This is one just one post that is part of a point by point discussion regarding whether the New Testament writers were lying or not. Each point being its own post. All the points that I’ve published so far are found in this post: Are The New Testament Writers Lying? : A Point By Point Discussion. This is an ongoing discussion, so please be patient and com back often
Robin Harrison comments in blue
Dan Muhlenkamp in black
Point 10: The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament in a way never considered before Jesus. Liars would never imagine such a twist of belief. Truth is better than fiction.
Lets go with the really BIG lie theory. Jesus never even existed. EVERYTHING in the New Testament was a lie. We know the Old Testament had been around for many centuries and was studied in depth by the Jewish people before the New Testament was written. You and your buddies decide to create this fictional Jesus guy and you need him to fulfill the Old Testament. All the people who have studied the OT before you are predicting this conquering Messiah. After all, you want your God to be strong don’t you? So you go through the OT and you decide what prophecies you are going to have your character fulfill and this is what you come up with:
- “You know that story about that old guy Abraham taking a stack of wood and having his son Isaac carry the wood up a hill, then build an alter, and when Isaac asks where the sacrifice is Abraham says “God will provide the sacrifice”, and then Abraham almost kills his son (crazy old buzzard) but he stops and sacrifices a ram with its horns caught in a thorn bush instead. I know no one alive right now sees this story as prophetic but lets have our hero fulfill it anyway. Yeah, lets have our hero carry a cross of wood outside a city to a hill and the hero is the son of God (also crazy old man) and our hero is like the ram so lets put a crown of thorns on him. He will be the sacrifice that God is providing. Seriously, this will work guys.”
- “Oh yeah, you know the Psalm 22 about the guy getting the crap beaten out of him. Lets have our hero who we say is the son of God end up having all that stuff in the long miserable Psalm happen to him. Lets even go so far as to have our son of God yell ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ This is a great way to fulfill some Old Testament prophecy and get a bunch of followers.
How many more examples to you want? If you are going to tell a lie, wouldn’t you come up with one a lot more believable than that?
Liars would create a religion that would appeal the people and the desires of the people of that time. How many years passed from when the Old Testament was established and from when the New Testament came to be? In the time of the New Testament, people believed and were taught that hell was a place where they would physically burn. Modern teachings of hell have express hell as more of a place of mental and emotional torture. In biblical times, people experienced villages burning to the ground and they were very susceptible to the idea of burning in hell. Teachings of hell today reflect what we are susceptible to today. One could go on and on about how the teachings of Christianity have changed over time, but the point is that if Christianity is a human creation, we should expect the teachings of the New Testament to be complete changed from the outdated teachings of the Old Testament. On the other hand, if Christianity and morality are a product of God or divinity, I would expect these morals and teachings to stay constant over time – after all don’t Christians believe that their god transcends time? If God is always good, always right, and transcends time, why would his teachings on morality change over time?
Robin is making my point for me again. The New Testament does fulfill the Old Testament in a constant and consistent manner. As if they came from the same source (which I believe the did). What the New Testament doesn’t work at all with is the teaching of MEN, at the time it was written and the teachings that a group of liars would come up with. A good look at Robin’s response basically is, if God wrote both the Old and New Testament, they would go together. The premise of my point is that they do go together, but not in the way people of the time expected. A group of liars would have been motivated by desires for wealth, popularity, or power. If they were motivated by discovery of new truths within the Old Testament, they wouldn’t then turn around and invent a lie.
I really can’t resist using Robin’s own words to make this point even stronger: “if Christianity is a human creation, we should expect the teachings of the New Testament to be complete changed from the outdated teachings of the Old Testament. On the other hand, if Christianity and morality are a product of God or divinity, I would expect these morals and teachings to stay constant over time – after all don’t Christians believe that their god transcends time? If God is always good, always right, and transcends time, why would his teachings on morality change over time?” That is my point. At the time the New Testament was written it didn’t reflect ANY of the human teachings or ideas of the time. None. Zero. Zip. Nada! The New Testament ONLY makes sense when connected to the age old words and ideas of the Old Testament. Everything in the New Testament is either a fulfillment of, or restatement of, the Old Testament. The human teachings of the time had changed a lot from the Old Testament, but the New Testament writers didn’t follow the human teachings AT ALL!
Liars would have followed the human teachings of the time to gain followers. They would not have come up with this bizarre suffering servant. The suffering servant comes from God’s never-changing, always relevant, Old Testament.
