Christian questions

Tim Robbins · 23-08-2006 7:34pm #1

Hi,
I put this in the middle of another thread, nobody answered them.I'd be interested on your opinions.

1. How much of the Bible did Jesus write?
2. In fact, did Jesus write anything at all? If not, why not?
3. How much of the Bible is an eye witness account?
4. Why is there such a big time difference between the time of Jesus and the time the Gospels were written? Why wait 40 years to write something so important down.
5. Why were they written in Greek? Did Jesus speak this?
6. How did Moses write five books and die in one of them?
7. Did Jesus have a second name?
8. Why the Gospels of Thomas, Truth, Philip, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Egyptians, Hebrews, James, Judas left out of the Bible?
9. What is ballpark figure for how accuracte you think the old testament is and how accurate you think the new testament is?

BrianCalgary · 23-08-2006 8:33pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hi,
I put this in the middle of another thread, nobody answered them.I'd be interested on your opinions.?

We'll try:)

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. How much of the Bible did Jesus write??

None, He was the doer, others were the scribes.

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. In fact, did Jesus write anything at all? If not, why not??

Nothing that is recorded. The why would just be conjecture. My guess is that others did the writing so there was no need for Him to. Even today we have the doers and the biographers. How much of Wayne Rooneys new book did Wayne actually write? How much was written by the person hired to write and make it interesting.

Tim Robbins wrote:

3. How much of the Bible is an eye witness account??

Regarding the OT I would say everything after the books of the pentateuch. For the gospels all were written by Matthew - an apostle of Jesus. Mark, Luke and John wrote from the testimony of those who walked with and participated in the ministry of Jesus.

Tim Robbins wrote:

4. Why is there such a big time difference between the time of Jesus and the time the Gospels were written? Why wait 40 years to write something so important down.?

Matthew prior to AD70 (40 years)
Mark AD55 (23years)
Luke c. AD60 (27 years)
John AD85 (55 years)

For such important documents maybe they felt they needed the time to make sure they were accurate?

Tim Robbins wrote:

5. Why were they written in Greek? Did Jesus speak this? ?

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but Greek was the language that most people would have understood. It was the language of the eduacted and of commerce.

Tim Robbins wrote:

6. How did Moses write five books and die in one of them??

His death was probably an add-on by Joshua as the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Joshua was probably with Moses.

Tim Robbins wrote:

7. Did Jesus have a second name??

Nope. Family names were not in use. He was known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Tim Robbins wrote:

8. Why the Gospels of Thomas, Truth, Philip, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Egyptians, Hebrews, James, Judas left out of the Bible??

The Gospels are there because those who wrote them either had direct connection to Jesus or His disciples. The gospels you have listed were written anywhere from 100 to 200 years after Christ by people who had no connection to Christ. The theology in some of them as well doesn't match up with what Christ said.

Tim Robbins wrote:

9. What is ballpark figure for how accuracte you think the old testament is and how accurate you think the new testament is?

The NT is as was written by the original authors. With the amount of back-up manuscript evidence that exists.

The OT pretty close. When the Dead Sea scrolls were found and matched with the earliest manuscripts of the time there were very few differences csave for spelling changes. ie color v colour.

Tim Robbins · 23-08-2006 11:55pm

Thank you very much for getting back to me. I have some further questions, I would be very interested in your opinions.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Nothing that is recorded. The why would just be conjecture. My guess is that others did the writing so there was no need for Him to. Even today we have the doers and the biographers. How much of Wayne Rooneys new book did Wayne actually write? How much was written by the person hired to write and make it interesting.

Wayne Rooney probably can't write or spell. His book is commericially driven. He is not trying to tell people how to think, he is not making major claims.
More importantly, if Jesus did not write any of the Gospels, they are not the word of God. They are the word of man, about someone they thought was the son of God, but the majority of people did not. There is a strong possibility they are biased, as that is human nature. At best they are ancient polemics, not accurate history.

What are you thoughts on this?

