Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

[rikuoamero]

A thought has occurred to me and it's something that I just can't ignore.
Instead of believing in Jesus, or having faith in Jesus, what seems to me to be far more likely the truth is that Christians are believing in, or having faith, in the authors of the documents of the New Testament.
Is this really the case? What I see happening is that Christians believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, and will cite for example Gospel Matthew or Luke.
Translated, modern Christians believe the anonymous authors of Gospel Luke and Matthew, and assume, though it is not stated in the text, that the authors of Matthew/Luke got their knowledge of a virgin birth from Mary herself.

So question for discussion
Do Christians (tend to) have a faith in the authors of the books of the New Testament, one that strengthens belief in the claims in the texts beyond what ordinary empirical or historical investigations would claim are justified?

[Divine Insight]

I've been saying this for decades. It's impossible to place our faith in Jesus since we have absolutely nothing from Jesus. No writings, or anything.

We don't have writings from King Tut, either. I guess he was never Pharaoh. SMH.

What kind of nonsense is this?

Do you need to place your faith in King Tut to believe that he might have existed?

Nope. In fact, everything you think you know about King Tut no doubt came from other sources. Unless, we actually have something that was supposedly written by King Tut.

All that exists are the hearsay rumors of the New Testament. Period.

All that exists are writings from either the apostles, or friends of the apostles. Period.

That's what I said. All we have are unreliable hearsay rumors. We can't even be sure that those writings came from the people they claim to have been from.

And there is absolutely no independent historical writings to back them up. Not even independent rumors. Nothing at all.

Therefore all we can possibly do is place our faith in the authors of those rumors. That's it. Period.

Or we can apply the historical method to it and see if it stands up to scrutiny..which in this case, it does.

No it absolutely does not stand up to historical scrutiny.

The Gospel rumors claim that Jesus was known far and wide and that people from far off nations were coming to be healed by him. But there is absolutely no historical writings from any of those nations that even remotely mention even rumors of Jesus.

So no, it doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.

The Gospel rumors claim that many saints rose from their graves and went into the Holy City specifically to show themselves to the people there. But there is absolutely no independent historical record of anyone having seen these saints.

So again, it doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.

The Gospel rumors have God speaking from the clouds on several occasions proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. There is absolutely no independent historical rumors of any God proclaiming Jesus to be his son,. The only place we here these outrageous claims is in the Gospel rumors.

So again, it doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny.

Paul claimed that some 500 people saw the risen Christ. Yet there is no independent record of any rumors of anyone having seen the risen Christ outside of the Gospels rumors.

So how often is this going to happen before you finally confess that these fables don't stand up to historical scrutiny?

It's actually impossible to place our faith in Jesus

Yet, there are over a billion Christians in the world who place their faith in Jesus. Seems very possible to me.

And each and every one of them has created their own personal Jesus in their own imagination. And they most likely won't even agree with you on what Jesus should be like.

So that's hardly impressive. No group of people seem to disagree about Jesus more so than Christians themselves. They all create a Jesus that they personally approve of. And then they argue with other Christians about why they do not approve of theirs.

Trust me. When I was a Christian it was other Christians who had extremely different ideas of what Jesus should be like. Non-Christians really don't bother because they have no reason to create a Jesus they need to defend as the only one they approve of.

when all we have is hearsay rumors that have been told about the man.

Yet, virtually all scholars on both sides (the right and the left) accept the historicity of Jesus.

The fact that some guy named Jesus may have actually lived, argued with the religious leaders of his community, and was crucified for blaspheme hardly supports that the Gospels rumors can be trusted to reveal what that Jesus might have been preaching.

I have no problem with the idea that some man name Jesus lived, argued with the Pharisees, and was crucified for his religious insubordination. That hardly makes him the son of God.

We can't even know if the quotes attributed to Jesus were ever spoken by Jesus.

How do we know any quotes attributed to any person of antiquity?

We don't. But then we don't go around proclaiming to have "Faith" that those people actually said those precise words either. So your point is misguided.

Christians are taught (at least some of us most certainly were) that the Gospels themselves were the inspired word of God.

Facts. Christians are "taught" certain things that you don't necessarily agree with. But then again, evolutionists are "taught" certain things that I don't necessarily agree with.

No robbery with fair exchange.

Evolution provides its own evidence. You don't need to believe anyone to understand that evolution is true. And if you think that you can just dismiss evolution because you don't "feel" like believing it, then you apparently can't tell the difference between credible evidence and hearsay gossip.

