Does the NT represent the words and thoughts of Jesus?

[Zzyzx]

Does the NT represent the words and thoughts of Jesus OR the words and thoughts of Paul/Saul and the gospel writers (with later changes and additions)?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #27]

It seems you know little of cowboys and nothing of horses.

Do some research. This was a lazy attempt.

Moderator Comment

Another reminder that civility is expected here. These comments are far from that. Please note rule number 1:

"Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed."

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

You are mistaken. The bible is a massive library of 66 or more ancient books written over centuries.

Well that depends on what Bible you are referring to.
Catholic = 73
Eastern Orthodox = 76-79
Ethiopian Orthodox = 81
Not a great start for a book you claim is a historical record.

It contains real historical figures, geographic locations, and events, but it mixes factual history with theology, poetry, genealogy, and mythology.

The Bible is a religious holy book and the fact that it contains history and myth is what makes it unreliable.
If you want to argue that it is an unreliable historical record, that I might not take issue with.

It is considered a historical document by scholars.

Some may believe such a thing, but in reality the Bible is not a single history book, but an anthology of ancient texts. Sure it contains real historical figures, places, and events, but it was written as a religious and theological document rather than an objective modern history text. For some of it to be historical, we would need a method to determine which events are historical and which are not.
Is the Garden of Eden story history?
Is the flood story history?
is the claim that dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem history?
What mechanism is available to make these determination so I can know the historical compared to religious beliefs?

Did you know that Greek history contains the belief in Greek gods? Their inclusion doesn't negate the historical relevance.

Yes. Which Greek book would you like us to examine to see if it is historical or not? I'm discussing the 66 - 81 books that make up the Bible and why they are not reliably historical.

Did the bodies of saints come out of their graves>>>>? The narrative (story) in Matthew states that these saints "appeared" to many.... my understanding of this from personal experience is that they appeared as in dream. Accept it, or don't.

I accept what is historical. Is the story historical? If only we had a reliable historical record to refer to!
History is the disciplined study of the human past based on critical analysis of available evidence. What good would it do to applying this to unreliable records? You seem to be saying that the Bible is historical, we just can't tell which parts are and which parts aren't. This is why I cannot accept the claim that it is a historical record.

It was unique to Matthew's account of the happenings.

Clarification. It is unique to the book we now refer to as Matthew. A book written by an unknown author decades after the event was to have taken place and it doesn't align with the other gospels, but I do acknowledge that it is unique to this book.

As for discepancies-- minor details, while you acknowledge agreement on the foundational premise of the death and subsequent resurrection (life after death) of Jesus as presented in the gospel accounts.

I agree with the overall message. The gospels don't align on the details though.

You insinuated that only the words Jesus wrote himself about himself would have any value.

Not my intent, so let me clarify.
I don't find it logical that a God would create a book, with a message for everyone, but not pen any of it themselves while on this earth and worse, require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret the said message that mostly unknown authors penned.
A book written by Jesus would be more reliable than a book written by unknown authors decades after the events were to have happened.

I'm happy that you concede that a teacher need not write their own notes for the student body. Jesus was a (the) teacher.

I hear your claim about Jesus. Let's test for reliability though. Who were the students and when did they write about this teacher?

There were immediate and intense contemporary challenges to Muhammad's claim of his overnight journey (known as Al-Isra’ wal-Mi’raj). When he shared the story in Mecca around 621 CE, it sparked severe skepticism, ridicule, and even a crisis of faith among some of his own followers.

Thank you for setting a standard!
1) First-century and second-century opponents of Christianity—including the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and pagan critics—denied the resurrection and claimed instead that Jesus's disciples stole his body or that the resurrection claims were a hoax.
2) The Gospel of Matthew (written in the first century) records that contemporary Jewish religious leaders claimed Jesus did not rise. Instead, they bribed the tomb guards.

As for Joseph Smith-- this is another false equivalent. Numerous contemporaries vigorously challenged the claims of Joseph Smith throughout his lifetime. Opponents included local neighbors, secular journalists, mainstream Christian ministers, and even high-ranking defectors from within his own church. These early challenges generally targeted his character, his translation methods, and his theological innovations. Do some research. This was a lazy attempt. I'll await your production of similar contemporary counter-claims to the testimony of Jesus.

