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?

[samuelbb7]

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.

First I am not answering the first part on purpose. I am not going to get side tracked.

History and tradition and scholars even today have said the Apostles wrote the gospels. Yes many scholars today do not agree. But not all disagree. Those of the Historical Criticism school do not accept that the letters were written by the apostles alone but in fact were added to. See wikipedia Jesus Seminar. However they were never in complete agreement about any one part. Which is why they had to vote using beads. Scholars who do not accept the Historical Criticism (see wikipedia) still show evidence that the gospels were written in the time of JESUS. Which Historical critics partially agree but add they were changed latter. Even though no evidence has been provided for this assertion.

Now since even critical scholars accept that he New Testament has parts written early your statement about no proof does not ring true. But on the other hand I have to admit there is not total proof for every word. Archeology has been useful in showing the truth of the Gospels.

For instance higher critics originally claimed Pilate was a imaginary character until they found a foundation stone with his name on it showing that he helped build a city in Israel.

So no I will not retract my statement. Will you retract your statement that every single scholar says they are not by the auhtors listed?

[samuelbb7]

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?

Okay if you wish to use the Scholary C. E. for Common Era I a fine with that.

JESUS died according to the Gospels at about 33 years of age. He was born around 4 BCE. The dates are not exact and can be a few years off.

Most scholars give a range. Usually from about 50 to 70 CE. The problem is that much of this is speculation. We know writers were already referring to the synaptic gospels around 80 CE and other earlier sources were quoting from them. But the exact date cannot be nailed down with absolute certainty.

True the Church was small before 100 CE compared to latter. But it was also outlawed persecuted and people were trying to kill those who were Christians during some of that time. Official Persecution was sporadic but that it existed at all when people were killing them is to me a miracle.

Now you ask a very good and important question. Why should we believe Paul and Luke. If you decide they were liars you have no reason to believe them. That is a valid decision and objection. I find many atheists miss this point. Also I find many christians who do not understand that this is a valid unavoidable dilemma for Christians.

I looked at the whole Bible and decided on my understanding that I can trust them. There is evidence for some of what they say. But I cannot prove they are telling the truth. So I take the evidence and say I believe they are telling the truth. But even then some days I have doubts. After all it seems to good to be true.

[samuelbb7]

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.[/quote]

Actually we do. But instead of listening to me Try Wikipedia the New Testament since it gives both sides of the discussion. See Early Manuscripts.

But your point is valid some scholars do teach the books were changed after their original writing. But remember also that the scholars in the third century had manuscripts that have since been lost. Manuscripts that were from the first and second century. You see people made lots of copies and passed them around but due to wear and tear we no longer have them. But the scholars then did.

[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.

Actually we do. But instead of listening to me Try Wikipedia the New Testament since it gives both sides of the discussion. See Early Manuscripts.

Sam, Sam, Sam. Try to focus, ok? Don't try to convince people of your case by making vague references to wikipedia. This is how it works:

The only way to ascertain the accuracy of a copy of a manuscript is to hold in your hand both the copy and the original, and COMPARE THEM.

We don't have the originals. We only have the copies from 300 years later. We have no way of knowing how much was changed or lost in over the centuries of translations, editing, copying, etc.

And besides, what is your broader point as it related to my OP, that I should be a Christian because the anonymous scribes that wrote the Bible in the 4th century maybe didn't change it too much from the originals that were written by iron age barbarians that had never even met Jesus?

[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

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.

Let's see you provide any evidence what so ever that the Synoptic Gospels are actually written by the people to whom they are attributed. I will accept that the GOJ was written by a John, but let's see some evidence that is beyond speculation of WHICH John wrote it.

From the internal evidence, it appears that NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written before 35+ years after date given for the Crucifixion... and none of them were eye witnesses. How can you say they were written by the Apostles?

[notachance]

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.

Sam, I will send you $1000 by paypal if you give me the name of a respectable tenured historian associated with a major university who agrees with your outlandish claim that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles.

They just were not. Please stop making things up.

[McCulloch]

Sam, I will send you $1000 by paypal if you give me the name of a respectable tenured historian associated with a major university who agrees with your outlandish claim that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles.

They just were not. Please stop making things up.

Who gets to define respectable and major university? I am certain that tenured professors of history at Bob Jones University or any one of the other universities accredited by the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries; Liberty University or other universities accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools would agree with Sam.

The only way to ascertain the accuracy of a copy of a manuscript is to hold in your hand both the copy and the original, and COMPARE THEM.

Textual criticism is a bit more complex than that. With enough different copies of a manuscript, with different histories, scholars can assess the probable original text.

[notachance]

Sam, I will send you $1000 by paypal if you give me the name of a respectable tenured historian associated with a major university who agrees with your outlandish claim that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles.

They just were not. Please stop making things up.

