The testimony of the NT writers

[Left Coast]

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 ...

Can you recognize historicity in that beginning?

No, I really don't. I see a veneer of credibility with no specifics. Who were these eyewitnesses? Which of them provided which details?

Secondly, why did you stop there?

Verse 10:
"Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside. Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense...."

Thereafter ensues a story where the angel prophesies the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah's elderly wife. When Zechariah doesn't believe the angel, the angel magically curses him with muteness.

The story doesn't get any more plausible from there.

You can see why people would regard such stories as...rather unlikely, yes?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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

"Supernatural" is a term that seems useful to describe events that defy known natural laws. I understand that sometimes what is supernatural sometimes becomes natural when we gain a better understanding of it; maybe someday we really will find evidence that there was a Jewish man that rose from the dead, whether he was buried alive, it was a setup to convince people to join his following, or aliens came down and revived him in order to direct human affairs.

However, I personally find the metaphor of Christ to be a more probable and inspirational way of interpreting NT scripture. I find it to fit my own mystical concepts of my place in the Universe nicely, but that's within my own understanding of the nature of the Universe and is not contrary to natural laws as we currently understand them.

 

[Eli G]

@Left Coast I know it is too much to analyze, but ... I cannot talk about everything in so short time. I guess that is why I opened a topic about this, and there is a lot of room for more questions and analysis ... Actually, I have not much more time after this post.

Tell me: do you think that some men of the first century agreed to invent a story like that of Jesus Christ that is recorded in the four gospels, even if the events were recent and easily refuted?

If you don't believe because some events that they recount seem fantastic to you, then maybe you would have an answer to the reason that those events have been narrated like that, right?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

The Dalai Lama and Heaven's Gate are contemporary with modern testimonies and supernatural claims.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

@Left Coast I know it is too much to analyze, but ... I cannot talk about everything in so short time. I guess that is why I opened a topic about this, and there is a lot of room for more questions and analysis ... Actually, I have not much more time after this post.

Tell me: do you think that some men of the first century agreed to invent a story like that of Jesus Christ that is recorded in the four gospels, even if the events were recent and easily refuted?

If you don't believe because some events that they recount seem fantastic to you, then maybe you would have an answer to the reason that those events have been narrated like that, right?

I think they very well could have agreed, maybe even understanding it as symbolic mythology. I find it fairly convenient that Christ can be easily described as the fruit of the Tree of Life and Death on Eden from the Old Testament. This isn't a common interpretation, but it is compelling when Christianity is compared with the other Mystery Religions and mystical cults of that era that also included elements of symbolic sacrifice, drinking and eating sacred things associated with deities, and descent into the underworld and resurrection motifs.

 

[Eli G]

"Supernatural" is a term that seems useful to describe events that defy known natural laws. I understand that sometimes what is supernatural sometimes becomes natural when we gain a better understanding of it; maybe someday we really will find evidence that there was a Jewish man that rose from the dead, whether he was buried alive, it was a setup to convince people to join his following, or aliens came down and revived him in order to direct human affairs.

However, I personally find the metaphor of Christ to be a more probable and inspirational way of interpreting NT scripture. I find it to fit my own mystical concepts of my place in the Universe nicely, but that's within my own understanding of the nature of the Universe and is not contrary to natural laws as we currently understand them.

I totally understand. I see your religion says Panreligious Mystical Paganism, which requires faith too.

I chose to believe the accounts on the Bible because I find them to be reliable and offer me a completely hopeful perspective on the future. But I understand that some people do not see the matter in the same way for their own reasons. I respect people who don't decide to believe or act in life the same way I do.

I'm on the forum to learn about other people, what they think and how they act on their ideas... and to share with others what I think and how it shapes my life.

 

[leroy]

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?

Only fanatic atheists form internet dismiss those testimonies, scholars accept them (or critique them) in the same way they would accept secular sources

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Which one is right?

How are we going to solve this?

By looking at the evidence and seeing whose claims are supported better.

Do you realize that all four of the Gospels are anonymous?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only fanatic atheists form internet dismiss those testimonies, scholars accept them (or critique them) in the same way they would accept secular sources

Do they now? When you use a loaded term such as "dismiss" you once again take on a burden of proof.

 

[ChristineM]

Only fanatic atheists form internet dismiss those testimonies, scholars accept them (or critique them) in the same way they would accept secular sources

Not quite true. There are many academic scholars who do not accept the nt as anything more than a religious book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Left Coast I know it is too much to analyze, but ... I cannot talk about everything in so short time. I guess that is why I opened a topic about this, and there is a lot of room for more questions and analysis ... Actually, I have not much more time after this post.

Tell me: do you think that some men of the first century agreed to invent a story like that of Jesus Christ that is recorded in the four gospels, even if the events were recent and easily refuted?

