Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?

[Lain]

they are therefore distorted and lying about things

That they are lying is an accusation from of old:

"And while they were going, behold, some of the guard of soldiers went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. And after they had assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave a rather large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, “Say ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’ And if this matter is heard before the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were told, and spread abroad this report among the Jews until this very day."

All my opinion of course.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But I was not speaking about the Christology of the NT canon, I was speaking about the death of Jesus as an atonement for sin, which we can get through faith in Jesus.
No death, no atonement.

..but "the faith" is dependent on the NT canon .. at least on the interpretation of it.
..and John 1-18 is always offered as proof that Jesus is G-d,

What is sin, in your understanding?
Doesn't the Jewish law deal with that question?
Can't you see how convenient it was for the Roman authorities to claim that "Jesus died for our sins", which left them free to make their own laws?
..including outlawing any other belief than theirs.

..and we all know what happened in the end. The church-state became rich and corrupt and was denied, and we got Napoleon etc.

 

[Kooky]

If you say that the writings in the New Testament are from within Christianity so they are therefore distorted and lying about things, then anything beyond Jesus existence is unknown.

I'm not saying they are lying, I am saying it is impossible to distinguish between mythological embellishment and historical fact. We have no alternate accounts to go by, and so the only Jesus we have is the mythic, divine figure of the Bible, devoid of all humanity.

 

[Brian2]

..but "the faith" is dependent on the NT canon .. at least on the interpretation of it.
..and John 1-18 is always offered as proof that Jesus is G-d,

What is sin, in your understanding?
Doesn't the Jewish law deal with that question?
Can't you see how convenient it was for the Roman authorities to claim that "Jesus died for our sins", which left them free to make their own laws?
..including outlawing any other belief than theirs.

..and we all know what happened in the end. The church-state became rich and corrupt and was denied, and we got Napoleon etc.

It is as Paul said, unless Jesus rose from the dead then a Christian's faith is in vain and we are still in our sins and we won't be raised and are to be pitied more than any others. (1Cor 15:12-19)
So yes the truth of the NT canon is important.
Sin is not doing what we believe to be the will of God.
I don't know what you mean by the Roman authorities claiming that Jesus died for our sins. That is something that was preached from the beginning and is what Jesus taught in the gospels and is what the OT says of the Messiah in the Christian interpretation. (Isa 53)
Imo it was not a good thing for the church to have become politicised but it happened and has brought both good and evil. It is hard to judge the past but Jesus did say that there would be both good and bad people in the Church to the end. (Matt 13:24-30)

 

[Brian2]

I'm not saying they are lying, I am saying it is impossible to distinguish between mythological embellishment and historical fact. We have no alternate accounts to go by, and so the only Jesus we have is the mythic, divine figure of the Bible, devoid of all humanity.

Jesus is pictured as being very much human in the Gospels and in the OT prophecies (eg Isa 53) and relying on His Father for all things also, but of course there is the Son of God idea there also.
I would say that if someone wrote about Jesus and what He said and did then they would have to be Christian unless they had a different story to tell that did not have the supernatural.
Those stories about the "real Jesus" however come from people these days who are sceptical about the supernatural.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is as Paul said, unless Jesus rose from the dead then a Christian's faith is in vain and we are still in our sins and we won't be raised and are to be pitied more than any others. (1Cor 15:12-19)

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
-1 Corinthians 15-

I would say to you & Paul, "lean not to your own understanding"

I know that the majority of early Christians believed in the crucifixion. I also know that Jesus taught that we would ALL be resurrected.

What Paul is really saying here, is that our faith is in vain if you don't believe that we will all be resurrected. He cites Jesus as an example.
In any case, Paul says "I am what I am".
I would agree with that. He certainly wasn't a prophet, but I do believe he was sincere.
The words of Jesus are "the Gospel", and not Paul's understanding.
Paul clashed with the Jerusalem church.
..but I have no interest in getting into a detailed debate about that.
I'm not attacking Paul. I like him.
..but he wasn't always right.

 

[Brian2]

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
-1 Corinthians 15-

I would say to you & Paul, "lean not to your own understanding"

I know that the majority of early Christians believed in the crucifixion. I also know that Jesus taught that we would ALL be resurrected.

