Zone1 They Were Eyewitnesses to the Death and Resurrection

Do you accept all the stories in the NT or just those?
Can you be a little more specific because that would be like me asking you if you believe in all of the aspects of the big bang theory. It's unnecessarily broad and would appear to be a disingenuous tactic not really aimed at furthering understanding of differences.
 
Can you be a little more specific because that would be like me asking you if you believe in all of the aspects of the big bang theory. It's unnecessarily broad and would appear to be a disingenuous tactic not really aimed at furthering understanding of differences.
So you'd need to go through every story? Fine, let's start with Jesus' birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Do you believe they are adequate evidence of events?
 
So you'd need to go through every story? Fine, let's start with Jesus' birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Do you believe they are adequate evidence of events?
Can you be a little more specific? What is it that you are questioning?
 
Last edited:
So you'd need to go through every story?
No. I shouldn't have to guess what you are trying to argue about. Is that concept too difficult for you to understand and appreciate?
 
Can you be a little more specific? What is it that you are questioning?
There are stories in each as to how Jesus came to be born in Jerusalem. Are they both historically true, only one is true, neither is true.
 
There are stories in each as to how Jesus came to be born in Jerusalem. Are they both historically true, only one is true, neither is true.
Let's say some have the belief that neither is true. What comes next? Well, Jesus taught we should love one another as he loved us--but since the belief is neither story is true, then there is no reason to love one another. How about his teaching on forgiveness? Nope, don't believe his birth stories, so we don't believe we should forgive anyone for anything. There should be no belief in the forgiveness of sins, divorce should be a mainstay, as should adultery. We should not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, or visit those in prison. Its everyone for him/herself. All because one doesn't believe the story of Jesus' birth.

Or, we could ask: What came first? The stories of Jesus' teachings or the stories of his birth? Is Abe Lincoln known for his presidency or the story of his birth? Also, are you aware early accounts of Lincoln's birth may have contained inaccuracies or conflicting details, particularly regarding the exact location of his birth?

Why the interest in Jesus' birth? Be precise. Where do we proceed from there?
 
Let's say some have the belief that neither is true. What comes next? Well, Jesus taught we should love one another as he loved us--but since the belief is neither story is true, then there is no reason to love one another. How about his teaching on forgiveness? Nope, don't believe his birth stories, so we don't believe we should forgive anyone for anything. There should be no belief in the forgiveness of sins, divorce should be a mainstay, as should adultery. We should not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, or visit those in prison. Its everyone for him/herself. All because one doesn't believe the story of Jesus' birth.

Or, we could ask: What came first? The stories of Jesus' teachings or the stories of his birth? Is Abe Lincoln known for his presidency or the story of his birth? Also, are you aware early accounts of Lincoln's birth may have contained inaccuracies or conflicting details, particularly regarding the exact location of his birth?

Why the interest in Jesus' birth? Be precise. Where do we proceed from there?
My debate with ding is that the NT is not an accurate historical account. That is totally unrelated to the theology of the NT which, though I don't follow, I have no issues with. Faith is faith and fact is fact and it is only the later that concerns me.
 
My debate with ding is that the NT is not an accurate historical account. That is totally unrelated to the theology of the NT which, though I don't follow, I have no issues with. Faith is faith and fact is fact and it is only the later that concerns me.
That's because you take it on faith that it's not whereas I take it on proof of evidence that it is.
 
There are stories in each as to how Jesus came to be born in Jerusalem. Are they both historically true, only one is true, neither is true.
Is that what is keeping you from believing Jesus performed supernatural feats?
 
My debate with @ding is that the NT is not an accurate historical account.
Do you believe it is a historical account--i.e., a record of past events, by Matthew dating to around 95? What is the purpose of the adjective "accurate"? Clearly it was Matthew's understanding of Christ's birth. Luke's Gospel also fits this time frame and was his understanding of Christ's birth. Luke traveled with Paul and likely met some of the Apostles or others who knew Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' birth was his understanding.

Remember what I said about there being conflicts in the earliest accounts of Lincoln's birth. Yet each historical account contained the understanding and memories of those who knew of Abe's birth.

Both accounts are historical. Like Lincoln's birth stories, there were some conflicts. As (unlike Lincoln) there was no written documentation of births in Jesus' time, we are left with a collection of information and memories collected from people in Apostolic times. Why the insistence on "accuracy" and/or its importance to you?
 
That's because you take it on faith that it's not whereas I take it on proof of evidence that it is.
As I see it, it is the NT itself that says it is not historically accurate. You start with the belief it is accurate and cherry-pick the parts you can defend and ignore any contradictory evidence. It is called faith.
 
Do you believe it is a historical account--i.e., a record of past events, by Matthew dating to around 95? What is the purpose of the adjective "accurate"? Clearly it was Matthew's understanding of Christ's birth. Luke's Gospel also fits this time frame and was his understanding of Christ's birth. Luke traveled with Paul and likely met some of the Apostles or others who knew Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' birth was his understanding.