In other words, God supposedly guided and told the authors of the Gospels what to write.

Something like that.

But you know that can't be true because there are too many disagreeing sects and demoninations of this religion. So you can know with absolute certainty that there is no God who is guiding these scriptures.

So if you feel for that one, give me a call, I have some bridges for sale.

And therefore the Gospels are not supposed to be just hearsay rumors, but rather they are supposed to be the inspired, guided, and protected, "Word of God".

This is the idea that Christians are indoctrinated with.

There is a certain stigma that the word "indoctrinated" comes with...and that stigma is that believers are brainwashed, deluded, deceived, etc.

Which is fine. But then again, in science classrooms all across the world, students are also being "indoctrinated". They are being brainwashed, deluded, deceived and taught to believe certain concepts like evolution and abiogenesis.

Again. No robbery with fair exchange.

If that's your best argument for this religion you have no argument.

Science teaches the EVIDENCE for evolution. You can't even check it out yourself if you don't "believe it". Comparing this with the teachings of religious folklore only shows that you don't understand the difference.

Also, if you really want to stick with this argument you should perhaps be told that this argument basically says that "Anything Goes".

In other words, you can't say a single solitary word against Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religion. Because they are all believing in their religions simply because they feel like it, and for no other reason.

And if you want to backtrack and start claiming that you have "evidence" to believe in Christianity, then you just shot yourself in your own foot on this argument.

This is why Christendom is anxious to indoctrinate young children because it requires a someone naive attitude to accept this without question. Children are extremely vulnerable to accepting theological claims that come from religious authorities and especially from their own parents.

^Textbook genetic fallacy.

Sorry, but Evangelists have already openly confessed to this one.

But anyone rational skeptical adult hearing these theological claims isn't likely to buy into such obvious nonsense.

Right, because only the unbelievers are the rational, logical thinkers..right?

The proof is in the pudding. What else can I say?

But yes, you are absolutely right. It's impossible to place our faith in Jesus since we have nothing at all that came directly from him.

"So, we should only place our faith in someone if we have something directly coming from that someone."

Non sequitur.

I never said that you should place your faith in anyone other than yourself. But if you are going to place your faith in someone, then yes, you should at least meet them in person and make sure they are who they say they are. Otherwise you're just following hearsay rumors that could be totally false.

Why would you want to do that?

All anyone can do is place their faith in hearsay rumors about Jesus.

What if we don't believe it to be hearsay rumors?

See above. It can't be any guided or protected word of God. That's already been demonstrated. So if you don't believe that it's hearsay rumors, you should rethink that assessment.

By the way the latter cannot possibly be true. If there were a God who was inspiring, guiding and PROTECTING his earthly doctrines he would have never permitted so many false offshoots being created. (i.e. the continuation of Judaism, Islam, and even false denominations of Christianity).

How do you know what God would do??

Well, duh?

If he didn't inspire, guide, or protect the Gospel writings, then there's no reason to think they hold any truth. Especially since they clearly fail ever test for historical scrutiny.

And we know with certainty that all the Christian demoninations cannot simultaneously be true as many of them rebuke each other. JW's, for example, rebuke the Catholic Church as the "Whore of Babylon".

Irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant at all.

If there is a God (or a Holy Spirit) who is inspiring and protecting the words of Jesus, then there's no room for disagreeing demoninations and texts. But that's all Christianity has ever had to offer.

So it's extremely relevant.

History prove that the Gospels cannot be the inspired, guided, or protected word of any God. You don't need to even try to guess what a God might do. All you need to know is that no God did this for these Gospel rumors.

That's all you need to know.

You could be a secularist and there could be no God at all and this would still be true. So it really doesn't even matter whether a God exists or not. It still cannot be true that any God inspired, guided, or protected these scriptures because these scriptures have clearly not been protected, or guided.

Whether a God exists or not is irrelevant to that fact.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 30 by bjs]

I really don't care overly much. You're trying to tell the folks your faith is in Jesus while admitting it's the history of the claims and authorship doing the lifting. Once again, this is the point of Riku's thread. Have it your way. I'm only pointing out there's nothing like Jesus to actually believe IN, just the stories themselves. I'll bow out on account of not actually giving a fiddler's fart why you think any of this is true. My bad for chiming in.

[Tcg]

In a sense, yes. The New Testament, like Jesus himself, speaks with a certain authority.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Are you suggesting that Jesus speaks outside of the NT? If so, what are the other sources you accept as being from the character in the NT referred to as Jesus? If these sources are indeed authoritative, why were they rejected as part of the cannon?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

The Gospel rumors claim that Jesus was known far and wide and that people from far off nations were coming to be healed by him. But there is absolutely no historical writings from any of those nations that even remotely mention even rumors of Jesus.