BrianCalgary wrote:

For such important documents maybe they felt they needed the time to make sure they were accurate?

If you ask someone to write something down that happened 23 years ago, how accurate do you think it would be? Do you not think 23 years raises an accuracy issue?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but Greek was the language that most people would have understood. It was the language of the eduacted and of commerce.

This may sound trivial, if Greek is what most people understood, surely the son of God should have been able to speak that.
Was Mathew able to speak both? If so, how come he could and Jesus could not? How many of Jesus' followers spoke both. Surely, if most did, he could have spoken both. The chances are few of his followers did. In which case, if a historical innaccuracy is introduced, it becomes very difficult for eye witnesses to critise it, if the account is in a langauge they do not understand and if the account is written a large number of years after it happened.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Gospels are there because those who wrote them either had direct connection to Jesus or His disciples. The gospels you have listed were written anywhere from 100 to 200 years after Christ by people who had no connection to Christ. The theology in some of them as well doesn't match up with what Christ said.

Can you confirm Mark, Luke and John never met Jesus?
Do you not think that the fact the other Gospels are omitted, is indicative of selective editing, before the compilation of the Bible? Can you give an example of the theology not matching up? What do you think, is the motivation of the people who wrote this inconsitent theology?

BrianCalgary wrote:

The NT is as was written by the original authors. With the amount of back-up manuscript evidence that exists.

What is the best proof of this?
My understanding is that the original scrolls for the Gospels don't exist, only copies do and there is debate as to who actually wrote them. Some people argue they were annoymous and then attributed to Mark, Mathew, etc. Can you elaborate?

I have some more questions:
1. Why do you think so many people i.e. the rest of Jews did not believe Jesus at the time and Christianity was essentially a cult movement i.e. a minority fringe movement not supported by the masses?

2. How old do you think the World is? Do you except scientific estimates or biblicals ones?

3. How many of Jesus' followers spoke Greek?

4. What is your opinion of the many biblical contradictions?
Here is one of many, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

5. Do you believe in hell? Do you not think this concept is akin to genocide and is morally repugnant?

6. Do you have a dog and if so do you think he / she will make it to heaven?

Thank you for your time. Any comments or opinions you have are greatly appreciated.

Scigaithris · 24-08-2006 12:47am

One additional question may be asked. "Is anything lost in translation?" For example, there are words in modern day German that do not translate well into modern day English. There are also many words that have very different meanings for modern English spoken in the UK, the Commonwealth, Ireland, and the USA today. Given that the words of the Gospels were in ancient Greek, do you foresee any problems in translating the meaning of these words into modern English thousands of years later?

BrianCalgary · 24-08-2006 2:56pm

Scigaithris wrote:

One additional question may be asked. "Is anything lost in translation?" For example, there are words in modern day German that do not translate well into modern day English. There are also many words that have very different meanings for modern English spoken in the UK, the Commonwealth, Ireland, and the USA today. Given that the words of the Gospels were in ancient Greek, do you foresee any problems in translating the meaning of these words into modern English thousands of years later?

Yes there are definite problems in translating into modern English. That is one of the reasons so many translations exist. Ther eare some that try to translate word for word, others that try and convey the idea and some that try both. I would say that anyone who is serious about studying the Bible looks at different English versions (assuming that your first language is English) and then looking at the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic meaning.

I like to look at the Gaelic: Go Raith Maith Agat Padraig.

How is that translated into English:

Thank You Patrick
May there be blessings at you Patrick
May there be blessings at you Padraig
Thank You Padraig

All are correct. The Thank You's give a better understanding to the English speaker because the other two, although word for word is more correct it sounds weird to the English speaker.

BrianCalgary · 24-08-2006 3:46pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

Thank you very much for getting back to me. I have some further questions, I would be very interested in your opinions.

Wayne Rooney probably can't write or spell. His book is commericially driven. He is not trying to tell people how to think, he is not making major claims..

Maybe not but boy can he play football.

