The historical accuracy of the teachings of Jesus

[polonius]

There are a number of related threads which touch of this subject ranging from those of fundamentalists to unbelievers. But let’s try to squarely address the issue from a historical perspective.

There are four books and a series of epistles and related writings contained in the New Testament. Most state or allude to the teachings of Jesus particularly what he was claimed to have said.

Let's begin with a summary of one Catholic historian.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

The oldest writings are those of Paul which were written 25 years after the death of Jesus. Paul, of course, never new Jesus in the flesh. Matthew is the evangelist not the apostle. Mark was a Syrian convert. Luke was not a witness and it appears that the Evangelist John was not the Apostle John. The four gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD.

So the initial question is, from a purely historical perspective, how should we regard the contents of the New Testament?

[polonius]

Also, based on how they wrote, they were clearly interested in convincing the readers of the truth of their words, so they included many things that are highly questionable in an attempt to get the readers to believe that what they wrote is true an accurate. The most profound example is the repeated claim that the Father God actually spoke from the clouds to verified that Jesus was indeed his son and that we should hear what he has to say.

That is interesting idea. Does it really make any meaningful difference if there is the claim “God supposedly speaking from the clouds�? For example, if people would say, God told from the sky that you should believe what 1213 says, would it have any effect on anybody?

For me, the things Jesus said are the reason why I am willing to believe that he is son of God.

RESPONSE: There are many sons of God in the Old Testament. So you are safe in believing many are sons of God, not just Jesus.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > S > Son of God


"The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semitesto signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero, a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc.

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).


Jesus was regarded as just one.

[Divine Insight]

Also, based on how they wrote, they were clearly interested in convincing the readers of the truth of their words, so they included many things that are highly questionable in an attempt to get the readers to believe that what they wrote is true an accurate. The most profound example is the repeated claim that the Father God actually spoke from the clouds to verified that Jesus was indeed his son and that we should hear what he has to say.

That is interesting idea. Does it really make any meaningful difference if there is the claim “God supposedly speaking from the clouds�? For example, if people would say, God told from the sky that you should believe what 1213 says, would it have any effect on anybody?

For me, the things Jesus said are the reason why I am willing to believe that he is son of God.

Yes, it absolutely should have an effect on everyone given the same situation as we find in the Gospels.

In other words, it wouldn't just be people telling me that some God told them from the sky that I should believe what 1213 says. But it would be the SAME people who are claiming to know exactly what 1213 had supposedly said.

The scenario you have suggested above assumes that 1213 is speaking directly to me, and then other (totally unrelated) people come by and tell me that some god told them from the sky that I should believe what 1213 says.

You need to keep in mind that in the case of Jesus we not only never met or heard from Jesus, but Jesus never even wrote anything down himself. So we have absolutely NOTHING from Jesus.

All we have are writings from the people who are telling us that some God spoke from the clouds verifying that Jesus is in son and we are to believe what they claim Jesus said.

So your analogy is invalid. Your assuming that you can separate the claims about what Jesus said from the people who claimed that a God spoke from the clouds saying that you should believe Jesus. These are the SAME people. So if they lied about one thing, they could very easily be lying about the other as well.

And I have very serious problems believing the claims that any God spoke from the clouds. If there exists a God who can speak from the clouds and he wants people to believe in Jesus why isn't he speaking to us from the clouds today?

After all, why should we need to believe in unconfirmed rumors if God was willing to confirm that Jesus was his Son to people some 2000 years ago? Why won't he confirm it to us?

To be perfectly honest with you I feel that this is absolute proof that these claims about Jesus are false.

Why should people 2000 years ago be told by God himself that Jesus is his son, but we have to believe based on nothing more than 2000-year-old rumors.

Not only that, but have you ever asked yourself why God was so convinced that no one would believe Jesus that God himself had to verify that Jesus was his son by announcing it from the clouds?

