The testimony of the NT writers

[Eli G]

Talking about the apostles someone said:

Weird how we only supposedly hear from two out of twelve.

... and I answered:

That is funny. How do you know there were 12 if you say you "only supposedly hear from two"?
You did hear about the twelve ... but you don't believe.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

 

[ChristineM]

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

So can you point to secular writing of the period that is accepted (on faith) by at least 30% of the world's population?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination

Nope, just critical thinking.

 

[ChristineM]

You wrote " That is funny. How do you know there were 12 if you say you "only supposedly hear from two"?
You did hear about the twelve ... but you don't believe."

Simple, Christianity tells us 12. However the gospels were anonymous at least until well into the second century when they were assigned "writers"

Four Evangelists - Wikipedia.

 

[Eli G]

(...) just critical thinking.

What if there is another group's critical thinking criticizing yours?

Which one is right?

How are we going to solve this?

 

[ChristineM]

What if there is another group's critical thinking criticizing yours?

Which one is right?

How are we going to solve this?

People can think what they want, I am happy that my research into the life and times of the period under roman rule is accurate. There is evidence, there is fact, nothing to solve.

 

[Eli G]

I didn't open the topic for you, sweetie. I didn't even call you. You are here because you want to ... and till now you have said nothing that I don't know:

I love it when anti-religious and atheists people create religion forums with predetermined agendas... They always project themselves as if they are the majority, that believers have no rational thinking and that science belongs to atheists.

And we still have bills that say "in God we trust." What's going on with this crazy world?

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't open the topic for you, sweetie. I didn't even call you. You are here because you want to ... and till now you have said nothing that I don't know:

I love it when anti-religious and atheists people create religion forums with predetermined agendas... They always project themselves as if they are the majority, that believers have no rational thinking and that science belongs to atheists.

And we still have bills that say "in God we trust." What's going on with this crazy world?

I am not your sweety and if you continue calling me that i shall report you.

Public thread, had you wanted to ban those who don't agree with you then you should have posted in a DIR.

I am not anti religious, and what have i created that upsets you?
I guess you didn't actually read my post or simply cannot answer it so got yourself in a tizz.

No we don't, 90% of the world population is not American so are not forced into religious dogma.

 

[Left Coast]

Talking about the apostles someone said:
... and I answered:


If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

In general we (ought to) take any writings that purport wild and implausible things with a large grain of salt. This applies to both ancient and modern writings. Add to this that the NT was written by a) a guy who admits he never saw Jesus in person and his information about him is from private revelations, b) anonymous authors, and c) pseudepigraphal authors, and yes it's quite reasonable to regard the New Testament as highly dubious. Has nothing to do with "discrimination."

 

[Eli G]

@ChristineM I was trying to be sweet ...

My topic is

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?


It is not about "religious dogmas" or your supposed "qualifications" on Roman history ... nobody minds.

The NT is a collection of historical documents ... not dogmas. They are as historical as any other document we know coming from any other ancient historian or writer and that are admitted within the investigations that are made on history. Your disqualifications based on supposed scholarly superiority are out of place.

I will hope that a person who does not think they are superior to me is willing to share on the subject.

Have a great weekend.

 

[Eli G]

In general we (ought to) take any writings that purport wild and implausible things with a large grain of salt. This applies to both ancient and modern writings. Add to this that the NT was written by a) a guy who admits he never saw Jesus in person and his information about him is from private revelations, b) anonymous authors, and c) pseudepigraphal authors, and yes it's quite reasonable to regard the New Testament as highly dubious. Has nothing to do with "discrimination."

Ok. Thanks for participating.

Let's talk about Luke, for example. Luke was a a doctor of his time, and from his way of telling history from the data he collected, it is said that he was very well qualified as a historian.

Doesn't that play a role in favor of his credibility?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What if there is another group's critical thinking criticizing yours?

Which one is right?

How are we going to solve this?

Critical thinking.

Testimony containing events that are supernatural and cannot be verified by evidence are less likely to be considered accurate than testimony that is grounded in physically-verifiable reality.

That doesn't mean there isn't value in the texts; just don't assume they are filly grounded in literal history.

Christ being resurrected is a valuable metaphor for some, but it cannot be established as literal fact.

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM I was trying to be sweet ...

My topic is

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?


It is not about "religious dogmas" or your supposed "qualifications" on Roman history ... nobody minds.

The NT is a collection of historical documents ... not dogmas. They are as historical as any other document we know coming from any other ancient historian or writer and that are admitted within the investigations that are made on history. Your disqualifications based on supposed scholarly superiority are out of place.

I will hope that a person who does not think they are superior to me is willing to share on the subject.

Have a great weekend.

No you weren't, you were being deliberately insulting

My research into roman history is not supposed

No the NT is not a collection of historical documents, although it does contain some historical fact to make it seem more plausible, an authors trick not lost on the writers of the NT.

If it were historical documents it would be recognised as a history text, it is not.

What it is is a book of faith

 

[Eli G]

Critical thinking.

