Superfluousity in the New Testament

Regarding the physical appearance of Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, etc., the new Testament is noticeably silent. This point has come up recently in thread 'Let There Be Man' by Limbosis.When you stop to think about it, there is not a lot of superfluousness in any of the New Testament. In the instances where the authors go into greater detail it is usually with intent to show the fulfillment of prophecy...for example the place where Jesus is born, Bethlehem and in a manger, are details which fulfill a prophecy.I am wondering if there are any examples of totally irrelevent detail in the New Testament, or, if we found an example of such, whether it could be tied to something in the OT prophecy which has been overlooked.Also I am asking what this perceived lack of detail might mean for the case of inerrancy; does it prove that the writer was concerned only with the spiritual, or that the writer was concerned only with making Jesus appear to be the Messiah? Don't you think someone, somewhere, would have wanted to add more specifics to make the story believable?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think what is presented was deemed by God to be adaquate for those who will believe. Since the human will is involved in deciding to believe, up to a certain point, perhaps God knew that the unwilling will not to believe no matter what else is presented.When Thomas demanded that he would not believe unless he could impirically and scientifically verify Christ's resurrection Jesus implied his will must "be believing". Look at the whole exchange: This passage amazes me. The implication of it is that even with this impirical proof test of Thomas, which was quite scientific, there seems still the possibility that he could be unbelieving. Why else would Jesus add " AND ... do not be unbeliving, but believing" [my emphasis]? Enough details are in the gospels to those who set their will to not be unbelieving, but believing.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jesus was saying, "Accept the empirical evidence," not, "Believe without empirical evidence." The whole "doubting Thomas" incident seems to counter the notion that empirical evidence is superfluous.On the other hand, "superfluous" detail within the book doesn't necessarily authenticate the book. Plenty of fiction is filled with authentic detail.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

jaywill, if I could be a doubting Thomas myself for a moment; how emperical was the test? Would seeing the marks of the nails be enough for us to know for sure that Jesus came back from the dead? Would we not still claim that there was a hoax? I think Thomas saw what HE was looking for, his 'evidence', and that was enough for him. Yeah, I think we all do that, and I think there is any number of ways to read into the story. I think what you are saying is that God wanted to leave some room for belief to take over, rather than having proof?This is what I said; and maybe I could rephrase it for you; Do you, jaywill, think that more detail about the appearance of Jesus, or the scenery, or the time of day, would make the gospels more believable, or beneficial in any way to believers, or do you think it would be too obviously a contrivance of humans?

Is it a virtue to will yourself to believe something?_

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The lack of concern the Gospels show with physical appearances is par for the course in ancient literature. Little physical detail is given about any figure in ancient texts. This is certainly true of all the books of the Bible (in all canons) and it's true of contemporary documents from that part of the world. What did Miriam look like? Judas Maccabeus? Eve? Utnapishtim? Lysistrata? Mohammed?A modern storyteller feels the need, as a matter of course, to supply a few details about appearance. This is a convention of more recent centuries--perhaps owing to the development of more humanistic, individualistic priorities.__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Jesus told Thomas to "be ... believing"Whether it is a virtue or not I don't know. I know that it is good to hear Christ and to obey His word to "be not unbelieving, but believing"Is it a virtue to answer Christ "No. I would rather not."?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You may be making the issue too general. The application that I spoke of was very very particular and specific.Don't try to apply it to all matters about everything. It applies to the command of Christ to believe that He is risen and is alive.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Archer: jaywill: OK.So is it a virtue to will yourself to believe something?__Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Okay. But just for a moment now. I think yes. He was in the room with the other 10 disciples. In the presence of those who would recognize Jesus and had previously attested to His having been raised, Thomas now being among them with Jesus standing there was more than enough.Thomas hadn't read "The Passover Plot". I think he knew full well that Jesus had died and was now alive before him. When Jesus says that those who have not seen yet believe are blessed, I think He was establishing the authority of the original witnesses. They were to pass on the gospel to those who were not there. He took away the ground for some to use the excuse that His apostles could not be trusted. Jesus trusted them so we should.That does not mean that they were not human and could not err. We see Peter and Paul both making errors. (Although I should probably not include Paul with the 12 originals, 11 + Mathius).But in this essential witness to the foundation of the gospel, that Christ lives, Jesus trusted them and we should recognize their authoritity.The original group had more "proofs" in the outward objective realm. But in the inward presence of Christ we and they can have the same assurance:"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23)In this regard we and the original apostles are on equal footing. I we love Christ and keep His word He and the Father will come to us to make an abode with us.John the Apostle latter testifies to this assurance:"In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit" (1 John 4:13)And again in 3:24 - "And in this we know that HE abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us."But going back to establishing the clear line of authority from Him through His apostles, Christ prayed to the Father:"And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word, that they all may be one; even as You Father, are in Me and I in YOu, that they also may be in Us ..."This authority is not merely a matter of tradition. It is not only that the original witnesses can be trusted. It is also that there is an "organic" oneness passing through the Father, the Son, and through the apostles and the latter day believers of the apostle's words. This common divine life of the Trinity binds us all into a oneness.We the believers have a common fellowship in the flowing of God through them and through us the believers.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If that "something" is the resurrected Son of God commanding you to believe in His resurrection, then perhaps yes.Don't ignore my clarification of the specific application of the will and the believing.