Tim Robbins wrote:

More importantly, if Jesus did not write any of the Gospels, they are not the word of God. They are the word of man, about someone they thought was the son of God, but the majority of people did not. There is a strong possibility they are biased, as that is human nature. At best they are ancient polemics, not accurate history. ..

The gospels are the inspired word of God. Emphasis on inspired.

Jesus made the claim to be God. The events in the NT are historically correct. I have yet to find a serious historian who questions the accuracy of the events in the NT. Jesus of Nazareth lived, He ministered throught the region from AD27 to AD30. He had 12 companions, He was crucified while Pontius Pilate was the procurator of Judea. His body went missing, are all verifiable from sources outside of the Bible.

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you ask someone to write something down that happened 23 years ago, how accurate do you think it would be? Do you not think 23 years raises an accuracy issue?..

no not at all. Back from now that would be 1983. I don't see an accuracy issue as any event that happened 23 years ago would be verifiable as there were plenty of us around then.

Tim Robbins wrote:

This may sound trivial, if Greek is what most people understood, surely the son of God should have been able to speak that.
Was Mathew able to speak both? If so, how come he could and Jesus could not? How many of Jesus' followers spoke both. Surely, if most did, he could have spoken both. The chances are few of his followers did. In which case, if a historical innaccuracy is introduced, it becomes very difficult for eye witnesses to critise it, if the account is in a langauge they do not understand and if the account is written a large number of years after it happened.

Scholars have figured that Aramaic was the language of the common man in the region, therefore Jesus and all his disciples would have spoken it. Greek was the language of the academics and business. The educated would have been bilingual. I'm sure Jesus did speak Greek, but He was communicating to the people. I was recently in Holland, when you arrive in Amsterdam English is the predominant language, I was hard pressed to find any Dutch. However when in a small town I heard Dutch, but the people in the shops spoke English. In our very own province of Quebec, the common language is French, yet business is often conducted in English.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you confirm Mark, Luke and John never met Jesus?
Do you not think that the fact the other Gospels are omitted, is indicative of selective editing, before the compilation of the Bible? Can you give an example of the theology not matching up? What do you think, is the motivation of the people who wrote this inconsitent theology?

A good book to read on this topic is 'The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. We don't know if they did or not, but we do know that Luke travelled with Peter. Wheras mark and John also spent time with Jesus' apostles.

The Book of Thomas states that (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have it in front of me) that in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven you must be a man, so a woman must become a man in order to enter the kingdom. A far cry from Jesus teaching that the Kingdom is for anyone who comes to Him.

There wasn't selective editing. Church fathers were listing the inspired books worth reading as early as AD150 as other gospels started to be written. Peopel needed to know what they should believe. The gospel writers had the authority due to their writings being taken fron eyewitness accounts. Just as if I was going to write a paper on an event from 1983, I would talk with someone who was there and involved for the most accurate picture.

Tim Robbins wrote:

My understanding is that the original scrolls for the Gospels don't exist, only copies do and there is debate as to who actually wrote them. Some people argue they were annoymous and then attributed to Mark, Mathew, etc. Can you elaborate?

The earliest manuscript of the gospels dates to cAD55. The only book of the NT where authorship is unknown is Hebrews. The four gopels where attributed to the authors stated by early church leaders as they would read the books in their churches and state that they were reading the account as written by Matthew, Mark, luke or John, or they were reading from the letter of Paul as sent to the church in Corinth.

I think it would be lik eus today looking for authority on certain matters. Which newspaper account do we trust to give us an accurate portrayal of events happening around the world? Or which book we trust to report proper history? The gospels were known to have the authority of eyewitnesses.

I have some more questions:

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. Why do you think so many people i.e. the rest of Jews did not believe Jesus at the time and Christianity was essentially a cult movement i.e. a minority fringe movement not supported by the masses?