What Paul is really saying here, is that our faith is in vain if you don't believe that we will all be resurrected. He cites Jesus as an example.
In any case, Paul says "I am what I am".
I would agree with that. He certainly wasn't a prophet, but I do believe he was sincere.
The words of Jesus are "the Gospel", and not Paul's understanding.
Paul clashed with the Jerusalem church.
..but I have no interest in getting into a detailed debate about that.
I'm not attacking Paul. I like him.
..but he wasn't always right.

If Christ has not been raised from the dead then He is not the Messiah.
It is the same with His crucifixion. If he has not been crucified then He is not the Messiah.
If He is not the Messiah then there is no point in believing in Him.
Paul agreed with what Jesus said about His death and resurrection, that He would be put to death and rise again on the third day.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If Christ has not been raised from the dead then He is not the Messiah.

You saying so, does not make it so.
Bart Ehrman has demonstrated that the Bible shows that the promised Messiah was not expected to be "a dying/saviour god".

I totally agree with him.
The claim that "messiah" means "dying for sins" is obviously wrong.
Jesus was a Jew, and his companions were Jews. It is a big ask, to expect a person with theological knowledge to believe that.
Playing around with one or two verses to make "Messiah" mean something entirely different is deceitful, imo.

If He is not the Messiah then there is no point in believing in Him..

Of course not.
His companions believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
We have the 3 synoptic Gospels that detail his life, and what he is reported to have said.
..but most Christians insist that we must believe MORE than that, in order to be "saved".
Jesus is not reported to have said that.

 

[Brian2]

You saying so, does not make it so.
Bart Ehrman has demonstrated that the Bible shows that the promised Messiah was not expected to be "a dying/saviour god".

I totally agree with him.
The claim that "messiah" means "dying for sins" is obviously wrong.
Jesus was a Jew, and his companions were Jews. It is a big ask, to expect a person with theological knowledge to believe that.
Playing around with one or two verses to make "Messiah" mean something entirely different is deceitful, imo.

I have not heard anyone say that Messiah means "dying for sins" nevertheless that is what the OT prophecies tell us the Messiah would do, despite the disagreement of the Jews, and that is what the NT tells us that Jesus did.
I know that the Jews did not expect the Messiah to be a dying Messiah even if Jews in the past have seen Isa 53 as about an atoning Messiah.
The prophecies about Jesus death and resurrection are in the main not straight forward prophecies, they were hidden from the Jews for good reason.
But yes you are right that it is deceitful to say that "Messiah" means "dying for sins".

 

[Rival]

they were hidden from the Jews for good reason.

Oh?

 

[Brian2]

Oh?

Just as Moses wanted to be the one sent to save Israel in Egypt and some rejected him and wanted to get rid of him, so it was with Jesus. And just as Moses went away and brought back a gentile wife and saved Israel, Jesus went away and was able to spread the New Covenant to the Gentiles and will bring back a Gentile wife when He returns to save Israel.
I think it would be hard to spread the New Covenant to the world if all the Jews accepted Him and wanted to tag the Law of Moses onto it.
I think it would also be harder to for Him to die for sin if all the Jews had accepted Him.

 

[Brian2]

Of course not.
His companions believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
We have the 3 synoptic Gospels that detail his life, and what he is reported to have said.
..but most Christians insist that we must believe MORE than that, in order to be "saved".
Jesus is not reported to have said that.

I just realised that I did not answer this part.
If you believe what He said then you should believe what He said about His death and resurrection which He said would happen.(Luke 18:33)
All the gospels have Jesus dying and rising.
The last supper is the passed on to us as a memorial of His death and He said that His blood is the blood of the New Covenant poured out for you. He also said that His body is given for us also.
Jesus said that He did not come to be served but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)
This is the gospel, or at least part of it.
It is more than what Jesus said, it is about what He did.

 

[Rival]

Just as Moses wanted to be the one sent to save Israel in Egypt

Moses argues with God begging him to send someone else!

 

[muhammad_isa]

All the gospels have Jesus dying and rising..

That's not surprising..
Jesus was arrested and hung on a cross.

That doesn't make him G-d.
Only those without knowledge could believe such a thing.