Remember what I said about there being conflicts in the earliest accounts of Lincoln's birth. Yet each historical account contained the understanding and memories of those who knew of Abe's birth.

Both accounts are historical. Like Lincoln's birth stories, there were some conflicts. As (unlike Lincoln) there was no written documentation of births in Jesus' time, we are left with a collection of information and memories collected from people in Apostolic times. Why the insistence on "accuracy" and/or its importance to you?
You are certainly welcome to your interpretation but it is not one I share.

Early Christians were intent on showing Jesus as Messiah and, to do that, they tried to show how Jesus fulfilled the Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. One such prophesy was that the Messiah would be born in the hometown of King David, Bethlehem. Their problem was that it was well know that Jesus came from Nazareth. It is apparent to me that two myths appeared independently from two different Christian communities explaining the contradiction. Neither was based on historical fact but they were an answer. Matthew included one and Luke included the other.

This is just one example that shows me that historical accuracy was not as important as theology and I should be very skeptical about accepting as factual, as ding does, other such stories, e.g., Jesus performed miracles.
 
You are certainly welcome to your interpretation but it is not one I share.
How patronizing. "Welcome to...." I doubt there is a more condescending remark. But shaking off that mood, let's move on.
Early Christians were intent on showing Jesus as Messiah and, to do that, they tried to show how Jesus fulfilled the Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. One such prophesy was that the Messiah would be born in the hometown of King David, Bethlehem. Their problem was that it was well know that Jesus came from Nazareth. It is apparent to me that two myths appeared independently from two different Christian communities explaining the contradiction. Neither was based on historical fact but they were an answer. Matthew included one and Luke included the other.

This is just one example that shows me that historical accuracy was not as important as theology and I should be very skeptical about accepting as factual, as @ding does, other such stories, e.g., Jesus performed miracles.
Study and research the Old Testament, particularly the genealogies used in either/both Matthew and Luke. The biographies of those listed were as familiar to the people of that time as the biographies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are to us today. Both Washington and Lincoln call to mind the history of our country, and the genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke readily called to mind the history of Israel to the people of that time.

Second, etymology plays a great part in understanding what was written. The third part that comes into play is that Jesus stated clearly he was not the Messiah (the anointed one) called to rule Israel as a political leader. That is the messiah the people of the time were anticipating. Instead, Jesus was clear that he was anointed (the messiah) for an entirely different purpose. The genealogies point to historical building blocks of his purpose.

Scripture is clear that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and that his birth was in Bethlehem. The question: Why would Mary and Joseph have been in Bethlehem? Joseph was a carpenter. In that age, carpenters weren't known for working in wood so much as for being stone masons--and also those who hauled stones to building sites. At the time Jesus was born, work on walls, outer buildings, etc. was still in progress. Was Joseph, as a carpenter, working on this project? Another point: Tradition has Mary spending her childhood in the Temple where she learned and served. Were Mary and Joseph already living in that area when Mary was pregnant?

When Jesus was growing up in Nazareth, the nearby city of Sepphoris was being built. Perhaps Joseph (and later Jesus as his apprentice) were working at that site as well, while living in Nazareth?

Being skeptical of birth stories and miracles are beside the point. Even as a child, where Jesus was born was immaterial to me. What was even more immaterial were the miracles he performed for the benefit of people two thousand years ago. How was any of that of any use to me? It wasn't. So I turned to his teachings, and in following them, I ran into my own miracles. Because it is impossible for me to discount my own miracles, who am I to discount the miracles of the past.

When faced with the question Why didn't someone seek Jesus? answering, "There was no historical proof of where Jesus was born" has my eyes twinkling. Jesus advised to seek him, not to seek his birthplace. Along the way, the history and culture leading up to his story is a plus for those who have an interest in those things.

Maybe it is just me, but the two most frustrating things too many latch onto is Jesus' past accurate, and the beautiful afterlife for those who "accept" Jesus. Why isn't the focus on Jesus in the present, in our lives today?

I apologize for the screed. You are welcome to ignore it ;)
 
Yes. And I'm amazed it is completely ignored by so many.
So what's your explanation for the accounts of the miracles, the early Christians worshiping Jesus as God and Jesus being accused of sorcery and leading Israel to apostasy? Because I'm amazed it is completely ignored by you?
 
As I see it, it is the NT itself that says it is not historically accurate. You start with the belief it is accurate and cherry-pick the parts you can defend and ignore any contradictory evidence. It is called faith.
No, you're ignoring the historical record of the accounts, the early Christians worshiping Jesus as God and Jesus being accused of sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy is taken on faith.
 
How patronizing. "Welcome to...." I doubt there is a more condescending remark. But shaking off that mood, let's move on.