People are brought up a certain way with certain beliefs and understandings. As well as personal desires. To ask for radical change is very difficult. Jesus, if He was the Messiah and 'God with us' was undermining the authority and positions of power enjoyed by the Pharisees. The regular Joe on the street would have been raised believing the Pharisees were the ultimate power on matters concerning God, they would have not wanted to run afoul of them out of fear. I kno wmany Catholics who would have difficulty attending another church because they have been warned against it by the church authorities.

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. How old do you think the World is? Do you except scientific estimates or biblicals ones?

I go for the 12-13,000 year range. Having said that understand that a very good Christian friend of mine sits at 5 Billion years. We are both looking forward to the day when we find the right answer. The guy whi is wrong has to buy the other guy a pint of heavenly Guinness.

Tim Robbins wrote:

3. How many of Jesus' followers spoke Greek?

No idea. If you are asking Apostles There may be a better answer.

Tim Robbins wrote:

4. What is your opinion of the many biblical contradictions?
Here is one of many, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

Whenever I get hit with conradictions they are usually explainable. http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010401.htm

Tim Robbins wrote:

5. Do you believe in hell? Do you not think this concept is akin to genocide and is morally repugnant?

yes Hell exists. It is a place for people to go that desire to follow their own sinful lifestyle as opposed to a life as set out by God. basically people get to spend eternity where they choose to spend it. Genocide is the killing of people who have no desire to be killed, so no it isn't akin to genocide, as people go to Hell by coice.

Tim Robbins wrote:

6. Do you have a dog and if so do you think he / she will make it to heaven?

Yep. In reading Genesis and the garden of Eden was how creation will be when we are rid of sin. There were animals in the garden, there will be animals in Heaven. (football pitches too:) )

Tim Robbins wrote:

Thank you for your time. Any comments or opinions you have are greatly appreciated.

Anytime.

Scigaithris · 25-08-2006 12:40am

Tim Robbins raised the question of what inaccuracies may occur as a result of the delay in the writing of Gospels. You had provided the following figures:

BrianCalgary wrote:

Matthew prior to AD70 (40 years)
Mark AD55 (23 years)
Luke c. AD60 (27 years)
John AD85 (55 years)

The delays range from 23 to 55 years. In response to his inquiry, you had stated:

BrianCalgary wrote:

Back from now that would be 1983. I don't see an accuracy issue as any event that happened 23 years ago would be verifiable as there were plenty of us around then.

Just as if I was going to write a paper on an event from 1983, I would talk with someone who was there and involved for the most accurate picture.

(1) Life expectancy has greatly increased since ancient times to the present. According to a University of Texas site, ancient Roman life expectancy averaged below 25 years, whereas (according to another university site, both shown below), average life expectancy for a person born in Italy in 1955 was 66.0 years and in 1970 it was 71.1 years.
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=IT&indicatorid=18
Now, of course we could argue that Rome is not Palestine, but that would be avoiding the major issue that most people who were old enough to witness Jesus's teachings would not have survived 23 much less 55 years back then. So to draw a comparison to 1983 is problematic to say the least?

(2) Problems with eyewitness testimony. Numerous studies regarding the "fallibility of witness memories" in court cases have been reported and summarized in Tversky, B., and Fisher, G. (April 1999), "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony," STANFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES. The problem with the inaccuracies of eyewitness testimony is a big one. In addition to misintrepretations, self-revisions over time, and occasional lies, sometimes "The witness themselves may not be aware of inaccuracies in their testimony."

(3) Problems with recall. In the conduct of research, subject (people interviewed) recall is one that must be approached with caution, requiring extensive validation based upon other sources. See Babbie. E.R (2003), The Practice of Social Research.

(4) Communication chain errors. Have you ever lined 10 or so people up in a chain and had them whisper a message to the next person in line? The message more often dramatically changes by the time it gets to the last person in the chain. There are a lot of studies supporting this, and I could find you sources if you like (but right now I am running out of time and must post). Well, if we look back to the time of Jesus, a lot of history was not written, but rather passed on from one generation to another in this way, which makes one wonder how the message may have changed over time?