That's a huge problem too. This only suggests that even this God didn't expect that people who met Jesus in person would believe Jesus. Otherwise why bother announcing it from the clouds that Jesus was his son?

For me this is a dead give-a-away of the fraudulent nature of this religion.

Although it's certainly not the only dead give-a-away. There are tons of things in the overall Bible that give it away as clearly being fraudulent. But this issue of God supposedly speaking from the clouds to announce that Jesus is his son is certainly one of them.

~~~~~

This is extremely problematic because if God actually made the announcement from the clouds, that itself is an extreme problem. And if the claim that God spoke from the clouds is a lie, then the authors of the Gospels (i.e. the people claiming to know what Jesus taught) cannot be trusted to tell the truth. So it's a bad situation for this religion either way.

[1213]

And I have very serious problems believing the claims that any God spoke from the clouds. If there exists a God who can speak from the clouds and he wants people to believe in Jesus why isn't he speaking to us from the clouds today?

Because it is not necessary and useful. The point is not to believe that God exists, but to understand what is good and right and become righteous. If you don’t receive what Jesus said now by the Bible, I don’t believe you would do so even if it would be said directly by God. Similarly as it is said:

"He said, 'No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.'"
Luke 16:30-31

[marco]

' "He said to him, 'If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.'"[/i]
Luke 16:30-31

Moses, if he existed and the men called prophets gave a variety of messages. It is sensible to question what one is told. The stipulation: "neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead," should be: "if people CLAIM that someone has risen from the dead." Phrased thus it is absolutely correct to question such a claim. The speaker is advocating naivety.

"Hi there, John has just risen from the dead."
"O, good. I'll have a word with him."

[Realworldjack]

There are a number of related threads which touch of this subject ranging from those of fundamentalists to unbelievers. But let’s try to squarely address the issue from a historical perspective.

There are four books and a series of epistles and related writings contained in the New Testament. Most state or allude to the teachings of Jesus particularly what he was claimed to have said.

Let's begin with a summary of one Catholic historian.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

The oldest writings are those of Paul which were written 25 years after the death of Jesus. Paul, of course, never new Jesus in the flesh. Matthew is the evangelist not the apostle. Mark was a Syrian convert. Luke was not a witness and it appears that the Evangelist John was not the Apostle John. The four gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD.

So the initial question is, from a purely historical perspective, how should we regard the contents of the New Testament?

You make a number of statements as if they were known, or proven facts, when they are certainly not, and we will get to them. But first, you refer to what Thomas Bokenkotter had to say. You do realize that he is simply giving his opinion, right? And his opinion does not hold up very well to the evidence. Lets take a look at what he has to say.

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus.

Well, exactly how did he determine this? Anyone at all can make a statement, but it is quite another to go ahead and supply evidence that would support such a statement. As far as Matthew, Mark, and John, I really do not know how anyone could determine the intentions of these particular authors, since they never address who they are writing to, nor their intention of writing. However, when we look at Luke, this author not only identifies his audience, he also gives the reason for his writing. This is how the author begins,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Notice how Bokenkotter uses the word, "account" and claims these authors were not intending to give an account. Now notice that this author uses the exact same word, when he refers to the others who had written. The author says these other authors had, "undertaken to compile an account", and goes on to say, "it seemed fitting for me as well", indicating that this is exactly what he is setting out to do.

Also notice the author claims to have, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" which certainly gives the indication that this author intended to give an historical account to his audience. In fact, he goes on to tell his audience, "to write it out for you in consecutive order."

So then, the opinion of Bokenkotter is not holding up very well against the evidence thus far. Now he would claim that the author of Luke was not very honest, but I would think that he would have to supply evidence for that claim as well, but I do not see how he can say that at least Luke was, "not meant to be a historical account."

Bokenkotter goes on to say,

They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God

Well again, this does not hold up to the evidence. Remember, the author of Luke gives the reason for his writing, and says to his audience,

that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