Study and research the Old Testament, particularly the genealogies used in either/both Matthew and Luke. The biographies of those listed were as familiar to the people of that time as the biographies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are to us today. Both Washington and Lincoln call to mind the history of our country, and the genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke readily called to mind the history of Israel to the people of that time.

Second, etymology plays a great part in understanding what was written. The third part that comes into play is that Jesus stated clearly he was not the Messiah (the anointed one) called to rule Israel as a political leader. That is the messiah the people of the time were anticipating. Instead, Jesus was clear that he was anointed (the messiah) for an entirely different purpose. The genealogies point to historical building blocks of his purpose.

Scripture is clear that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and that his birth was in Bethlehem. The question: Why would Mary and Joseph have been in Bethlehem? Joseph was a carpenter. In that age, carpenters weren't known for working in wood so much as for being stone masons--and also those who hauled stones to building sites. At the time Jesus was born, work on walls, outer buildings, etc. was still in progress. Was Joseph, as a carpenter, working on this project? Another point: Tradition has Mary spending her childhood in the Temple where she learned and served. Were Mary and Joseph already living in that area when Mary was pregnant?

When Jesus was growing up in Nazareth, the nearby city of Sepphoris was being built. Perhaps Joseph (and later Jesus as his apprentice) were working at that site as well, while living in Nazareth?
Quite reasonable explanations for his being born in Bethlehem but those are not the stories found in the NT.

Was it because:
  • If he was not born in Bethlehem he didn't fulfill a major prophesy so the stories were invented
  • If he was born in Bethlehem the reasons were not known to the NT authors so stories were invented
  • The NT stories were true but the facts got clouded through oral retellings and contradictions crept into the NT
Whatever the reasons, they tell me the NT is not an accurate history of events. This is just one of many examples of the NT being inaccurate.

Being skeptical of birth stories and miracles are beside the point. Even as a child, where Jesus was born was immaterial to me. What was even more immaterial were the miracles he performed for the benefit of people two thousand years ago. How was any of that of any use to me? It wasn't. So I turned to his teachings, and in following them, I ran into my own miracles. Because it is impossible for me to discount my own miracles, who am I to discount the miracles of the past.

When faced with the question Why didn't someone seek Jesus? answering, "There was no historical proof of where Jesus was born" has my eyes twinkling. Jesus advised to seek him, not to seek his birthplace. Along the way, the history and culture leading up to his story is a plus for those who have an interest in those things.
I understand that your faith doesn't rest on the history contained in the Bible, only in its message. The fabrications, errors, and contradictions contained in the NT tell me it is the work of man and not the word of God.

Maybe it is just me, but the two most frustrating things too many latch onto is Jesus' past accurate, and the beautiful afterlife for those who "accept" Jesus. Why isn't the focus on Jesus in the present, in our lives today?
Following his message of loving your neighbor doesn't require one to believe he was God.

I apologize for the screed. You are welcome to ignore it ;)
How patronizing. "Welcome to...." I doubt there is a more condescending remark. ;)
 
So what's your explanation for the accounts of the miracles, the early Christians worshiping Jesus as God and Jesus being accused of sorcery and leading Israel to apostasy? Because I'm amazed it is completely ignored by you?
Did you ever give us your take on the birth narratives and why they conflict? I'm amazed it is completely ignored by you.
 
Did you ever give us your take on the birth narratives and why they conflict? I'm amazed it is completely ignored by you.
It has nothing to do with supernatural acts witnessed by the first Christians or the fact that non-Christian historians recorded that the early Christians worshiped Jesus. That's the pertinent evidence. And what you are arguing doesn't discredit those facts. Whatever the early Christians believed about his origin narrative was baked into their belief that Jesus was God. Witnessing supernatural acts carries a lot of weight.

This is just another red herring of yours so you can dismiss the only evidence that we have. And you have still never crafted an alternate narrative that address the evidence that exists. And the reason for that is because there's not one that exists except Jesus is God.
 
Whatever the reasons, they tell me the NT is not an accurate history of events. This is just one of many examples of the NT being inaccurate.
Those who are searching for inaccuracies have little interest in what is genuine. Biblical accounts are written to bring focus onto that which is genuine. Don't miss the forest for the trees.
The fabrications, errors, and contradictions contained in the NT tell me it is the work of man and not the word of God.
Try listening more carefully. Let's call on Alan Greenspan. "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

First, what did the original authors want the original audience to understand? Second, what is it God want to point you towards?

Following his message of loving your neighbor doesn't require one to believe he was God.
Cute. Since you have that covered go on to God loves you to the point His universe would not be complete without you. How many believe that God loves them, right now, just as they are. Those who know they are well and truly loved by anyone react differently to that person, are different in that relationship. Loving your neighbors is a piece of cake compared to truly recognizing the love God has for you alone. Try that reality, don't just stand on the outside peering towards it.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom