Lets cut to the chase: Why should I be a Christian?

[notachance]

If you're a theist and are active on a forum called "Debating Christianity & Religion", then you probably believe that the value of Christianity is something that can be spoken for.

So here is the situation: I don't want you to tell me why you believe. I understand that for many of you, it has to do with a feeling in your heart, or inexpressible faith, or something along those lines, which would be hard to verbalize and to formulate into a cogent case for Christianity. As respectable a that is, and as good a reason it may be for you to believe, it doesn't help me.

I want you to tell me why I should believe.

Given the fact that I don't share with you that emotional connection with Christianity, given that I don't feel the presence of Jesus in my heart like you do, given that I guide my decision making and my opinion forming by rationality and common sense, what can you tell me along those lines to persuade me that Christianity is the way to go?

Why should I be a Christian? What can you say to persuade me that what you believe is true?

[lilbman]

Look up?

You see, this is how things get taken out of context.

When I posted look up, it was pertaining to the answer to your question.

I already answered your question in the same post, a question or two above it.

My apologies, I realize now that it may have not been very clear. Sorry 'bout that.

Oh ya, Accountable?

Because it is certain, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Right?

[notachance]

Because it is certain, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Right?

Are you saying that I should be a Christian because of Newton's Third Law of Motion?

Are you playing that kindergarden game where you try to say the most absurd thing possible, and the first person to burst into laughter loses?

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

Are you playing that kindergarden game where you try to say the most absurd thing possible, and the first person to burst into laughter loses?

I shouldn't have to explain that this is against the rules regarding civility. If you have a case to make, make it. Jabs at other members are not allowed.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[samuelbb7]

First of all, we do not know what Jesus Christ claims.

What you meant to say is that the Bible claims that Jesus is the son of God.

But the Bible wasn't written by Jesus. The Bible wasn't written by anybody who ever met Jesus. The Bible wasn't written by anybody who ever met anybody who met Jesus. It wasn't written by anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met Jesus.

Unless you are among the few scholars in the world who have access to the Chester Beatti Papyri and the DSS, the Bible you read (if you ever read the Bible) is a direct translation of the Codex Vaticanus, and was written by an anonymous scribe in 350 AD, 21 generations after Jesus's death.

That means that everything you ever read about Jesus, was written by the great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
great,
grand son of somebody who would have been alive at the same time as Jesus.

Ok?

Is that clear?

Now. Here is my question:

As you say, the Bible claims that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus is the only way.

So what. Why should I believe that?

If I told you "Julius Caesar is the son of God. Caesar is the only way", would you believe me? Why not?

So, if you disbelieve me when I write that Julius Caesar is the son of God, why do you expect me to believe it when some anonymous 350 AD scribe writes that Jesus was the son of God?

The Gospels were written before 100 A.D., JESUS died about 32 A.D. Many scholars believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before 70A.D. The church was in existence before 60 A.D. as attested by Roman historians. Paul was writing and many of his letters were before 70 A.d. Wikipedia gives this:

Dates of composition

The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The Gospel of Mark is dated from as early as the 50s, although most scholars date between the range of 65 and 72.[61] Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written after the composition of Mark as they make use of Mark's content. Therefore they are generally dated later than Mark although the extent is debated. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95. However a select few scholars disagree with this as Luke indicates in the book of Acts that he has already written the Gospel of Luke prior to writing the introduction to Acts. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in AD 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.[citation needed]

In the 1830s German scholars of the Tbingen school dated the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as AD 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are, however, many discrepancies between manuscripts, though the majority of the errors are clearly errors of transcription or minor in scope.

On the other extreme is the dating proposed by John A. T. Robinson. He claimed that, since he believed none of the writings in the New Testament showed clear evidence of a knowledge of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (in AD 70), which Robinson thought should certainly have appeared considering the importance of that event for Jews and Christians of that time, that every book which would come to form the New Testament was therefore written before AD 70

There is no proof that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, Paul and luke.

[Goat]

There is no proof that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, Paul and luke.

You are quite mistaken. There is plenty of evidence that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, particularly the Apostle Luke. The author of Luke/Acts says "It is important to write down the testimony of those who came before, and their stories'.

And, from internal evidence, the writer of the Gospel of Mark was not familiar with the Jerusalem area, since his knowledge of the geography was lacking.

We can not even identify who the authors were of the gospel attributed to Luke, nor Matthew Mark or Paul for that matter. John identifies himself, but WHICH John is under dispute..

Since it appears that Matthew and Luke copies Mark, and Mark did know the geography around Jerusalem, there is no reason to think any of the gospels were written by the apostles

[notachance]

I am not aware of any empirical evidence for any supernatural claim. To the best of my knowledge, every single supernatural claim ever made is completely lacking of any empirical evidence.

Please prove me wrong by filling in the blacks in this sentence: "You're wrong. I possess empirical evidence for a supernatural claim. The claim is this: _______ The empirical evidence is this: ___________". If in your reply to this post, you write anything other than the sentence above, then it is understood that you too agree that there is no empirical evidence for any supernatural claim.

Hi Sam, you wrote this:

There is no proof that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, Paul and luke.

This is an absurd nonsensical statement.

First: The burden of proof is not on me to prove that it was NOT written by the Apostles, it's on you to prove that it WAS.

Second: As goat pointed out, the evidence is CONCLUSIVE and accepted by every single scholar without a single exception, that the Gospels were NOT written by the apostles. We don't even need to demonstrate this because, again, the burden of proof is on you, but nonetheless we CAN demonstrate it.

Third: "There is no proof that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, Paul and luke". Hey, maybe in the absolute sense, there is no ultimate, irrefutable proof that the NT wasn't written by the Apostles. But you know what, if that is true, then there is also no proof that it wasn't written by Pontius Pilate. There is no proof that it wasn't written by Judas. There is no proof that it wasn't written by Roman Emperor Claudius. There is no proof that it wasn't written by Satan. There is no proof that it wasn't written by Richard Dawkins by virtue of a time machine.

Again, your statement is nonsensicality cubed. Please retract it immediately.

[McCulloch]

Oh ya, Accountable?

Because it is certain, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Right?

This is a physical not a metaphysical law. There is no evidence that the human social concept of justice extends anywhere beyond the sphere of human society.

[McCulloch]

The Gospels were written before 100 A.D.,

The Gospels were probably written before 100 CE, right.

JESUS died about 32 A.D.

According to the Gospels, Jesus died when he was about thirty years old.

Many scholars believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before 70A.D.

And many other scholars believe that the synoptic gospels were written after 70 CE.

The church was in existence before 60 A.D. as attested by Roman historians.

But until past 100 CE, the church was small and barely noticed.

Paul was writing and many of his letters were before 70 A.d.

Many scholars date some of Paul's writings before 70 CE. Paul never met Jesus, he just had a vision of him on a road. He disagreed with Jesus' own disciples on more than one occasion. Paul's writings make no reference to Jesus' own teachings or to any events in his life, except the Last Supper.

There is no proof that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, Paul and Luke.

Why should we believe Paul? Why should we believe Luke, a Greco-Syrian from Antioch in Ancient Syria?

[notachance]

I am not aware of any empirical evidence for any supernatural claim. To the best of my knowledge, every single supernatural claim ever made is completely lacking of any empirical evidence.

Please prove me wrong by filling in the blacks in this sentence: "You're wrong. I possess empirical evidence for a supernatural claim. The claim is this: _______ The empirical evidence is this: ___________". If in your reply to this post, you write anything other than the sentence above, then it is understood that you too agree that there is no empirical evidence for any supernatural claim.

The Gospels were written before 100 A.D.,

The Gospels were probably written before 100 CE, right.

Let's not forget that while we guess that something that may have looked similar to the Gospels may have been written at some stage around 100 AD, we have no way of knowing how similar or dissimilar these long gone originals were from the copies of the translations of the copies of the translations which were written around 350 AD and which are the oldest ones left today.

[samuelbb7]

There is no proof that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, Paul and luke.

You are quite mistaken. There is plenty of evidence that the New Testament was not written by the Apostles, particularly the Apostle Luke. The author of Luke/Acts says "It is important to write down the testimony of those who came before, and their stories'.

And, from internal evidence, the writer of the Gospel of Mark was not familiar with the Jerusalem area, since his knowledge of the geography was lacking.

We can not even identify who the authors were of the gospel attributed to Luke, nor Matthew Mark or Paul for that matter. John identifies himself, but WHICH John is under dispute..

Since it appears that Matthew and Luke copies Mark, and Mark did know the geography around Jerusalem, there is no reason to think any of the gospels were written by the apostles

First Luke was not an apostle he was the companion of Paul So you are correct no apostle luke wrote a gospel. It was the Doctor Luke companion of Paul who went to first hand sources and wrote what they said.

I have actually read the charge that says Mark was not familiar with the Geography of Jerusalem and the reason behind it. Because he did not say a list of towns in the right order. Now I will accept that we have copyist errors in the 3,000 some odd New Testament manuscripts and that there are some minor mistakes in our current copy of the New Testament. So towns out of order does not mean he did not know the Geography. Unless you have a more substantial charge. Secondly Mark was writing down the words of Peter. Mark was not an Apostle. So I made a mistake in not being precise. I guess that means everything I say is wrong and cannot be trusted. One of the recent Science textbooks that Texas adopted had over 100 errors if memory serves me correct. So we should throw out the whole textbook since it must all be wrong. At least that seems to be your reasoning.

In the Second Century when the Church was pulling the books of the Bible together there were a lot of fake gospels. One of the rules they established was that all the letters had to be from the first century and attested by sources as being from the Apostles or those associated with them. It is easy today and has been since prewar Germany to deny that the Gospels were written by the authors assigned to them. But no proof has been offered except speculation.