The New Testament is a historical account of the life of Jesus written by a dozen men & some take it as Divine

Question

Isnt that spiritual suicide ?

.

Answer 1

Don't know what you mean by spiritual suicide. I'm guessing you mean it is contrary to divine truth.

If so, I'd say that on the surface it looks like that. The men who wrote the NT and the men who compiled it and decided what would be official Church canon and what wouldn't -- they were all human. God didn't zap away their free will, or take over their minds with divine inspiration. So sure, there are factual errors, hyperbole, poetry, litotes, puns, allegory, etc all through it. Many more genres than just history or biography.

But that doesn't mean that it can't hold God's divine truth: that Jesus came and gave us this one command: love one another.

Answer 2

Sure it was written by people and the proof is that they have a lot of books and all of them are called Holy books. Besides having Old and New testament suggest that they've been changed for whatever purposes.
If you really want to know whether or not the book was written by humans read the Books of the three religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) And forget that you're a christian i.e be objective and then compare and see which do you really believe that it's the word of God because it would be stunningly well versed that no human being would be able to write something as holy.

Answer 3

As salaamu 'alaikym, my misninformed friend.

Who told you that the New Testament was a "historical" document?
It is neither historically accurate, nor are the incident reported there in verifiable and/or reliable. There is virtually no supporting docucmnetation by or from other sources who were present at the time said events supposedly took place.

Some believe that these "spiritual" writings were divinely revealed by God ( as YHWH, Trinity Father and Trinity Spirit, Allah, Subhanna wa Ta'ala) and that the same documents have been, over time corrupted and altered.

I have no idea as to what you mean by "spiritual suicide".

Ma'a salaam

Answer 4

I’m not sure where “Spiritual Suicide” comes from exactly but I think I see where you are going. That depends more on how you look at it. I have more of an issue with how the bible was canonized then who wrote what. I agree taking the entire bible, as “fact” is likely not accurate especially when one takes in to account the mistranslations over the years. I also have doubts because there are several other “gospels” about Jesus and the apostles floating around that were not canonized and who’s to say they were not inspired G-d?

The New Testament is a collection of works, and as such was written by multiple authors. The traditional view--that is, the authors according to most early orthodox Christians--is that all the books were written by Apostles (e.g. Matthew and Paul) or disciples working under their direction (e.g. Mark[1] and Luke[2]). However, since the second century or perhaps even the second half of the first century, these traditional ascriptions have been rejected by some. In modern times, with the rise of rigorous historical inquiry and textual criticism, the authenticity of orthodox authorship beliefs have been rejected in large part. While the traditional authors have been listed above, the modern critical view is discussed herein.

Seven of the epistles of Paul are now generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these undisputed letters include Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Raymond Brown has this to say about Colossians: "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (An Introduction, p. 610; cited by earlychristianwritings.com). Experts usually question Pauline authorship for any other epistle, although there are a few conservative Christian scholars who accept the traditional ascriptions. Almost no current mainstream scholars, however, Christian or otherwise, hold that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, questions about the authorship of Hebrews go back at least to the 3rd century ecclesiastical writer Caius, who attributed only thirteen epistles to Paul (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.20.3ff.). A small minority of scholars hypothesize Hebrews may have been written by one of Paul's close associates, such as Barnabas, Silas, or Luke, given that the themes therein seemed to them as largely Pauline.

The authorship of all non-Pauline books have been disputed in recent times. Ascriptions are largely polarized between Christian and non-Christian experts, making any sort of scholarly consensus all but impossible. Even majority views are unclear.

The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, unlike the other New Testament works, have a unique documentary relationship. The dominant view among critical scholars, the Two-Source Hypothesis, is that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source", from Quelle, the German word for "source". However, the nature and even existence of Q is speculative, and thus scholars have proposed variants on the hypothesis which redefine or exclude it. Most Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. If it was a documentary source, no information about its author or authors can be obtained from the resources currently available. The traditional view supposes that Matthew was written first, and Mark and Luke drew from it and the second chronological work; although not founded in textual criticism, some scholars have attempted to use their modern methods to confirm the idea. An even smaller group of scholars espouse Lukan priority. Despite the lack of a unanimous consensus, however, the majority view certainly agrees with the two-source hypothesis.

Modern scholars are also skeptical about authorship claims for noncanonical books, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in Egypt in 1945. This corpus of fifty-two Coptic books, dated to about 350–400, includes gospels in the names of Thomas, Philip, James, John, and many others. Like almost all ancient works, they represent copies rather than original texts. None of the original texts has been discovered, and scholars argue about the dating of the originals. Suggested dates vary from as early as 50 to as late as the late second century. (See Gospel of Thomas and New Testament Apocrypha.)

To summarize, the only books for which there are solid authorship consensuses among modern critical scholars are the seven Pauline epistiles mentioned above, which are universally regarded as authentic, and Hebrews, which is nearly always rejected. The remaining nineteen books remain in dispute, some holding to the traditional view, and others regarding them as anonymous or pseudonymic.

Answer 5

No, the New Testament is a woven narrative of a fictional character pieced together from Old Testament verses. There is nothing historical about it.

Answer 6

Actually, it's quite less than a dozen writers. If it is actually divinely inspired, it's not suicide at all.

In any event, it's not the scripture that I follow.

Answer 7

it may be an account, it is not a historical account.

if some take it as divine, so be it - as long as they don't use it as an excuse to intervene in a secular government.

Answer 8

In Jesus is Life, so presumably the exact opposite is true. Hopefully you willl find it one day, by the grace of God. God is gracious and gives people many chances. People can get hardened to a point where God's Spirit will not strive with them any more though.

Answer 9

only the first four books are an account of his life, written by four men

Answer 10

Who said it was written by a dozen men