Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. Historicity focuses on the true value of knowledge claims about the past (denoting historical actuality, authenticity, and factuality). The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status."
"Questions regarding historicity concern not just the issue of "what really happened," but also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened." This second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other evidence."
Lets take a look at the New Testament. The first question would be is it entirely historical or are parts (or all) myth, legend, or fiction?
"Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. Historicity focuses on the true value of knowledge claims about the past (denoting historical actuality, authenticity, and factuality). The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status."
"Questions regarding historicity concern not just the issue of "what really happened," but also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened." This second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other evidence."
Lets take a look at the New Testament. The first question would be is it entirely historical or are parts (or all) myth, legend, or fiction?
We can go from there.
Yes. Of course it is. There is no reason to suggest otherwise.
Yes. Of course it is. There is no reason to suggest otherwise.
RESPONSE: Which is historical, ie. actually happened as reported?
MARK
"When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples and said to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?” just say this, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.”‘ They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, some of the bystanders said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying the colt?’ They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it." [Mark 11:1-7 (NRSV)]
LUKE
"When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone ask you, “Why are you untying it?” just say this: “The Lord needs it.”‘ So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, ‘Why are you untying the colt?’ They said, ‘The Lord needs it.’ Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it." [Luke 19:29-35 (NRSV)]
JOHN
"Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!’" [John 12:14-15 (NRSV)]
MATTHEW’s account is a contradiction to the other three since he is very clear that two animals were ridden, not one. In a contradiction, at least one element is untrue.
When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, “The Lord needs them.” And he will send them immediately.’ This took place to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, ‘Tell the daughter of Zion, Look your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their clothes on them, and he sat on them. [Matthew 21:1-7 (NRSV)]
Which account(s) may be historical i.e. what really happened? Are all four inspired by God? Note that "it" is singular and "them" is plural, more than one.
RESPONSE: Which is historical, ie. actually happened as reported?
MARK
"When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples and said to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?” just say this, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.”‘ They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, some of the bystanders said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying the colt?’ They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it." [Mark 11:1-7 (NRSV)]
LUKE
"When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone ask you, “Why are you untying it?” just say this: “The Lord needs it.”‘ So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, ‘Why are you untying the colt?’ They said, ‘The Lord needs it.’ Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it." [Luke 19:29-35 (NRSV)]
JOHN
"Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!’" [John 12:14-15 (NRSV)]
MATTHEW’s account is a contradiction to the other three since he is very clear that two animals were ridden, not one. In a contradiction, one element is untrue.
When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, “The Lord needs them.” And he will send them immediately.’ This took place to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, ‘Tell the daughter of Zion, Look your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their clothes on them, and he sat on them. [Matthew 21:1-7 (NRSV)]
Which account(s) may be historical i.e. what really happened? Are all four inspired by God? Note that "it" is singular and "them" is plural, more than one.
They are all correct. Obviously there was more than 1 animal. Saying there was 2 animals does not supercede the others, who are ALSO correct to say there is 1. They don't say there was ONLY 1 animal, do they? Nowhere does it suggest that there was not more than 1.
You really need to understand that the writing style used is different than what we may write of today. Your issue is that you're superimposing 21st Century expectations on a text from the 1st Century.
They are all correct. Obviously there was more than 1 animal. Saying there was 2 animals does not supercede the others, who are ALSO correct to say there is 1. They don't say there was ONLY 1 animal, do they? Nowhere does it suggest that there was not more than 1.
RESPONSE:
I go by the plain meaning of words. I’m sorry if you have become confused between “it” meaning one, and “them” meaning more than one.
Mark, Luke, and John say “it” or one. Matthew alone says “them” or more than one.
Quote:
You really need to understand that the writing style used is different than what we may write of today. Your issue is that you're superimposing 21st Century expectations on a text from the 1st Century.
RESPONSE: No. Even in their day, “it” meant 1, and “them” meant more than one. The plain meaning of words then and now are used in all four passages. The same meaning of these word were used then and now.
Even if 90% of the New Testament events were proven historically, it would still have 0% proof of any of the supernatural claims. It's called "Historical Fiction".
Inerrant Matthew's second mistake in the same scripture
Matthew makes still another error in his chapter 21
Matthew 21:4 -7 4* This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:
5b “Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you ,meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. 7* They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.
However, from the Book of Zechariah itself we have:
Zech 9:9 Exult greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout for joy, O daughter Jerusalem! Behold: your king* is coming to you, a just savior is he,Humble, and riding on a donkey,on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
NAB footnote: Zec 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).
Lets look at some of the many more errors in inerrant scripture.
Matthew 2:23 : And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
QUESTIONS:
Where in the Old Testament does it say Jesus shall be called a Nazarene.? Answer: It doesn't.
Where in the Old Testament is there any mention of Nazareth? Answer: It isn't mentioned.
Absolute inerrancy: Some Catholic theologians have claimed that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant -- without error. This appears to be the consensus of popes, of most of the Catholic scholars and of other church leaders until the mid 20th century. This belief developed naturally from their conviction that God inspired the authors of the Bible. If God controlled the writers' words directly or indirectly, then he would not have led them into error. Deceit and error are not normally attributes expected of God.
From Religious Tolerance on the web.
But if there are obvious errors and contradictions in scripture, is it seriously argued that these many errors did not exist in the original copies?
Of course, this a safe argument which cannot be proven either way since we don't have any original copies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"It" means one. "Them" means more than one.