This lazy attempt seems to defeat your reasoning though.
There were contemporaries that claimed that Muhammed did not fly on horse, that Joseph Smith did not have a magic hat and glasses and that Jesus did not raise from the dead. Personally, I don't find this to be a valid mechanism for determining if impossible events actually happened. Do you?

[1213]

It's not an opinion that you believe because you don't think that humans could have written it.
Verbatim quote from 1213: "I don't think humans could have written it"
....

I said "I don't think humans could have written it, if it didn't really happen". The "if it didn't really happen" should not be ignored, unless you want to lead others astray. And why would you want to do such an evil action?

[Clownboat]

I said "I don't think humans could have written it, if it didn't really happen".

Did humans write the Qu'ran? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Bhagavad Gita? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Lord of the Rings? Asking since the events didn't really happen.

The "if it didn't really happen" should not be ignored,

The phrase "if it didn't really happen" makes your complaint even sillier than if it weren't there.

I guess I'm off to ponder about how humans write fiction.

[Mr E]

The bible is a massive library of 66 or more ancient books written over centuries.

Clownboat-

Well that depends on what Bible you are referring to.
Catholic = 73
Eastern Orthodox = 76-79
Ethiopian Orthodox = 81
Not a great start for a book you claim is a historical record.

Mr E-- All of which are over 66, which is what I stated.

Clownboat-

It contains real historical figures, geographic locations, and events, but it mixes factual history with theology, poetry, genealogy, and mythology.
The Bible is a religious holy book and the fact that it contains history and myth is what makes it unreliable.
If you want to argue that it is an unreliable historical record, that I might not take issue with.

Mr E-

It is considered a historical document by scholars.

None of your concerns affect it's value as a historical collection. Can you list examples of historical error, since those seem to be of primary concern to you?


Clownboat-

Some may believe such a thing, but in reality the Bible is not a single history book, but an anthology of ancient texts. Sure it contains real historical figures, places, and events, but it was written as a religious and theological document rather than an objective modern history text. For some of it to be historical, we would need a method to determine which events are historical and which are not.
Is the Garden of Eden story history?
Is the flood story history?
is the claim that dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem history?
What mechanism is available to make these determination so I can know the historical compared to religious beliefs?

Mr E- Again-- you are just rephrasing what I already stated. It's a library (collection) of books.

Did you know that Greek history contains the belief in Greek gods? Their inclusion doesn't negate the historical relevance.

Clownboat-

Yes. Which Greek book would you like us to examine to see if it is historical or not? I'm discussing the 66 - 81 books that make up the Bible and why they are not reliably historical.

Mr E- lol-- Ever heard of a guy named Herodotus? aka- The Father of History? His historical records include stories of defeating the Persian forces by means he attributes to the Greek gods. His record includes military choices routinely guided by real-world messages from the Oracle of Delphi, which the Greeks believed was the literal voice of the god Apollo. You have to consider the fact that in the ancient world (history) religion and history are entirely intertwined. The books of the bible are no exception.

Did the bodies of saints come out of their graves>>>>? The narrative (story) in Matthew states that these saints "appeared" to many.... my understanding of this from personal experience is that they appeared as in dream. Accept it, or don't.

Clownboat--

I accept what is historical. Is the story historical? If only we had a reliable historical record to refer to!
History is the disciplined study of the human past based on critical analysis of available evidence. What good would it do to applying this to unreliable records? You seem to be saying that the Bible is historical, we just can't tell which parts are and which parts aren't. This is why I cannot accept the claim that it is a historical record.

It was unique to Matthew's account of the happenings.

Clarification. It is unique to the book we now refer to as Matthew. A book written by an unknown author decades after the event was to have taken place and it doesn't align with the other gospels, but I do acknowledge that it is unique to this book.

I didn't make any claims about authorship-- details lost to history.


Mr E-

There were immediate and intense contemporary challenges to Muhammad's claim of his overnight journey (known as Al-Isra’ wal-Mi’raj). When he shared the story in Mecca around 621 CE, it sparked severe skepticism, ridicule, and even a crisis of faith among some of his own followers.