Incidentally, your example of burning in hell also makes my point. The change in what is expected in Hell are the thoughts of modern men. I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that God’s plans for Heaven or Hell have changed. I think anyone who teaches that hell will not be a place of flames and torture, among other things, is simply making stuff up, like men often do. The suffering in hell will surely include mental anguish, but to no believe in a flaming hell makes you a follower of man’s teachings (like the Pharisees), not God’s teachings (like the New Testament writers).
I wrote a post explaining why I believe the New Testament is NOT a lie. I received 2 thoughtful responses from Thomas Muhr and Robin Harrison. Thomas’ response was shorter and more general, but very good. Robin’s response is a point by point essay. I believe each point and his comments are worth considerable discussion and decided to make each point its own post by merging the two papers and adding my comments. Additional comments by Robin or anyone else is encouraged. Links to all related discussions are in the discussion center post below.
Other Posts In This Series
- If I Were God: I would have made it impossible to think the New Testament was a lie.
- God Made It Clear That The New Testament Is Not A Lie
- The New Testament Is A Lie Because…# 2
- The New Testament is a lie because…# 1
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 1 – You Can’t Prove Anything
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 2 – Whether It Is A Lie Or Not Is Irrelevent.
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 3 – Just because it isn’t a lie, doesn’t make it true
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 4 – The conspiracy would have been immense and incredibly difficult to concoct and maintain.
- Are The New Testament Writers Lying? : A Point By Point Discussion
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 5 – No liar would have had Jesus appear to women first.
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 6 – The writers would not have any discrepancies in their stories.
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 7 – The writers would not have made themselves look so bad.
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 8 – The writers would use "Jesus said…" to solve their problems.
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 9 – Liars would never have created a religion that was so difficult to believe or follow.
- Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 10 – Liars would never imagine such a twist of belief.
Seriously? You’re arguing that it’s the truth because it’s too crazy to have been made up?
That is an interesting paraphrase. I think you are inaccurate in your portrayal, but I also know that anyone who has raised a teenager has experienced exactly what you are saying. Sometimes you do know someone is not lying (which does NOT make them accurate) because the story is too crazy to have been made up.
Here is some proof that jesus never existed,:
As stated by Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of religious studies at the University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill, NC said, “In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never appears in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
A Few Noticeable Events in the Life of Jesus
Herod’s slaughter of all the baby boys in Bethlehem.
Jesus’ triumphant entry in jerusalem, where the entire town welcomes him as their king.
Jesus casting out the greedy moneychangers. (in an area about the size of 34 football fields)
Two earthquakes his Jerusalem.
Supernatural darkness covers “all the land” for hours.
The Sacred Temple curtain tears from top to bottom.
All the dead holy men in the cemetery come out of their graves and wander Jerusalem, “appearing to many.”
And yet, contemporary historians in the time of Jesus didn’t write about any of this.
I’m glad you brought up Mr Ehrman, but he seems to have changed his mind:
Bart Ehrman, “From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity,” Lecture 4: “Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus” (The Teaching Company, 2003)
“The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus’ burial. . . .
Some scholars have argued that it’s more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals (which also happened commonly for crucified persons in the Roman Empire). But the accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it’s relatively reliable that that’s what happened.”
I doubt someone who believes Jesus never existed would also believe he was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
I notice you completely ignore the second part. Nor does your quotation from Dr. Erhman negate what he said in the original quote.
I doubt that some who believes in jesus would be amenable to things like facts and rational thinking.
I don’t have an answer to everything and I admit it. I respect that you have thoughtful responses and greatly appreciate your participation. I’m not going to claim that my case is a slam-dunk or that I’m some great debater. I just think when all the points, your and mine, are weighed on a scale, the majority of the weight lies on the side of the New Testament writers being honest, not liars.
I believe we both appear to be honest, and imperfect, people. If what we are discussing were overwhelmingly obvious, we wouldn’t be discussing it all.
A will respectfully concede you make some very good points. Can you concede that so do I?
No, I cannot. The babble is a collection of myths and outright lies. Yes, it does contain a few verifiable incidents of historical events and places. That does not make the rest of it true. Here’s an example of how that works.
On the 11th of September, 2001, two commercial aircraft flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands.
Some people believe that this was an act of terrorism by an Islamic fundamentalist organization.
It was really the power of my god (he who must not be named) directing those planes to warn the people of the USA and the world to abandon their wicked ways and praise the only true god.
The first sentence is unquestionable historic fact. The last sentence is a delusional lie but is impossible to prove to be false. The “truth” of all “holy books” is based upon this same technique.
You choose to believe the babble because it makes you feel good, not because it is rational, possible or remotely believable.
