OFFLINE

This guy is fascinating!  He is not an evangelist or pastor, but does a lot of work on college campuses around the country.  He has debated Christopher Hitchens and has a show on tv that I never miss.  

OFFLINE

first of all, i think we have to remember that the old testament was just as much a historical record, as it was a holy book. and the viewpoint of the hebrews bleeds through into the document, as does the worldview at that time. i believe that if there is a message from god contained within, as i feel there is, then it is on a much deeper level than the actual historical events. i see it more as a saga, both with tragedy, and triumph, which, in its entirety, tells a moral tale of mankind, not just a particular people..

OFFLINE

We also must remember that the New Testament was written by the Romans almost 400 years after Jesus was supposed to walk the Earth. We must also realize that there were at least 12 imperial historians alive at the time Jesus was said to live and none of them even mentioned Jesus. Tacitus wrote a small passage about Pontius Pilate crucifying Christians about the time Jesus was supposedly crucified, but no mention of a man that could have been Jesus even though such a man would have indeed elicited mention from someone as anal as Tacitus.

So no, the New Testament is not accurate and was only written in an attempt to unify an empire that was broken and its capital spiraling into debauchery.

OFFLINE

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, well we know that much of it was copied from earlier civilizations and just modified to fit.

The question one has to ask himself is: Out of all the religions that ever were and ever will be, what makes Christians "the one".

Another question is: Why is the God of the Christians racist???

Another is: Why after including so many pagan beliefs (one being the existence of Hell) why would we still even think that the Bible is relevant???

Another is: What friggin denomination is correct and are they all saved???

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
We also must remember that the New Testament was written by the Romans almost 400 years after Jesus was supposed to walk the Earth. We must also realize that there were at least 12 imperial historians alive at the time Jesus was said to live and none of them even mentioned Jesus. Tacitus wrote a small passage about Pontius Pilate crucifying Christians about the time Jesus was supposedly crucified, but no mention of a man that could have been Jesus even though such a man would have indeed elicited mention from someone as anal as Tacitus.

So no, the New Testament is not accurate and was only written in an attempt to unify an empire that was broken and its capital spiraling into debauchery.

Maybe I can clear some things up.  

The truth is that the NT contains multiple independent accounts by many authors spread all over the ancient world.

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud ALL non Christian sources, talk about events that happened in the New Testament.  They speak of Jesus, Agrippa, Annanias, Annas, Aretas, Bernice, Caesar, Caiaphas, Claudius, Drucilla, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Herod, James, John the Baptist, Judas, Lysanias, Pilate, Quinarious, Porcus Festus, Serguis Paulus and Tiberius as they relate to the NT.

Josephus talks about Jesus, Herod and James.  

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...

Apparently a scribe added some stuff after this, but it has been acknowledged and we dont use it anymore.  

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,...

Furthermore, Romans didnt write the New Testament.  Paul was a Jew.  Luke was a Jew. Peter was a Jew.  John was a Jew.  All were Jews.   Furthermore there are at least 10 known non-Christian sources that mention Jesus within 150 years of his life.

The New Testament is comprised of 27 different documents written at different times by 9 different writers over a 20 to 50 year period.  
The earliest copy (ie...not original) that we know of is the John Rylands fragment.  Scholars date it between 117-138AD.  (Remember...these are copies of the original which was written earlier.)  There are also 9 fragments found with the Dead Sea Scrolls that are disputed NT fragments that date from around 50AD.  

But even if they are not true NT copies and the Ryland fragment really is the earliest, the time gap between the original copies and that copy is still far shorter than anything else in the ancient world.  The Iliad has the next shortest gap at almost 500 years.  Most other ancient works are at least 1000 years or more from the original.  The New Testament gap is only about 25 years or so from the original.

There are some NT manuscripts today that survive from about 200AD.  

You mentioned Tacitus.  Here is what he wrote in his Annals:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Pliny the Younger, (61 AD – ca. 112 AD) in his correspondence with the emperor Trajan, reported on his lawful actions against the members of the Christian cult. He asks the Emperor for instructions dealing with Christians and explained that he forced Christians to curse Christ under painful torturous inquisition:

They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of a meal--but ordinary and innocent food.