I didn't. I expressly granted the specific application. Then, in that context, I posed the question again.I still didn't get a straight answer, though.The question was 'Is it a virtue to will yourself to believe something?'You still hedged: Perhaps.So help me out here. I could use some context.Is it usually a virtue to will yourelf to believe something?If it isn't, why 'perhaps yes' this one time when willed belief is such a bad idea every other time?If it is, why say 'perhaps' at all? Why not say a straitforward 'yes' to willed belief across the board?And, in the case of the 'resurrected Son of God commanding you to believe', what would persuade you to abandon 'perhaps' and conclude that yes, willed belief is a virtue, or no, it is not?__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

If you expressely granted the specific application, then why did you not in your second asking specify the word "Christ" in place of the word "something"? Why was not your question then "Is it a virtue to will yourself to believe Christ?"That would have genuinely indicated that I was not talking about willing yourself to believe any something, i.e. the "something" being that the moon is made of green cheese.In the context of the John's stated purpose for writing his gospel that the reader would believe "that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you might have life in His name" (v.31) I would assume that it is a virtue to respond to John's writing by believing "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" Without reviewing the definition of the word "virtue" I would assume that God would consider it a virtue that we respond to JOhn's gospel and specifically to Christ presenting Himself alive to His apostles with believing Christ is Son of God.Christ, in the same gospel, says that men do not believe because they loved darkness rather than light, "because their works were evil.""And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil." (JOhn 3:19)He says that He is the light of the world:"Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12)And again Christ refers to Himself as the light because He is the expression and manifestation of God the Father in a human:"But Jesus cried out and said, He who believes into Me does not believe into Me, but into Him who sent Me; And he who beholds Me beholds Him who sent Me. I have come as a light into the world, that every one who believes into Me would not remain in darkness." (John 12:45,46)So I would consider it not a virtue to remain in unbelief in the darkness that the workers of evil love more than the light which is Christ the expression of God. So to believe into Christ and receive life in His name is the "virtue" that pleases God. For we are told that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6).Since faith is pleasing to God and without faith it is impossible to please God, deciding to believe (which is an act of the will as much as of the mind) is a God pleasing virtue. According to Christ's words the unbelieving loved the darkness because their works were evil. The struggle seems to be over loving to do one's own evil works or having them exposed for what they are in the "light" of Christ's Person and being saved and healed by this Person.So believing into Christ is a virtue in terms of being pleasing to God. And it is also in one's best self interest in being delivered from one's own evil works but rather saved into the life of Christ.According to the writer of Hebrews, the true faith is a substantiating of what is real but not seen. In other words, the biblical faith - the biblical believing, is the substantiating of what is reality that is hoped and not seen but is nonetheless real: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I tried to answer you above. Now I will ask you again:Would it have been a virtue for Thomas to respond to Christ by willing to remain in unbelief of Christ's resurrection?