fair not all theists by any means believe in a hell anymore.
Per the opinion of a few. There are many who find errors throughout the OT and NT that are significant..
Most notably Marks's description of playing with snakes and drinking poison.
Al;so the addition to Revelations 22:18 that cursing those who would change the word is a known scribal add on..
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Zealous scribe who wanted to make a statement...
Your proof?
Remember we can see the additions that are historically known to be additions and they have .... nothing to do with historical accuracy.
Keep in mind if there is a contradiction, only one alternative is correct. But sometimes, both alternatives are incorrect.
Let’s take a look at a few contradictions from the New Testament.
1. Was Jesus born during the lifetime of King Herod the Great (d. 4 BC) [Matthew]or during the census of Judea conducted by he Roman Syrian governor Quirinius in 6 AD? [Luke].
2. Was Jesus crucified on the Passover [Matthew, Mark and Luke] or the day before Passover [John]?
3. Did Jesus send for and ride two different animals of different sizes when he entered Jerusalem so he could fulfill a prophecy [Matthew] or did he ride one animal in the conventional manner [Mark, Luke, and John]
4. Did Jesus ascend into heaven on the evening of the day he was Resurrected [Luke] or forty days later [Acts of the Apostles]?
5. Following his Resurrection, did Jesus and Apostles remain in Jerusalem or did travel to Galilee a three day journey away?
6. Did Jesus have his head or feet anointed by a women, a sinful women (prostitute?), or the sister of Lazarus?
Are each of these really historical events? Or just different stories?
Some of those questions have nothing to do with history.
However as to his birth it is accurate when one actually studies the evidence, not just accepts the claims of some. The fact there are several different census's being taken and such just requires a good knowledge of history. The Biblical record fits history.
RESPONSE: If Jesus had really been raised from the dead in 30-33 AD yet Paul does not write about it until about 55 AD, what happened to any witness accounts during that 20 year period?
If it was really known to have happened, why is there no previous reports for 20 years?
Could it be that it was just a story which Paul adoped and embellished? Was it Paul who came up with the idea that, rather than have simply been executed as an insurrectionisst, Jesus died to "atone for our sins"? That would have been a far more palatable explanaton for Jesus' followers and Paul's reputation would increase.
Keep in mind all of the Gospels were written some time after Paul wrote.
There are all sorts of possible explanations. 20 years is not a long time in living memory. The fact is that if Jesus had really got up and walked and the disciples had been convinced that they would all have eternal life and Paul (despite what he says) had learned this idea from them, there are any number of reasons why there are no records. There are no NT gospels until the 3rd c. Apart from a few fragments found in Egypt.
But it is odd..this lack of mention of anything much about Jesus or his followers or his life. Just the compilation of admittedly existing gospels at the order of Constantine. The gospels they were based on are missing apart from a bit of 2nd c John. (Ryland papyrus)
I think there is evidence of Q - the material common to Matthew and Luke. But that has vanished. So has the material common to Matthew and Mark, but is not in Luke (they dub that 'the Great omission' and then ignore it ).
But I think there was a common story that can be found in all 4 gospels, when the additions and alterations are removed. There must have been an original oral or written story which Paul had at least heard of. Jesus was crucified. Well, Tacitus tells us the same. He was 'handed over' to the forces of Darkness, the lords of this world. I am sure that Paul means the Romans. There was a last supper and Jesus says some very gospelly things.
So there are some things we get from Paul that we must at least give credit to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot
It wasn't written to be. No one thought that until somewhat recently, maybe the last 150 years.
You think so? I git the impression that it was all taken as literally true from the ark to the resurrection and there were bits of bitumen and clunky great cross -nails put on exhibition to prove it. I would rather say that it is over the past 150 years - say from the time that the books of Josephus became generally available - that anyone really questioned the NT, and just over the past 50 years, say that we have got over 'Archaeology proves the Bible' and it has rather begun to disprove it.
Remember we can see the additions that are historically known to be additions and they have .... nothing to do with historical accuracy.
Well, they do. After all, the addition to Mark gives away that was no resurrection story, so one was concocted later on. The explanation is that it went missing, but that doesn't make sense. What does is what we get when we realize that the last thing the gospels agree on is the empty tomb. After that they are indeed 'additions', and very contradictory ones. The conclusion is that the original story ended with the empty tomb and even the synoptic angelic message was an addition - John doesn't have that at all.
Thus the entire resurrection story is unreliable. I'd say that has a good deal to do with historical accuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl
It's all a big scam....
Well... ...that's another topic entirely.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-19-2015 at 09:32 AM..
Some of those questions have nothing to do with history.
However as to his birth it is accurate when one actually studies the evidence, not just accepts the claims of some. The fact there are several different census's being taken and such just requires a good knowledge of history. The Biblical record fits history.
That isn't true. There is no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However he probably existed even if the nonsense claimed for him is grossly exaggerated or a lie!
Some of those questions have nothing to do with history.
However as to his birth it is accurate when one actually studies the evidence, not just accepts the claims of some. The fact there are several different census's being taken and such just requires a good knowledge of history. The Biblical record fits history.
RESPONSE:
Actually, the division is very simple: It happened and it is history. Or It didn't happen and it isn't history.
Tell me, since the census of Judea conducted in 6 AD would not have involved any inhabitants of Nazareth which is in Galilee controlled by Antipas, why does Luke claim that Joseph had to register in Bethlehem of Judea?
And regarding the Judean census under Quirinius, the New American Bible points out:
"Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6–7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Lk 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod "(Lk 1:5; Mt 2:1).
In short, Luke's account is not historical.
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-19-2015 at 09:59 AM..
Reason: addition
Well, they do. After all, the addition to Mark gives away that was no resurrection story, so one was concocted later on. The explanation is that it went missing, but that doesn't make sense. What does is what we get when we realize that the last thing the gospels agree on is the empty tomb. After that they are indeed 'additions', and very contradictory ones. The conclusion is that the original story ended with the empty tomb and even the synoptic angelic message was an addition - John doesn't have that at all.
Thus the entire resurrection story is unreliable. I'd say that has a good deal to do with historical accuracy.
Actually, the division is very simple: It happened and it is history. Or It didn't happen and it isn't history.
Tell me, since the census of Judea conducted in 6 AD would not have involved any inhabitants of Nazareth which is in Galilee controlled by Antipas, why does Luke claim that Joseph had to register in Bethlehem of Judea?
And regarding the Judean census under Quirinius, the New American Bible points out:
"Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6–7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Lk 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod "(Lk 1:5; Mt 2:1).
In short, Luke's account is not historical.
Quirinius was Governor twice and once covers 2BC when Herod was alive and fits the gospels accounts. Do a little research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
...that's another topic entirely.