Keep in mind, it has been translated and “interpreted” many times. Do you think non one ever made a mistake? DO you think no one ever “adjusted” some things to support an agenda? “It’s for their own good, so it’s OK.”
The bible + BS. Believing that it’s the “word of god” or in any way accurate is an exercise in the most powerful force in the universe – human self-delusion.
Rational and wise humans at some point realize that very few people are 100% right or 100% wrong. This old man’s maturity, respect, and Christian humility allow me to concede that I don’t have all the answers and not all your answers are ridiculous. It’s an attitude I hope you grow into because it makes for a wonderful life of open discussion with great friends you don’t have to agree with.
BTW: When someone is 100% sure they are correct and another is 100% wrong, their arrogance often is inspired by what you define as the most powerful force in the universe.
Dan, Tell me, what have I posted that is not true? Tell me, what in the New testament is true?
As far as “this old man” nonsense, I am 70. Being old does not grant you wisdom. And yes, one person can be 100% right and another 100% wrong. If you were half as wise and experienced as you claim, you would know that. Are you saying you have never known anyone to be completely right or wrong?
I do have great friends with whom I do not always agree. The difference is, they are not arrogant jerks.
Again, prove you are right about anything. Prove I am wrong.
The NT is a collection of myths and lies lightly sprinkled with a few verifiable historical events and places. As I have shown, and you carefully ignored, that doesn’t lend any credibility to the rest. In the same manner, your evading direct questions and ignoring solid proofs gives you no credibility nor respect.
You shouldn’t try to play the “age” card because that doesn’t prove anything but that you have no facts or logic do display.
I believe I could start with the same question you did, what have I posted that was not true? I think my opinions are as logical as yours. I concede you have good points. For you to say I have not a single good point, and then call me an arrogant jerk is interesting. Seriously? You don’t even quote me correctly. I didn’t say it was impossible for someone to be 100% right or wrong, I said “very few”. Your zeal is admirable, but your inability to concede that any opinion other than yours can have any merit whatsoever is irrational.
I apologize that this conversation appears to have turned personal. I think that is largely my fault. I also believe I have presented some logical thoughts worth reasonable consideration. So have you. I respect your right to respectfully disagree.
Whenever the bible is used to “prove” anything, it is almost certainly untrue.
I am confident that you are aware that book has been translated, edited, “interpreted” and re-translated many times.
Do you think that no errors were ever made during these events. Do you think that no one ever “adjusted” any text to serve a specific agenda? All “for their own good” of course. 😉
Yes, there are verifiable historical places and events described in the bible. Does that make any of the rest of it true? Not at all. Here is how that works with a modern example:
On the 11th of September, 2001, two commercial aircraft flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing thousands.
Some people believe that this was an act of terrorism by an Islamic fundamentalist organization.
It was really the power of my god (he who must not be named) directing those planes to warn the people of the USA and the world to abandon their wicked ways and praise the only true god.
The first sentence is unquestionable historic fact. The last sentence is a delusional lie but is impossible to prove to be false. The “truth” of all “holy books” is based upon this same technique.
I always try to state the truth, good or bad. When you make good points, I will say so, and you will know that I am sincere and not trying to win you over with false flattery.
I do feel that you personally believe what you say is true, but nothing about any religion can be verified with objectively-examined facts. Much can be positively disproved with the same technique.
Thank you for being a gentleman and I apologize if I was too harsh. But facts are facts and will remain that way.
Something I have learned is that, “a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it. A truth is still the truth even if no one believes it.”
At one time, many believed the earth was flat, even though it was easily observable from any seashore, where most people lived, that it was not. Nonetheless, it was still round, despite so many insisting it was flat. Likewise the sun and planets do not revolve around the earth, no matter how much the religious reich insisted that it did.
You list the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem as a noticeable event. Bethlehem was a very small village at the time. Probable less than 600 people. Thus, there were probably between 20 and 30 children killed. That’s a big deal to that Jewish community, but if you really think any Roman historian would find that noticeable, you need to learn a little about Roman cruelty. Sadly, the Romans could have killed all 600 people in the town and it not be mentioned by a Roman historian.
As always, you cherry-pick one thing and ignore everything else.
I think you need to learn a little about honesty and rational thinking.
There were 2 earthquakes; Geologists Jefferson B. Williams, Markus J. Schwab and A. Brauer examined disturbances in sediment depositions to identify two earthquakes: one large earthquake in 31 B.C.E., and another, smaller quake between 26 and 36 C.E. The length of time for the smaller quake could easily mean there were several tremors. It was also noted by the geologists that the smaller quake was small enough to not be noteworthy by most historians.