Comment on How can we be sure the New Testament hasn't been heavily tampered with? by crimsonmvestro

Parent Post: How can we be sure the New Testament hasn't been heavily tampered with? · In Reply To

crimsonmvestro · 3/19/2025, 12:30:40 PM · permalink

1\. The Resurrection as a Historical Event

• Human Bias in Writing: People often write their own intentions, beliefs, and agendas into their works. The Gospels were written by followers of Jesus, not neutral historians. They had theological motives, which influenced how they presented events.

• Political and Religious Influence: Early Christian writings emerged in a context where new religious movements were competing for dominance. A resurrection story would have been a powerful tool for solidifying faith and legitimizing Christianity against Roman and Jewish opposition.

• Greco-Roman Influence on Divine Hero Narratives: Dying and rising gods were common motifs in the ancient world (e.g., Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras). Christianity arose in a culture already familiar with such stories, making it plausible that Jesus’ resurrection narrative was shaped by existing mythological frameworks.

⸻

2\. Prophecy Fulfillment

• Intentional Shaping of the Narrative: The Gospel writers had access to the Old Testament and could easily shape their accounts to align with “prophecies.”

• Example: Matthew 2:15 claims Jesus “fulfilled” Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”), but that verse originally referred to the Exodus, not a future Messiah.

• Dubious Morality of the “Fulfilled” Prophecies:

• Isaiah 53’s “suffering servant” is used to justify Jesus’ death as atonement for sin, reinforcing a worldview where innocent suffering is glorified—a dangerous concept that has been used to justify oppression and passivity in the face of injustice.

⸻

3\. Internal Coherence and the Evolution of Beliefs

• The Old Testament’s Disgusting Morality:

• Genocide is commanded by God (1 Samuel 15:3 – “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have…”).

• Slavery is endorsed and regulated, not condemned (Exodus 21:20–21 allows beating slaves as long as they don’t die immediately).

• Women are treated as property (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 forces a rape victim to marry her rapist).

• These laws reflect the moral attitudes of ancient tribal societies, not an unchanging divine moral standard.

• The Fear-Mongering of Hell and Its Greco-Roman Development:

• The Old Testament barely mentions hell. The Hebrew concept of Sheol was simply a shadowy underworld, not a place of torment.

• The idea of eternal punishment developed later, influenced by Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian ideas. The fiery Gehenna of the New Testament was originally a real valley outside Jerusalem, associated with waste-burning, not eternal torment.

• The doctrine of hell became fully developed in the Roman Empire, particularly under Church Fathers like Augustine, as a means of social control—scaring people into obedience.

• Contradictions in the Bible’s Message Over Time:

• The Bible doesn’t have a unified message; it evolves.

• The Old Testament is legalistic and tribal, while the New Testament moves toward universal salvation but still carries apocalyptic fear-mongering (e.g., the Book of Revelation).

• The concept of God shifts from a warlike deity to a more compassionate father figure, reflecting changes in human culture rather than a single divine truth.

⸻

Conclusion:

The Bible is a human-made document, shaped by the biases, agendas, and evolving moral standards of its authors. The resurrection, prophecy fulfillment, and internal coherence arguments fail to hold up under scrutiny when we account for human tendencies to rewrite history, exaggerate events, and use religion as a tool for control.  
  
  
"If there is truth, would you want to know it, even if it challenges what you believe now?"  
It would have to take your "god" to come down to earth and cure  babies of leukemia across the planet

5 bumps

j.k.harwood2 · 3/19/2025, 5:27:07 PM · permalink

1\. The Resurrection as a Historical Event

Claim: The Gospels were written with bias and theological motives.

✅ Response:

All historical writings have some bias, but bias does not automatically mean falsehood. The key historical question is whether an event happened, not whether the authors had motives.

Example: If a journalist today reports on a major event they strongly believe in, their bias doesn't mean the event didn’t happen.

The Gospels were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses (including opponents) who could have challenged falsehoods.

If Jesus' resurrection was fabricated, why didn’t Jewish or Roman authorities simply produce the body? The burden is on skeptics to explain why early Christians died for something they knew was false.

Claim: The resurrection narrative was influenced by myths like Osiris, Dionysus, and Mithras.

✅ Response:

The "dying and rising god" theory is outdated and debunked by serious historians.

Pagan myths do not match Jesus’ resurrection.

Osiris, Dionysus, and Mithras were not historical figures, but mythological ones. Jesus was a real person, crucified under Roman authority.

Early Christians rejected paganism, so why would they borrow from it?

The resurrection was Jewish in concept (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19), not Greek mythology.

👉 Alternative Explanation: The resurrection accounts arose because Jesus actually rose from the dead—a claim supported by historical evidence, transformed followers, and the explosion of Christianity despite persecution.

2\. Prophecy Fulfillment

Claim: The Gospel writers shaped events to "fit" Old Testament prophecies.

✅ Response:

This assumes that they had control over events that they did not.

Example: Jesus did not choose where he was born (Micah 5:2) or how he died (Isaiah 53).

Eyewitnesses (including hostile ones) would have called out deliberate fabrications.

The Jews expected a military Messiah, yet Jesus fulfilled suffering servant prophecies that many overlooked. If they were inventing a Messiah, they would have made him a warrior-king, not a crucified savior.

Claim: Isaiah 53 promotes suffering as a virtue, leading to oppression.

✅ Response:

This misunderstands Christian theology.

Isaiah 53 shows Jesus suffering willingly for others’ sins—not glorifying suffering itself.

Christianity abolished slavery, oppression, and injustice over time, precisely because of Jesus’ teachings on love and human dignity.

👉 Alternative Explanation: The prophecies fit Jesus because they were meant to. The fulfillment of dozens of precise details (not vague statements) is best explained by divine orchestration, not human invention.

3\. Internal Coherence and Moral Critiques

Claim: The Old Testament's morality is barbaric.

✅ Response:

This argument is ahistorical—judging an ancient culture by modern standards.

Genocide? The context of divine judgment matters—Canaanite cultures practiced child sacrifice, ritual abuse, and extreme brutality.

Slavery? The Old Testament regulated an existing system but pushed morality forward toward abolition. The New Testament condemned slavery’s abuses (1 Timothy 1:10).

Women as property? This is an oversimplification. The Mosaic Law protected women far better than surrounding nations.

👉 Alternative Explanation: The Old Testament laws reflected a progression toward moral truth, culminating in Jesus’ teachings on love, dignity, and justice.

Claim: Hell was a later invention for fear-mongering.

✅ Response:

This is a half-truth.

The Old Testament describes Sheol as a place of the dead, but the concept of divine justice and eternal destiny was present.

Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible.

Hell is not a control tactic—it is the consequence of rejecting God.

👉 Alternative Explanation: Hell is real, not for scaring people, but because free will demands consequences. If God is real and just, then evil must be dealt with.

Conclusion: Is the Bible Just a Human Document?

No. If it were purely human-made, it would have faded into irrelevance like other ancient texts.

The resurrection has historical weight.

The prophecies align without forced manipulation.

The moral shifts over time reflect divine revelation, not human evolution.

The deeper issue in your question is not just history, but what you demand from God.

You say God would have to cure all babies of leukemia for you to believe.

This assumes God’s existence is dependent on your personal conditions.

The true question is: Would you believe even if He did? Or would you dismiss it as coincidence?

👉 If truth exists, wouldn't you seek it honestly, not demand it conform to personal expectations?

3 bumps

crimsonmvestro · 3/19/2025, 6:11:43 PM · permalink

2 bumps

j.k.harwood2 · 3/20/2025, 2:31:25 AM · permalink

1 bump

Signature