Pliny then explains to the Emperor how he questioned suspected Christian cult members by torture and eventually sentenced them to death.

Obviously Christus was Jesus Christ.

Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.  

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place . . . ” - Origen, "Against Celsus", Book 2.33

Suetonius was a secretary and historian to Hadrian, Emperor of Rome from 117 to 138 AD. Regarding Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) and the Riot of Rome in 49 AD, Suetonius wrote:  

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.

Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity.  Celsus accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin:

born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.".

Mara bar (son of ) Serapion, sometimes spelled Mara bar Sarapion was a Stoic philosopher from the Roman province of Syria.  He refers to Jesus Christ in a letter:  

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samon gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after this that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews ruined and driven from their land, live in dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.

Again, i'm not picking on ya man.  But whoever told you these things was clearly wrong.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, well we know that much of it was copied from earlier civilizations and just modified to fit.

The question one has to ask himself is: Out of all the religions that ever were and ever will be, what makes Christians "the one".

Another question is: Why is the God of the Christians racist???

Another is: Why after including so many pagan beliefs (one being the existence of Hell) why would we still even think that the Bible is relevant???

Another is: What friggin denomination is correct and are they all saved???

I'll begin by answering the last question 1st.  Denominations are man-made and have very little if anything to do with the original church or Jesus' teachings.  Many Christians choose to go to non-denominational services precisely for that reason.  Others, like myself, go to a particular church, simply because our family has always gone there.  Point is to find a church that preaches the Gospel from the Bible.  (Some churches dont).  And not water down the gospel because of political correctness.  Because if your gonna go and commit to this thing, you obviously want to hear the truth, right?  

Hell.  Jesus taught the concept of Hades.  Also Sheol and Tarterus.  There were similarities and differences in his version and that of the Greek belief.  And its a little bit more advanced teaching that I'm currently studying right now as a matter of fact.  Point is...does it really matter what you call it (Hell or whatever)?  What matters is that you believe that Jesus was who he said he was.

Is God racist?  How could he be since he made all races?  Plus, he took great pains to ensure that His offer of salvation was made available to both Jew and non-Jew.

Why is Christianity "the one"?

Thats the big question isnt it?  The one that everyone has to answer for himself.  I'll give you 10 reasons why I believe that the New Testament is true.  (I believe the OT too btw).

1. The writers of the NT often wrote embarrassing details about themselves.  One way a historian can tell if a writer if being truthful is by the principle of embarrassment..  This principle assumes any details embarrassing to the author are probably true because the tendency of most authors is to omit anything that makes them look bad.  So if you and your friends wanted to concoct a story you could pass off as the truth, would you make yourself to appear dim-witted, cowardly, uncaring, rebuked, etc?  Of course not!  But thats exactly what the NT does.  the followers of Jesus who wrote the gospels are often portrayed as complete morons!

They appear dim witted:  ((Mark 9:32, Luke 18:34, John 12:15).

They seem uncaring at times.  they fall asleep on Jesus twice when he asks them to remain awake and watchful while he prays.  Also they make no effort to give Jesus a proper burial but rather rely on the rich man (Joseph of Arimathea) to do the job.  He was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin...the very court that sentenced Jesus to die!

They are rebuked.  Peter was called Satan on one occasion by Jesus!  Paul rebukes Peter for being wrong on a theological issue.

They are cowards!  All the disciples but 1 hide when Jesus is sent to the cross.  (The women, otoh, bravely remained).

They are doubters.  Despite being taught by Jesus that he would rise from the dead, they are doubtful when the women tell them Jesus has risen!

Think about it, if you were a NEw Testament writer, would you write that one of the pillars of your faith was rebuked and called Satan?  Would you provide such embarrassment about yourself? Most wouldnt.

2. The NT writers included embarrassing details and difficult sayings of Jesus.
They include things that seem to put Jesus in an embarrassing light.  for instance, Jesus is considered 'out of his mind' by his mother and brothers.  Not believed by his own brothers.  Is deserted by many of his own followers.   Is called a drunkard.  Demon-possessed, and had his feet wiped by the hair of a woman (an act that might be considered a sexual advance).