Jesus didn't come to establish a new religion.
Christianity evolved to be what it is, after the ascension.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's quite a long piece but a good read. I've excerpted parts below.The headline is click bait but the discussion to me is useful. I've noted how translation can cause issues where "tents" in Hebrew was translated as "homes" - a big big difference as it turns out. The real headline is

An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy

The site had already been conclusively dated by an earlier expedition that had uncovered the ruins of a temple dedicated to an Egyptian goddess, linking the site to the empire of the pharaohs, the great power to the south.
...
the dig at the Faynan copper mines, which were also active around 1000 B.C., was already producing evidence for an organized Edomite kingdom, such as advanced metallurgical tools and debris. At Timna, too, the sophistication of the people was obvious, in the remains of intense industry that can still be seen strewn around Slaves’ Hill: the tons of slag, the sherds of ceramic smelting furnaces and the tuyères, discarded clay nozzles of the leather bellows, which the smelter, on his knees, would have pumped to fuel the flames. These relics are 3,000 years old,
...
Having started out interested in paleomagnetism, Ben-Yosef stumbled into the emotionally charged field of biblical archaeology. His academic position was at Tel Aviv University, the bastion of the critical approach whose adherents are skeptical of the Bible’s historical accuracy. (On the other side, in this simplified breakdown, are the “conservatives” or “maximalists” associated with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who claim to have identified grand structures from the time of the united Israelite monarchy, supporting the biblical narrative.)
...
Their mining operation, in Ben-Yosef’s interpretation, reveals the workings of an advanced society, despite the absence of permanent structures. That’s a significant conclusion in itself, but it becomes even more significant in biblical archaeology, because if that’s true of Edom, it can also be true of the united monarchy of Israel. Biblical skeptics point out that there are no significant structures corresponding to the time in question. But one plausible explanation could be that most Israelites simply lived in tents, because they were a nation of nomads. In fact, that is how the Bible describes them—as a tribal alliance moving out of the desert and into the land of Canaan, settling down only over time. (This is sometimes obscured in Bible translations. In the Book of Kings, for example, after the Israelites celebrated Solomon’s dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, some English versions record that they “went to their homes, joyful and glad.” What the Hebrew actually says is they went to their “tents.”)

I see the Bible not as a history book, but as a sure spiritual guide.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

Moses argues with God begging him to send someone else!

I was speaking about the start of Exodus 2. It seems that Moses may have seen himself as the one God wanted to save Israel but then he ended up having to go to a foreign land.
The Messiah is like Moses in many ways, but the details are not always 100% the same.

 

[Brian2]

That's not surprising..
Jesus was arrested and hung on a cross.

That doesn't make him G-d.
Only those without knowledge could believe such a thing.

Jesus didn't come to establish a new religion.
Christianity evolved to be what it is, after the ascension.

I wasn't speaking of Jesus being God. I was speaking of the Gospel and what even Jesus said it is.
For Islam Jesus was not hung on a cross.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..For Islam Jesus was not hung on a cross.

That isn't true.
There are many different interpretations of the verse..

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them;

Some people argue that "nor crucified him" means that he wasn't hung on a cross, while others [including myself] see it as meaning he didn't DIE on the cross. Crucifixion includes death.

Another view is that another person was crucified in his stead.
Whatever happened, it is clear that the vast majority of people thought that he was crucified. It doesn't follow that his companions thought that he was G-d. I don't believe that. They believed Jesus was the promised Messiah .. and so do I.

Jesus told them that he would return [as the Messiah].
..and so he will.

 

[Brian2]

That isn't true.
There are many different interpretations of the verse..

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them;

Some people argue that "nor crucified him" means that he wasn't hung on a cross, while others [including myself] see it as meaning he didn't DIE on the cross. Crucifixion includes death.

Another view is that another person was crucified in his stead.
Whatever happened, it is clear that the vast majority of people thought that he was crucified. It doesn't follow that his companions thought that he was G-d. I don't believe that. They believed Jesus was the promised Messiah .. and so do I.

Jesus told them that he would return [as the Messiah].
..and so he will.

So why would you not believe what Jesus said and what the gospels say about the death of Jesus on the cross if you believe other things the gospels say?
Do you believe Jesus died an atoning death as the gospels say and as the OT prophecies say?
If so, when did this happen?
Do you believe the Messiah was meant to die an atoning death for our sins?
When it comes to Jesus being God, it does appear that the apostles believed Jesus was the Son of God and Thomas even called Him "My God" (John 20:28)
This is also appears to be the faith of the early Church.
Claiming to be the Son of God is the blasphemy that got Jesus crucified in the end, at the trial.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you believe the Messiah was meant to die an atoning death for our sins?

You know that I don't. Did Jesus teach that he'd come for that reason? No.

Claiming to be the Son of God is the blasphemy that got Jesus crucified in the end, at the trial.

If that's what you think.
You haven't told me at precisely what age Jesus declared himself to be G-d.