If you don't believe because some events that they recount seem fantastic to you, then maybe you would have an answer to the reason that those events have been narrated like that, right?

No. There is no reason to assume a conspiracy. Stories about figures like Jesus appear on their own without people going out of their way to lie.

How old are you? If you are old enough you would know what happened in regards to Elvis after he died. There were countless Elvis sightings. Did those people lie? Maybe some of them,, but for most it was merely seeing someone that looked like Elvis and there desire for him to still be alive did the rest. That is not lying even though there stories are false. People often believe the nonsense that there own brains make up. That is just human nature.

There was over a generation between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first Gospel. Do you know how many stories can evolve over that time?

 

[Heyo]

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?

There are a number of criteria that aren't met by Christian writings to be called historical:

1. Personal witness (the authors don't even claim that)
   
2. Contemporary (the Gospels are anything but)
   
3. Writing style (that seems to be what you are referring as "secular writings" but there are a lot of genres which are secular but not seen as historical; if it isn't written as history, it probably isn't)
   
4. Corroboration (independent, historians prefer historical but in a pinch they accept archaeological)
   
5. Known author (non of the gospels has one, only the letters and some of them are fakes)
6. Naturalism (if it contains tales of magic, it's a fairy tale)

Not all historical writings meet those criteria but not all historical writings are seen as true. E.g. defamation was a known method of Roman political writers. Historians take descriptions of a political opponent with grain of salt or two.

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

Is it prejudice or just a fact of life that religious writers lie for their religion?
At least it is not discrimination as all text that lack so many criteria are seen as dubious.

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast I know it is too much to analyze, but ... I cannot talk about everything in so short time. I guess that is why I opened a topic about this, and there is a lot of room for more questions and analysis ... Actually, I have not much more time after this post.

Tell me: do you think that some men of the first century agreed to invent a story like that of Jesus Christ that is recorded in the four gospels, even if the events were recent and easily refuted?

I do. Firstly, most people wouldn't have cared about the claims of these early Christians. Do you care about every random person you hear about who claims to have talked to God or angels or the Virgin Mary? Of course not. You write the vast majority of them off with hardly a second thought, I'm betting. The same would've happened then. Most people wouldn't have been going out of their way to refute religous claims of a random small mystery cult.

If you don't believe because some events that they recount seem fantastic to you, then maybe you would have an answer to the reason that those events have been narrated like that, right?

Narrated like what? With claims that they were from eyewitnesses? I think as I said it provided a veneer of credibility without any details to substantiate it. People spread stories mostly orally back then; few were literate.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I do. Firstly, most people wouldn't have cared about the claims of these early Christians.

Sure. That's why they were set on fire and crucified upside down and fed to Lions... Because nobody cared about their claims.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Which one is right?

How are we going to solve this?

Always, always, always -- "critical thinking" involves the logical and rational analysis of events in light of all the evidence (seen and unseen) that you have available to you. If somebody wants to argue that gravity can be defeated and create a car like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang -- well we can examine everything we know about things that fly and how they do it, and whether any of those methods actually "defeat" gravity, or use some other natural physical principle to accomplish the feat. And we can look as hard as we care to for contrary examples. If we manage only to find the former, and none of the latter, then it would be a failure of "critical thinking" to assert that "well, there must be a way Chitty Chitty Bang Bang could work."

So, when two presumably critical thinkers disagree with one another, they need do nothing more (although it can be very difficult indeed) than present their facts, suppositions and reasoning to one another. If they are both legitimately "critical thinkers," there's a very good chance that one side or the other will give in under the weight of evidence and reason.

 

[Kenny]

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



Nope, just critical thinking.

The Iliad by Homer... at least "supposedly".

 

[Kenny]

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.

No, I don't think so.

"2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Kenny]

.

So, when two presumably critical thinkers disagree with one another, they need do nothing more (although it can be very difficult indeed) than present their facts, suppositions and reasoning to one another. If they are both legitimately "critical thinkers," there's a very good chance that one side or the other will give in under the weight of evidence and reason.

Usually. But in this case critical thinkers actually are still on both sides.

 

[danieldemol]

.


Usually. But in this case critical thinkers actually are still on both sides.

I believe there are people capable of critical thinking on the religious side, because all the time droves of people are being educated in critical thinking and leaving religion, however that doesn't indicate that critical thought processes equally favour religious and non-religious thought.

In my opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

Sure. That's why they were set on fire and crucified upside down and fed to Lions... Because nobody cared about their claims.

Some of those stories are apocryphal. Some are more plausible, but none (that i know of) were because anyone cared in particular about supernatural claims of angelic visits and the like. Let's also separate the views of regular average Joe people from narcissistic authoritarian emperors.