The Old Testament is a bunch of books, letters, poems, historical and legal documents. That when read tell the story of the Jews and their relationship with God and the world over a couple of thousand years. They reflect the culture in which they were written. Many of the documents were written during wars where the writer is convinced God is on their side. There are many prophesies especially in Isaiah which point to Jesus. So when Jesus arrives and fulfills the prophesies some of the Jews follow Jesus but many powerful leaders are awaiting a different, more normal king figure and they are comfortable as they are so choose not to follow.
The New Testament is written in a time of relative stability during the longtime invasion by the romans. The writers of those letters and books, some of whom are eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. (Almost unique in historical documents) take a different stance to who God is. But they don’t all agree. Basically Bible means library.
Jesus did not fulfill prophecy in any confirmable way, it seems like some of the contradictions between the scriptures exist because different authors made up new stories to attempt to have jesus fulfill prophecy.
Figuring out which, if any, of the gospel stories are true is an impossible task.
A nitpick, none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, the documents were written long after Jesus was gone. They are interpretations of stories passed down, and all four gospels have different takes on events. So the phrase “gospel truth” is very ironic in its definition.
Not only that, Jesus doesn’t fit the requirements for the prophesied Jewish Messiah, to the best of my understanding. He may well be the Christian Messiah, but no one else is under any obligation to accept or reject anyone else’s religious beliefs.
Most modern scholars think that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It’s a little bit academic (har har) anyway, since they all went through so many layers of translation often by people with specific agendas that the modern English versions can’t really claim to be “authentic” to the originals anyway, but regardless of that they almost certainly weren’t written by those specific disciples of Jesus (even if you accept the events described in them as semi-authentic.)
Relative stability? Buddy I don’t know where the hell you got that notion from. When was it stable exactly? During the Jewish revolt? That extremely bloody time?
Why don’t you look it up? At the same time you can go go ahead and look up why the time period we’re talking about was extremely unstable. That same instability largely why Christianity comes about in the first place.
The Old Testament is a bunch of books, letters, poems, historical and legal documents. That when read tell the story of the Jews and their relationship with God and the world over a couple of thousand years. They reflect the culture in which they were written. Many of the documents were written during wars where the writer is convinced God is on their side. There are many prophesies especially in Isaiah which point to Jesus. So when Jesus arrives and fulfills the prophesies some of the Jews follow Jesus but many powerful leaders are awaiting a different, more normal king figure and they are comfortable as they are so choose not to follow. The New Testament is written in a time of relative stability during the longtime invasion by the romans. The writers of those letters and books, some of whom are eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. (Almost unique in historical documents) take a different stance to who God is. But they don’t all agree. Basically Bible means library.
Jesus did not fulfill prophecy in any confirmable way, it seems like some of the contradictions between the scriptures exist because different authors made up new stories to attempt to have jesus fulfill prophecy.
Figuring out which, if any, of the gospel stories are true is an impossible task.
As a wise man once said. “Well that’s just like, your opinion man”
El Duderino
A nitpick, none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, the documents were written long after Jesus was gone. They are interpretations of stories passed down, and all four gospels have different takes on events. So the phrase “gospel truth” is very ironic in its definition.
Not only that, Jesus doesn’t fit the requirements for the prophesied Jewish Messiah, to the best of my understanding. He may well be the Christian Messiah, but no one else is under any obligation to accept or reject anyone else’s religious beliefs.
Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses.
Most modern scholars think that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
It’s a little bit academic (har har) anyway, since they all went through so many layers of translation often by people with specific agendas that the modern English versions can’t really claim to be “authentic” to the originals anyway, but regardless of that they almost certainly weren’t written by those specific disciples of Jesus (even if you accept the events described in them as semi-authentic.)
Relative stability? Buddy I don’t know where the hell you got that notion from. When was it stable exactly? During the Jewish revolt? That extremely bloody time?
You know what relative means?
Do you know what complete devastation of an entire province means?
Relatively.
Buddy you don’t have to keep stanning for somebody who’s just wrong about history.
Stanning?
Why don’t you look it up? At the same time you can go go ahead and look up why the time period we’re talking about was extremely unstable. That same instability largely why Christianity comes about in the first place.