Who gets to define respectable and major university? I am certain that tenured professors of history at Bob Jones University or any one of the other universities accredited by the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries; Liberty University or other universities accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools would agree with Sam.

The only way to ascertain the accuracy of a copy of a manuscript is to hold in your hand both the copy and the original, and COMPARE THEM.

Textual criticism is a bit more complex than that. With enough different copies of a manuscript, with different histories, scholars can assess the probable original text.

Agreed, I was simplifying things to help him along.

And you're also right in your point about what constitutes a reputable university.

I'll define that as "Ivy League". I know it's not a perfect definition, but I think it will do for the purpose.

Nonetheless, I actually doubt there are many professors of history, even at Bob Jones University, that claim that the Gospels were written by the actual apostles. I could be wrong, but I earnestly doubt that even they could be so stupid. I am not sure, though.

[Question Everything]

Nonetheless, I actually doubt there are many professors of history, even at Bob Jones University, that claim that the Gospels were written by the actual apostles. I could be wrong, but I earnestly doubt that even they could be so stupid. I am not sure, though.

This is from:

Preachers who are not Believers

Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola

Center for Cognitive Studies*
Tufts University, Medford MA 02155

March 15, 2010

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/

Wes was raised Baptist in the South and attended a liberal Christian college and seminary before moving west. Although he rejected his familys conservative views as a young adult, he was positively involved in the life of the church in his youth.

I felt very surrounded by people who were concerned about me. I was very comfortable in that environment. And I suppose Ive always been, perhaps, most comfortable in a church environment. I flourished there. I was the one that answered all the questions. I cared about all this kind of stuff. Bible trivia. It made me think I knew the Bible.

From Literal to Liberal

Once in college, he was surprised by what he learned.

I went to college thinking Adam and Eve were real people. And I can remember really wrestling with that when my Old Testament professor was pointing out the obvious myths and how they came to be. And I kind of joked at the time that I prayed my way all the way to atheism. Because in the early days, it was wrestling with God; praying to God.

Wes decided to go on to seminary because the credits he would receive there could be applied either to PhD studies in the philosophy of religion or to a career in the clergy. Looking back on it, he realizes that he also felt limited in his choices.

If you finish your junior year, if youre going to declare a new major, now youre setting yourself back. And Ill be the first to admit that my upbringing placed limitations on what I thought was possible for me, which is something Ive sworn to not do with my son. Not that I believe in such things, but it was almost predestined that I would be a minister because of my role as a kid in church, my parents role. Id love to be a scientist. I think that would be wonderful.

When in seminary, he noticed the differing reactions that his classmates had to the scholarly information they were receiving about biblical history.

I would guess if there were 30 people in the archeology class, there would be 25% of them who would become very defensive and argumentative with the professor. And probably only one or two of the 30 would be open to it. The rest would just not say much.

[Question Everything]

Nonetheless, I actually doubt there are many professors of history, even at Bob Jones University, that claim that the Gospels were written by the actual apostles. I could be wrong, but I earnestly doubt that even they could be so stupid. I am not sure, though.

This is from:

Preachers who are not Believers

Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola

Center for Cognitive Studies

Tufts University, Medford MA 02155

March 15, 2010

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/

Wes was raised Baptist in the South and attended a liberal Christian college and seminary before moving west. Although he rejected his familys conservative views as a young adult, he was positively involved in the life of the church in his youth.

I felt very surrounded by people who were concerned about me. I was very comfortable in that environment. And I suppose Ive always been, perhaps, most comfortable in a church environment. I flourished there. I was the one that answered all the questions. I cared about all this kind of stuff. Bible trivia. It made me think I knew the Bible.

From Literal to Liberal

Once in college, he was surprised by what he learned.

I went to college thinking Adam and Eve were real people. And I can remember really wrestling with that when my Old Testament professor was pointing out the obvious myths and how they came to be. And I kind of joked at the time that I prayed my way all the way to atheism. Because in the early days, it was wrestling with God; praying to God.

Wes decided to go on to seminary because the credits he would receive there could be applied either to PhD studies in the philosophy of religion or to a career in the clergy. Looking back on it, he realizes that he also felt limited in his choices.

If you finish your junior year, if youre going to declare a new major, now youre setting yourself back. And Ill be the first to admit that my upbringing placed limitations on what I thought was possible for me, which is something Ive sworn to not do with my son. Not that I believe in such things, but it was almost predestined that I would be a minister because of my role as a kid in church, my parents role. Id love to be a scientist. I think that would be wonderful.

When in seminary, he noticed the differing reactions that his classmates had to the scholarly information they were receiving about biblical history.

I would guess if there were 30 people in the archeology class, there would be 25% of them who would become very defensive and argumentative with the professor. And probably only one or two of the 30 would be open to it. The rest would just not say much.