3. The NT writers left in demanding sayings of Jesus:

(Matt 5:28, 5:32, 5:39-42, 5:44-45, 6:19-21, and 7:1-12).  I'm not gonna write all that stuff out, but ya'll can look them up.  All those commands are very difficult or practically impossible for humans to keep.  Who can live up to such standards?

4. The NT writers took pains to distinguish Jesus' words from their own.  Why is this important?  It would be very easy to put solve 1st century theological disputes by putting words into Jesus' mouth.  After all, if you were making it all up, you could easily make up more quotes to satisfy stubborn people.  But they never do this.

5. The NT writers relate events about the resurrection that they would not have made up.

For instance, the burial of Jesus in that rich Sanhedrin tomb. The First witnesses were not the men...but rather the women!  Given the social status of women in those days they'd have never wrote this if they were making it up.  They were not considered reliable witnesses back then and their testimony carried no weight in a court of law.

6. They included more than 30 historically confirmed people in their writings:

The NT documents cannot have been invented because they contain too many historically confirmed characters.  They would have blown their credibility to their contemporary audiences by implicating real people in a fictional story, especially people of great power.  They could not have gotten away with lies about Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, Felix Festus, etc.  Somebody would have exposed them.  And the NT writers knew this.  They had to be truthful.  

7.  The NT writers include divergent details:

Matthew says there was one angel at the tomb while John said there were 2.  If they fabricated a lie, wouldnt they have gotten together and got their story straight?  (Btw...Matthew does not actually say there was only 1 angel at the tomb).  But why would he mention only 1 angel if there were really 2?  The same reason two different newspaper accounts of an event can differ.

8. The NT writers challenge their readers to check out the facts..even facts about miracles.

Paul mentioned over 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Christ.  Couldnt someone have found at least 1 to refute the ressurrection if it werent true?

He also mentions in 2 Cor 12:12b that he had done great wonders and miracles in their presence.  He was writing to the very people who supposedly had witnessed these things!  Why would he do this if some of them were likely to expose him as a fraud?

9. NT writers describe miracles, with simple embellished accounts.  1 legendary account from the apocryphal Gospel of Peter talks about the Resurrection.  It mentions the soldiers at Jesus' tomb guarding it.  Then a large sound from the sky was heard and the heavens opened and 2 men descended.  The stone then rolled away by itself and the men went inside.  

When the soldiers saw this they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they had also been keeping watch).  While they were telling what they had seen, 3 men came out.  2 were  holding up the 3rd and a cross was (floating along) after them.  The heads of the 2 reached up to the heavens but the head of the 1 reached up beyond heaven!  And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying "Have you preached unto them that sleep"?  The answer heard from the cross was, "Yes".

Now thats how I'd have written it!  Thats big!  All we need after that account are some special effects from Lucas Films!

But the NT gives an almost bland account of what happened.

10.  The NT writers abandoned their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopted anew ones and did not deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death.  These were Jews who'd been raised up in the jewish tradition and temple under strict beliefs.  Yet they abandoned their views almost overnight.  Among their own 1500 year plus institutions they gave up:

Animal sacrifice
The binding Supremacy of the Law of Moses
Strict Monotheism
The Sabbath
Belief in a conquering Messiah.

And its not only the writers.  Thousands of Jews did this too, including some Pharisee priests!  They converted to Christianity and abandoned their long held beliefs and practices...and were persecuted by other Jews and Romans for this.  They also adopt new beliefs such as Sunday (a normal work day) is their new day of worship.  Baptism is the new sign of the believer.  (Circumcision was the old sign).  And Communion.  Communion is inexplicable unless the resurrection was true!  Why would Jews make up a practice where they symbolically eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus?

Finally, in addition to abandoning long sacred institutions and adopting new ones, the NT writers suffered terrible persecution and death when they could easily have saved themselves by recanting.  They were poor and at least 1 might have accepted a bribe is they didnt truly believe what they said. But no one recanted.  11 out of the 12 were martyred for their faith.

Those are just some of the reasons I believe Christianity is the true faith.  No other faith comes close imo.  



How can we explain these monumental shifts in the NT writers if they were just making up a story?

Embellished and extravagant details are strong signs that a historical event has legendary elements.  

10.