In summary, is the question that Tim Robbins asked an important one that affects the validity and reliability of the Gospels as they are published today?

T-1111111111111 · 25-08-2006 8:33am

BrianCalgary wrote:

His body went missing, are all verifiable from sources outside of the Bible

Yeah, cos Almighty (swt) lifted him into Heavens and cos Jesus (as) wasn't crucified at all. How this makes perfect sense....mmmm

Tim Robbins · 08-09-2006 5:03pm

I guess I am just an atheist and are probably wasting your time. I like having my opinions challenged and seeing how they hold logically against alternative views.

I have written a few words to some of your comments. Thank you very much for your time, and I apologise if you feel I have wasted your time.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus made the claim to be God. The events in the NT are historically correct. I have yet to find a serious historian who questions the accuracy of the events in the NT. Jesus of Nazareth lived, He ministered throught the region from AD27 to AD30. He had 12 companions, He was crucified while Pontius Pilate was the procurator of Judea. His body went missing, are all verifiable from sources outside of the Bible.

I have yet to find a serious historian who concurrs with everything written in the Bible. I know the Roman historian Tacitus, made a reference to Jesus's work and life but he did not verfiy any of the miracles as described in the Bible.
What historical evidence, (besides a narrative by people who want you believe this guy) is there that all of Jesus' miracles actually happeend?

BrianCalgary wrote:

no not at all. Back from now that would be 1983. I don't see an accuracy issue as any event that happened 23 years ago would be verifiable as there were plenty of us around then.

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly the first time. Surely it would be much easier in 56AD, to fabricate parts of a story (again I am referring specifically to the miracles and the extra special parts etc) that happened 23 years ago, in another language then it would be today. Now, if it is possible to fabricate narratives and news today, which it clearly is it, it was clearly possible 2,000 years ago.
If it is in human nature today, to fabricate today, it was 2,000 years ago.
It therefore cannot be ruled out that a lot of the Gospels contain some fabrications.

BrianCalgary wrote:

A good book to read on this topic is 'The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. We don't know if they did or not, but we do know that Luke travelled with Peter. Wheras mark and John also spent time with Jesus' apostles.

Yes I have heard of that. Have you read 'A Bried History of Time' or 'The Big Bang, Simon Singh' ? both excellant btw.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Book of Thomas states that (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have it in front of me) that in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven you must be a man, so a woman must become a man in order to enter the kingdom. A far cry from Jesus teaching that the Kingdom is for anyone who comes to Him.

There wasn't selective editing.

Yes there was, you have just stated the Book of Thomas was deliberately left out.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Church fathers were listing the inspired books worth reading as early as AD150 as other gospels started to be written. Peopel needed to know what they should believe. The gospel writers had the authority due to their writings being taken fron eyewitness accounts.

I thought only God / Jesus is supposed to have authority in the Christian faith?

BrianCalgary wrote:

People are brought up a certain way with certain beliefs and understandings. As well as personal desires. To ask for radical change is very difficult.
Jesus, if He was the Messiah and 'God with us' was undermining the authority and positions of power enjoyed by the Pharisees.

Surely if these miracles were happening this would have been ample proof for them? What more proof do they want?
More to the point: your logic can be also applied against Chrisitianity today.

If Jesus is not "the Messiah and 'God with us', it undermines the authority of the positions of power" by those holding them in the Christian faith.
And for the the rest who follow: "people are brough up a certain way with certain belief and understandings. As Well as personal desires. To ask for radical change is very difficult".

I agree with your logic, but it can be applied against any faith, if anything it's an argument against any faith not for a particular faith.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I go for the 12-13,000 year range. Having said that understand that a very good Christian friend of mine sits at 5 Billion years. We are both looking forward to the day when we find the right answer. The guy whi is wrong has to buy the other guy a pint of heavenly Guinness.

I think you'll be buying him one:)

BrianCalgary wrote:

yes Hell exists. It is a place for people to go that desire to follow their own sinful lifestyle as opposed to a life as set out by God. basically people get to spend eternity where they choose to spend it. Genocide is the killing of people who have no desire to be killed, so no it isn't akin to genocide, as people go to Hell by coice.