Testimony containing events that are supernatural and cannot be verified by evidence are less likely to be considered accurate than testimony that is grounded in physically-verifiable reality.

That doesn't mean there isn't value in the texts; just don't assume they are filly grounded in literal history.

Christ being resurrected is a valuable metaphor for some, but it cannot be established as literal fact.

I perceive prejudice there .

You make think an event is not possible because you never saw any similar. Does that mean that it didn't happen?
Your believing or not won't change anything, right?

 

[Eli G]

No you weren't, you were being deliberately insulting

My research into roman history is not supposed

No the NT is not a collection of historical documents, although it does contain some historical fact to make it seem more plausible, an authors trick not lost on the writers of the NT.

If it were historical documents it would be recognised as a history text, it is not.

What it is is a book of faith

Not interested on continue to talk with you.
Good bye.

 

[ChristineM]

Not interested on continue to talk with you.
Good bye.

Figures.

 

[Left Coast]

Ok. Thanks for participating.

Let's talk about Luke, for example. Luke was a a doctor of his time, and from his way of telling history from the data he collected, it is said that he was very well qualified as a historian.

Doesn't that play a role in favor of his credibility?

Luke doesn't even claim to have been written by Luke, though. It is Christian tradition that he's the author, but the text itself does not say that. Luke is also a very heavily dependent account, copying or redacting content straight from Mark and likely Matthew. And again, we have the obvious problem that on near every page of Luke is story after story of totally implausible, magical content. It's the stuff of myth, not history.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I perceive prejudice there .

You make think an event is not possible because you never saw any similar. Does that mean that it didn't happen?
Your believing or not won't change anything, right?

I think you are reading prejudice into contrary thinking. I am simply making an argument concerning the topic of the thread.

In this case, I am making a logical assessment based on data. Certain events in the New Testament defy what we know about the physical world. Lacking data to support these events, I deem it improbable they are grounded in literal history. This is important since there are many historical claims that defy logical thought and I will not automatically believe them without evidence or some other reasonable explanation.

That said, believe in Christ's resurrection while also disbelieving the interactions Indigenous people in North America had with their own supernatural personages or that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated sage or that aliens were lurking behind the Hale Bopp comet. We can choose the metaphors that inspire us but it's important to understand why we choose them.

 

[Eli G]

Critical thinking.

Testimony containing events that are supernatural and cannot be verified by evidence are less likely to be considered accurate than testimony that is grounded in physically-verifiable reality.

That doesn't mean there isn't value in the texts; just don't assume they are filly grounded in literal history.

Christ being resurrected is a valuable metaphor for some, but it cannot be established as literal fact.

I agree with you in one thing: if never seen it is "less likely to be considered accurate". You chose the right words.

But: can you tell me what you would considerate "supernatural"? And if possible: do you think that something considered "supernatural" now could be considered no-supernatural in the future? I mean: it could happen that that variable change about the same event, let's say: in diferent epochs or depending on what science men discover in the future?

PS: Sorry about my English. I am trying to write my thoughts as they come, but my first language is Spanish.

 

[Eli G]

Luke doesn't even claim to have been written by Luke, though. It is Christian tradition that he's the author, but the text itself does not say that. Luke is also a very heavily dependent account, copying or redacting content straight from Mark and likely Matthew. And again, we have the obvious problem that on near every page of Luke is story after story of totally implausible, magical stories. It's the stuff of myth, not history.

Mmmh, well, to the effects of this topic, Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts. If you want to discuss that I guess we need to open other topic.

This is how the Gospel of Luke starts:

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
5 In the days of Herod, king of Ju·deʹa, there was a priest named Zech·a·riʹah of the division of A·biʹjah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth ...

And he said later:

... 3:1 In the 15th year of the reign of Ti·beʹri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·deʹa, Herod was district ruler of Galʹi·lee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·raeʹa and Trach·o·niʹtis, and Ly·saʹni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·leʹne, 2 in the days of chief priest Anʹnas and of Caʹia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·riʹah in the wilderness.

Can you recognize historicity in that beginning?

 

[Eli G]

I think you are reading prejudice into contrary thinking. I am simply making an argument concerning the topic of the thread.

In this case, I am making a logical assessment based on data. Certain events in the New Testament defy what we know about the physical world. Lacking data to support these events, I deem it improbable they are grounded in literal history. This is important since there are many historical claims that defy logical thought and I will not automatically believe them without evidence or some other reasonable explanation.

That said, believe in Christ's resurrection while also disbelieving the interactions Indigenous people in North America had with their own supernatural personages or that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated sage or that aliens were lurking behind the Hale Bopp comet. We can choose the metaphors that inspire us but it's important to understand why we choose them.

Mmmm. I don't think that we need to compare so diferent phenomena and beliefs. We are talking about events registered in documents written in the same epoch they occurred and with a lot of first hand witnesses still alive. Those writings came to us in copies, one generation after the other ... until now.

Do you really think these are comparable?