So then, this author is writing to one person, and the author addresses this person by name, and it is certainly clear here, that this person must have already been a believer. This certainly seems to rule out the possibility that this writing was intended to, "convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God", since the author gives his reasons, and never mentions such a thing. So again, Bokenkotter is not faring very well.

He goes on to say,

they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy.

Well this flies completely in the face of what we have already discussed, since the author of Luke claims to have had a "perfect understanding of all things from the very first." In fact, most translation have him, saying, "since I have carefully investigated everything."

Why would one go to such an extent, "if they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy."

The oldest writings are those of Paul which were written 25 years after the death of Jesus. Paul, of course, never new Jesus in the flesh. Matthew is the evangelist not the apostle. Mark was a Syrian convert. Luke was not a witness and it appears that the Evangelist John was not the Apostle John. The four gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD.

I will not attempt to refute everything you say here, but it as well flies in the face of the evidence that we have. What I will point out is the fact that it cannot be denied that we have letters written by Paul himself. This means, these letters were written inside the lifetime of the Apostles, and were not written by those much later under an assumed name.

Now why are there those who will not, and cannot deny that we do in fact have letters written by Paul himself? Well, it is not as though they would not love to do such a thing, because they certainly would. Therefore, the reason they cannot, and do not, is because the evidence is overwhelming.

Since they cannot do this with Paul, and his letters, they believe they can do this with the others, simply because of the fact that these writers never identify themselves. But, this will not work with the author of Luke.

Now there are certainly those who question some of the letters of Paul, even though the author identifies himself as Paul. Now, which letters do you suppose they want to question? That's right, the ones that give the most credence to the Christian Message, and aligns with the things Luke says in, "The Acts." Sort of strange isn't it

[polonius]

RealWorldJack posted:

Quote:
"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus.

Well, exactly how did he determine this? Anyone at all can make a statement, but it is quite another to go ahead and supply evidence that would support such a statement. As far as Matthew, Mark, and John, I really do not know how anyone could determine the intentions of these particular authors, since they never address who they are writing to, nor their intention of writing. However, when we look at Luke, this author not only identifies his audience, he also gives the reason for his writing. This is how the author begins,

RESPONSE:

Let’s see. Matthew and Luke were written about 80 AD by non-witnesses 50 years after the event they are relating. They both used the Gospel of Mark (also not a witness) as a source and copied. In the case of Matthew, over 90% some passages are word for word.

And because they contain historical contradictions. For example, was Jesus really born twice (During the lifetime of Herod who died in 4 BC (Matthew) or during the 6 AD census of Quirinius in 6 AD? (Luke). Was Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation (John) or on the Passover, Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Was he born in a house or in a stable? (Matthew vs Luke)

So then, the opinion of Bokenkotter is not holding up very well against the evidence thus far. Now he would claim that the author of Luke was not very honest, but I would think that he would have to supply evidence for that claim as well, but I do not see how he can say that at least Luke was, "not meant to be a historical account."

On the contrary, its holding up very well and the New Testament contains much such evidence. Did God really reveal to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah and change Simon’s name to Peter during the journeys of Jesus and the Apostles Matt 16 (according to Matthew) or did Peter’s brother Andrew before Peter became an apostle (see John 1)?

Perhaps you should consider the evidence more carefully

I will not attempt to refute everything you say here, but it as well flies in the face of the evidence that we have. What I will point out is the fact that it cannot be denied that we have letters written by Paul himself. This means, these letters were written inside the lifetime of the Apostles, and were not written by those much later under an assumed name.

Paul never knew Jesus in the flesh. In Paul’s seven epistles (considered to be authored by Paul not a follower) Paul deals very little with the events of Jesus’ life since Paul didn’t join the Jesus movement until three years after Jesus’ death.

“In other words, we have seven letters certainly from the historical Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), three others probably not from him (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) and a final three certainly not from him (1-2 Timothy, Titus).�

The Search for the Historical Paul: Which Letters Did He Really Write ...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dom ... 90387.html