Well, that's a subjective take on the defintion of genocide. Check out the UN one, defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

And by that definition, God is committing genocide.

again thanks you for your time, Brian.

Schuhart · 08-09-2006 5:26pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

Matthew prior to AD70 (40 years)
Mark AD55 (23years)
Luke c. AD60 (27 years)
John AD85 (55 years)

Just as a matter of interest, this presumably means that the first two accounts were based on material collated from others, with Matthews 'direct' account being third in age.

ScumLord · 12-09-2006 12:00pm

2. In fact, did Jesus write anything at all? If not, why not?

Actually that's a good point. Was Jesus iliterate? Given that people have a thing for idolising things that belong to people they love I'm surprised nothing that belonged to Jesus has been kept. I suppose he could have been iliterate given he was supposed to be born into a poor family.

4. Why is there such a big time difference between the time of Jesus and the time the Gospels were written?

Wheren't many of the followers locked up? I did see a documentry on Jesus, it was basically trying to look into the mind of Jesus and see what he thought he was. That said the first few years wheren't easy and the Christian religion clashed with a Roman sect of the time.

Wibbs · 12-09-2006 1:43pm

Scigaithris wrote:

Tim Robbins

(1) Life expectancy has greatly increased since ancient times to the present. According to a University of Texas site, ancient Roman life expectancy averaged below 25 years, whereas (according to another university site, both shown below), average life expectancy for a person born in Italy in 1955 was 66.0 years and in 1970 it was 71.1 years.
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=IT&indicatorid=18
Now, of course we could argue that Rome is not Palestine, but that would be avoiding the major issue that most people who were old enough to witness Jesus's teachings would not have survived 23 much less 55 years back then. So to draw a comparison to 1983 is problematic to say the least?

Had to jump in here. Common misconception and misreading of the stats. While average life expectancy has increased, this is due almost entirely due to the massive drop in childhood mortality since then(throw in modern medicine, specifically antiboitics and vaccines and they rise again). Read the first link again. 319 out of a 1000 died in childhood. That skews the stats a bit. Look at the famous of the ancient world for which we have good records. Caesar as an example only started to gain power in his 40s and indeed was leading armies at that age. Apparently Jesus' mother was still alive when he died at 33 which would have put her into middle age and nowhere near 25. Plato, Aristotle etc all lived well into middle age and over. Rameses the great was in his 90's when he pegged it. Basically it's likely that there would have been a few around who would have had direct experience of the times(their memory may have been an issue).

In fairness, the rest of your contentions I see good reason to take on board.

T-11111111 wrote:

Yeah, cos Almighty (swt) lifted him into Heavens and cos Jesus (as) wasn't crucified at all. How this makes perfect sense....mmmm

mmmm nothing. It makes even much less sense given the guy who puts this theory forward lived 700 yrs after the fact.

athena 2000 · 13-09-2006 3:14am

ScumLord wrote:

Actually that's a good point. Was Jesus iliterate? Given that people have a thing for idolising things that belong to people they love I'm surprised nothing that belonged to Jesus has been kept. I suppose he could have been iliterate given he was supposed to be born into a poor family.

If Jesus wrote letters that survived like he's recorded to have spoken and taught, we'd certainly have some singular treasures.

Jesus was literate. When he taught in the synagogues during the early part of his ministry, he visited his hometown of Nazareth and stood up to read the scriptures on the sabbath. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him and he read the verses that announced the fulfillment of a particular prophecy concerning his ministry.

Jewish education and literacy from ancient times has been highly revered. It is considered to be a form a worship when studying the scriptures. Rabbinical tradition requires fathers to teach their sons Torah and a trade, and we're familiar with Jesus being a carpenter, yes? There are also references in the book of Deuteronomy about educating children, both boys and girls.

Read more about it

Christian questions

Comments