Clownboat-

Thank you for setting a standard!
1) First-century and second-century opponents of Christianity—including the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem and pagan critics—denied the resurrection and claimed instead that Jesus's disciples stole his body or that the resurrection claims were a hoax.
2) The Gospel of Matthew (written in the first century) records that contemporary Jewish religious leaders claimed Jesus did not rise. Instead, they bribed the tomb guards.

MrE- Thank you for repeating the exact examples I already cited.

As for Joseph Smith-- this is another false equivalent. Numerous contemporaries vigorously challenged the claims of Joseph Smith throughout his lifetime. Opponents included local neighbors, secular journalists, mainstream Christian ministers, and even high-ranking defectors from within his own church. These early challenges generally targeted his character, his translation methods, and his theological innovations. Do some research. This was a lazy attempt. I'll await your production of similar contemporary counter-claims to the testimony of Jesus.

Clownboat-

This lazy attempt seems to defeat your reasoning though.

Mr E- How so? I responded directly to both of your examples demonstrating that they were improperly referenced.

Clownboat

There were contemporaries that claimed that Muhammed did not fly on horse, that Joseph Smith did not have a magic hat and glasses and that Jesus did not raise from the dead. Personally, I don't find this to be a valid mechanism for determining if impossible events actually happened. Do you?

Mr E- Yes, that was just what I said. Again, one is not like the others however. You should concede this. Do you have examples of any of Jesus' followers claiming he made it all up and didn't do or say the things he did? Not even Judas challenged these, unlike the closest followers of both Mohammed and Smith.

[1213]

...
Did humans write the Qu'ran? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Bhagavad Gita? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Lord of the Rings? Asking since the events didn't really happen.
...

Has Qu'ran something that humans would not have known on their own?
Has Bhagavad Gita something that humans would not have known on their own?

Lord of the rings seems to be in a way just an imitation of the Bible stories.

[Clownboat]

Mr E-- All of which are over 66, which is what I stated.

So which of the 66 to 81 books in our available Bibles are historical historical record and what mechanism is used to conclude which are and which are not?

It is considered a historical document by scholars.

Scholars, overall do not believe such a thing. The Bible (which varies in the amount of books it contains) is a religious holy book. It was not written as a historical record. Most of the authors are unknown, writing at unknown times. If it were to have been written as history, it would be unreliable history at best.

None of your concerns affect it's value as a historical collection. Can you list examples of historical error, since those seem to be of primary concern to you?

My claim is that our Bibles (pick one) are not a reliable historical record because there is no known mechanism to separate facts from myth.
The Census of Quirinius. - Luke places the birth of Jesus during a worldwide census under Quirinius when Herod the Great was still king. However, historical records show that Quirinius's census occurred in 6 CE, roughly a decade after Herod died in 4 BCE.
Others the exodus out of Egypt. - The large-scale enslavement of Israelites in Egypt and the subsequent mass exodus across the Sinai desert lack contemporary Egyptian administrative records and physical archaeological evidence.
The conquest of Jericho. - Archaeological excavations at sites like Jericho and Ai show that the cities were either uninhabited or destroyed at different times, contradicting the synchronized military conquest described in the Book of Joshua.
As you can see, none of the above has anything to do with the fact that we cannot tell what is historical and what isn't in the Bible, but since you asked for examples, I thought I would offer a few (even though it doesn't affect my claim).

Some may believe such a thing, but in reality the Bible is not a single history book, but an anthology of ancient texts. Sure it contains real historical figures, places, and events, but it was written as a religious and theological document rather than an objective modern history text. For some of it to be historical, we would need a method to determine which events are historical and which are not.
Is the Garden of Eden story history?
Is the flood story history?
is the claim that dead bodies got out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem history?
What mechanism is available to make these determination so I can know the historical compared to religious beliefs?

Mr E- Again-- you are just rephrasing what I already stated. It's a library (collection) of books.

Readers, did I just rephrase things already said, or did I ask specific questions about specific events in the Bible where I asked for the mechanism to determine if the event is historical or not? It is telling as to why Mr E. failed to answer these questions.

Mr E- lol-- Ever heard of a guy named Herodotus? aka- The Father of History? His historical records include stories of defeating the Persian forces by means he attributes to the Greek gods. His record includes military choices routinely guided by real-world messages from the Oracle of Delphi, which the Greeks believed was the literal voice of the god Apollo. You have to consider the fact that in the ancient world (history) religion and history are entirely intertwined. The books of the bible are no exception.

