Couldnt the NT Bible be called the historical account of Jesus since it was written by Christian historians ?

Question

History books are recorded versions of events through the eyes and ears of the writer.

The New Testament cannot be called Revelation since it was not a revealed book. The New Testament was created after the Nician councel chose 4 gospels and burned the rest. Obviously these were not divinenly written gospels.


"Initially there were 34 gospels that were compiled by word of mouth. Four were chosen for unclear reasons and 30 were left behind [burned]. (Encyclopedia Britannica)


The NT is a recording of events recorded by religious companions or pious people who compiled bits and pieces of information several decades later.




.

Answer 1

I agree.

Answer 2

No. There's no proof that the New Testament was written by historians. It was, at best, written by Christian authors who were jotting down what they had heard about Jesus from other Christians.

Remember, the earliest possible date that the Gospels could have been written is around 70 AD (based on the information about the temple's destruction). Also, if we don't even know for a fact who wrote the Gospels (since it hasn't been proven that Luke, John, Matthew and Mark actually wrote the Gospels, and it's more likely that other authors used their names to give their Gospels credibility) we can't assume it to be historical. Also, a book filled mostly with "supernatural" or spiritual acts is more fiction than fact.

You wouldn't think the "Harry Potter" series were historical if you had no idea who the author was, would you?

Answer 3

The Council of Nicea did not burn any non-canonical gospels. You obviously have never studied the origins of the Biblical canon, or the treatment of 'heretical' materials in the late Roman Empire. Christians actually preserved anti-Christian material in the imperial treasuries of Constantinople during the height of the Dark Ages. Everything we know of classical antiquity was preserved and copied by devout Christians laboring in monestaries.

The only reason that the 4 gospels were taken and the others left out was because the Christian lectionary was formed before the other 'gospels' were written.

Your confusion is based on several misconceptions. First, you assume that the contents of the Bible actually held sway over the doctrines of the early Church. Not so. Altering the Biblical text would have a significant impact on modern Protestantism, but it would have meant nothing whatsoever to the ancient Churches (most of whom maintained their own canons before and after Nicea). Second, you assume that the 34 gospels were contemporary - not so. The 4 canonical gospels were written centuries before the other 30. Third, you assume that the 34 gospels were all members of the same genre. In fact, the other 30 gospels were philosophical works, and contained little or no historical narrative whatsoever. The other gospels were also predominatly Gnostic, and simply pasted the names of Jesus and other New Testament figures at the beginning of each specific statement. Fourth, you assume that the 'left behind' books were burned. Christian book burning was a Medieval practice restricted to certain parts of western Europe. Alternative theologies, including prominant pagan works, were required reading in the ancient Church. Christian monks carefully preserved everything from pagan Hymns to Zeus to the Lesbian poetry of Sappho.

Answer 4

The problem is nobody can even prove there was a true Jesus as all the hundreds of NT bibles contradict each other one way or another.

The one thing they all agree on is the baby Jesus was anointed by Magi.

AHM: magi (m³“jº”). 1. A member of the Zoroastrian priestly caste of the Medes and Persians.

Answer 5

Gnostic Christian texts are closer to what the historical Jesus stood for.

Gospel of Thomas is a good start.

Answer 6

I find it interesting that there were twelve apostles but only a few accounts found their way into the NT. Very strange is it not?

Answer 7

No, Mythology can not be categorized as a history. Myth makers are not historians, they are fiction writers.

Answer 8

Read Genesis 1:1
John 1:1
John 1:14
It's the Word of God.

Answer 9

it could be all wrong too since it was written decades later....

Answer 10

Why not? It doesn't imply infallability however.