Exactly. Outside the Old Testament, the archaeological record is SILENT when it comes to say, the destruction of the Egyptian food supply during Mose's ten plagues. No nation around Egypt has any record whatsoever, whether in terms of writings or a sudden flood of Egyptian currency/trade goods at a very specific time, to indicate there was an "exodus" (pun intended) of panicked Egyptian traders looking to buy food, now that God supposedly wiped out all their food.

We don't. But then we don't go around proclaiming to have "Faith" that those people actually said those precise words either. So your point is misguided.

Again, exactly. No-one goes around demanding that Abraham Lincoln really DID say the Gettysburg Address, that it was recorded precisely word for word and that to not believe this means something bad will happen to you.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by bjs]

You are mistaken. I believe the scriptures to be true because I believe in God. The documents inform my faith, they don’t create it.

The historical authorship of the gospels matters when we continue the discussion while setting aside faith.

So let's say you and I live in a world where not one word of what is currently in the Bible was written down.

What is the impetus for you, in that world, to believe the claims made about God and Jesus?

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 14 by Don McIntosh]

Your last sentence is enough rebuttal to your own rebuttal for me to leave it alone.

There are no means to empirically verify the Gospel miracle claims. Enough said.

True, but there are also no means to empirically verify the claim that only empirically verifiable claims are worthy of belief.

Nor are there means, as far as anyone can tell, to empirically verify the axioms of probability, the reliability of our own senses, or the assumptions of the scientific method.

You want to believe Craig or Habermas, who in turn have no choice but to believe in these ancient authors, so be it. People believe in all kinds of things. You don't however get to say these magical events are historically or empirically justified without means to demonstrate it.

Well it's not as if the biblical writings were written in a vacuum. Like all historical accounts, the Gospels are the products of a large web of historicity involving personalities (Pilate, Herod, Peter, Paul) and circumstances (the Pharisee/Sadducee conflict, Jewish resentment of Rome, Passover in Jerusalem, etc.) that are often independently confirmed by various sources. The problem with total skepticism of all this is that it leaves no alternative explanation for the origin of the church, in that the church won converts in Jerusalem (the very site where Christ was crucified) on the strength of preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

I think such skepticism can be justified only if all the earliest Christians were completely credulous. But the Gospels themselves frequently describe the disciples as faithless and "slow of heart to believe." If the first believers were entirely given to dupery there would be no need, and no basis, for the accounts of "doubting Thomas" or the conversion of Saul.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by Don McIntosh]

Nor are there means, as far as anyone can tell, to empirically verify the axioms of probability, the reliability of our own senses, or the assumptions of the scientific method.

While this is true in a God-spawned universe, if not, we would have evolved to perceive efficiently and effectively.
So, if you choose a God-universe, you can never be sure you are right.
If not, you can.

One essentially proves itself wrong via logic.
Hmmm...
Am I missing something?

[PinSeeker]

Hmm. I see the word spirit is given a capital letter in the latter case but not in the former. Is this intentional, or a typo?

Good catch. But I was pretty sure you would catch that. Yes, quite intentional. But not really relevant to the topic at hand.

...wouldn't this be an equivocation fallacy on your part, in that you move between two different meanings behind the word spirit, without making yourself clear?

Nope. Never intended it to be a 1:1 comparison. And I had no intention to deceive you, or trip you up, or get anything past you without you noticing, or anything of the sort. But it's the same regarding the writers, which is what we're talking about.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 36 by Don McIntosh]

Nor are there means, as far as anyone can tell, to empirically verify the axioms of probability, the reliability of our own senses, or the assumptions of the scientific method.

While this is true in a God-spawned universe, if not, we would have evolved to perceive efficiently and effectively.
So, if you choose a God-universe, you can never be sure you are right.
If not, you can.

One essentially proves itself wrong via logic.
Hmmm...
Am I missing something?

Ohhhhhhhh, yeah. Quite a few things actually. But only God Himself can reveal those things to you. No mere man (or woman, of course) can.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by PinSeeker]

So, if I read between your one-liner, you agree that a God-spawned universe could result in illusion, while an evolved one, only reality.
So basically, with this logical short-cut we have once again demonstrated the fallacy of a creator.
Thanks to Mcintosh, without your insight, I doubt I would have thought about that.

Now to return to topic.