Yes, I have heard of Herodotus. He was rightfully criticized for including legends and fanciful accounts in his works and also known for writing performance pieces. Even Athenian historian Thucydides dismissed Herodotus as a story-teller so I hear.
Herodotus does not make the Bible historical and he doesn't provide a mechanism for determining what is historical and what isn't in the Bible.

Did the bodies of saints come out of their graves>>>>? The narrative (story) in Matthew states that these saints "appeared" to many.... my understanding of this from personal experience is that they appeared as in dream. Accept it, or don't.

I asked you if this story was historical not what your preferred understanding is. You failed to answer because your source is unreliable as for determining what is historical and what isn't.

You seem to be saying that the Bible is historical, we just can't tell which parts are and which parts aren't. This is why I cannot accept the claim that it is a historical record.

Just noting that this was unaddressed and directly deals with my issue in calling the Bible a historical record.

I didn't make any claims about authorship-- details lost to history.

You called it unique to Matthew's account of the happenings. I am rightfully pointing out that we don't know who wrote it or when. Therefore to call it Matthew's account is an unreliable claim. Seems to be the theme here.

Again, one is not like the others however. You should concede this.

You would need to offer further clarification first.
It seems that you are saying that the Bible, the Qur'an and the Bhagavad Gita are not like each other. They are alike and they aren't alike, so I don't understand the point and assume I am currently misunderstanding your meaning. Feel free to clarify if it has anything to do with the Bible being a historical record or not.

Do you have examples of any of Jesus' followers claiming he made it all up and didn't do or say the things he did? Not even Judas challenged these, unlike the closest followers of both Mohammed and Smith.

Please acknowledge every Jew from time of Jesus to now. Any 'follower' would be a believer by definition, therefore your question is a bit nonsensical. It's like asking if there are any believers in fairies that don't believe in fairies.
Most importantly though, even if this reasoning wasn't faulty, it still does not provide a mechanism for determining what is historical and what isn't in the Bible.

The Bible is a religious holy book. If anyone wants to use it as a history book, it is unreliable due to the fact that there is no mechanism to separate fact from fiction.

[Clownboat]

...
Did humans write the Qu'ran? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Bhagavad Gita? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Lord of the Rings? Asking since the events didn't really happen.
...

Has Qu'ran something that humans would not have known on their own?
Has Bhagavad Gita something that humans would not have known on their own?

Lord of the rings seems to be in a way just an imitation of the Bible stories.

You failed to answer my questions. What you are doing here is not debate. You have been on this site long enough and should be able to do better I would think.

Yes, the Qur'an has elements that humans cannot know on their own:
Detailed descriptions of the unseen world, including the nature of God, angels, the soul, heaven, hell, and the Day of Judgment, which human reason cannot discover independently.

Why is it do you think that I'm courteous enough to respond to your questions while you simply ignore mine? Is it a pride thing?

[1213]

...
Did humans write the Qu'ran? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Bhagavad Gita? If they did, was it because the events happened?
Did humans write the Lord of the Rings? Asking since the events didn't really happen.
...

Has Qu'ran something that humans would not have known on their own?
Has Bhagavad Gita something that humans would not have known on their own?

Lord of the rings seems to be in a way just an imitation of the Bible stories.

You failed to answer my questions. ..

I think all books we have are written by humans.

Could you give one event example from Qu'ran and Bhagavad Gita that you would like to know do I think it happened?

Yes, the Qur'an has elements that humans cannot know on their own:
Detailed descriptions of the unseen world, including the nature of God, angels, the soul, heaven, hell, and the Day of Judgment, which human reason cannot discover independently.

The ideas could have been copied from the Bible, which is why I don't think it can be said humans could not have known. At that point humans could have known.

[Clownboat]

I think all books we have are written by humans.

I acknowledge that you believe all books are written by humans.

Could you give one event example from Qu'ran and Bhagavad Gita that you would like to know do I think it happened?

I could, but you are a follower of the Bible, so I already know that you will not allow yourself to think that it happened in a competing holy book, therefore it would be futile and a waste of my effort.

The ideas could have been copied from the Bible, which is why I don't think it can be said humans could not have known. At that point humans could have known.

I'm a prophet!