Why is the N.T. true?

[marco]

We have a group of men who wrote things. One said: "To start with there was the word and it was both with God and was God..." Matthew ambitiously but contentiously traced the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham , through to David and then finally to Elihud then Eleazar then Matthan then - phew - Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of Jesus. Did he make this up?

The NT presented today as evidence of divine interference would be dismissed as rubbish but, miraculously, it is widely accepted as true.

Why?


Is it because the description of Christ is convincing?


Is it because Christ is reported to have said lovely things?


Or is it because people just believe the many miracles attributed to Jesus?

[Zzyzx]

.
Strange it is that those who attempt to discredit science seem unaware that their entire life depends on science -- unless they do not use computers, electronic communication, automobiles, aircraft, elevators, refrigerators, food processing, modern medicine, etc.

It seems rather inconsistent (and silly) to gladly accept all that science provides but get all in a tither when scientific information contradicts god tales written by ancient people and promoted by modern preachers.

Folks sure get attached to their favorite god tales -- and insist that their tales are true (the NT, for instance) while declaring competing gods and religions as false -- when the 'evidence' for supernatural beliefs is lacking (nothing more substantial than unverified tales, testimonials, hearsay, folklore, legend, religious propaganda).

[John Human]

It is a matter of eyewitnesses or friends of the eyewitnesses REMEMBERING what Jesus said.

It would appear that nobody remembered Jesus saying (1) we are all damned for eternity because of original sin; (2) the Virgin Birth demonstrates Jesus's divinity; and (3) divine Jesus's self-sacrifice on the cross serves to atone for the sins of those who believe in his divinity, saving them from eternal damnation.

Many people prefer to believe their favorite religious tales rather than accepting what has been learned about nature over the past few centuries.

Many people also prefer to believe in scientific tales

Yes, people who ‘believe in science’ (scientific tales) use computers, cell phones, modern automobiles (a hybrid in my case), modern medicine, refrigeration, air conditioning, and some fly in airplanes.

(macroevolution, abiogenesis),

In spite of myopia and obsession in some Apologists, science includes just a bit more than origin and evolution of life – as any 101 Science course demonstrates to those who are capable of learning.

The scornful tone here doesn't seem civil or respectful. There is a point being made here about the mythical quality of two "scientific" presuppositions that have nothing to do with the benefits of modern technology.

I elaborated a bit on that in my previous post; you're welcome to respond if you'd like -- especially to my rebuttal of the Darwinian fantasy of "natural selection" as the cause of the origin of species.
_________________

[Zzyzx]

.

The scornful tone here doesn't seem civil or respectful. There is a point being made here about the mythical quality of two "scientific" presuppositions that have nothing to do with the benefits of modern technology.

I elaborated a bit on that in my previous post; you're welcome to respond if you'd like -- especially to my rebuttal of the Darwinian fantasy of "natural selection" as the cause of the origin of species.

Exactly what have 'two scientific presuppositions' to do with "Why is the NT true?"

What has "Darwinian fantasy'' to do with truth of the NT? (And does it seem a bit disrespectful?)

[John Human]

.

The scornful tone here doesn't seem civil or respectful. There is a point being made here about the mythical quality of two "scientific" presuppositions that have nothing to do with the benefits of modern technology.

I elaborated a bit on that in my previous post; you're welcome to respond if you'd like -- especially to my rebuttal of the Darwinian fantasy of "natural selection" as the cause of the origin of species.

Exactly what have 'two scientific presuppositions' to do with "Why is the NT true?"

The telling point was being made that what sometimes passes for science is just as problematic/imaginary/fanciful/preposterous as some of the whoppers in the Bible. You refused to engage with that point, so I chose to underscore it, while simultaneously presenting my argument (which Christians have so far avoided engaging with) that key doctrines of Christianity were fabricated (and perhaps with good reason) after Jesus came and went.

What has "Darwinian fantasy'' to do with truth of the NT? (And does it seem a bit disrespectful?)

See above. And Darwin isn't a member of this debating forum.

[Zzyzx]

.

Exactly what have 'two scientific presuppositions' to do with "Why is the NT true?"

The telling point was being made that what sometimes passes for science is just as problematic/imaginary/fanciful/preposterous as some of the whoppers in the Bible.

Stating an opinion that something else is untrue does NOT say anything about the NT being true or not true (the OP topic).

And Darwin isn't a member of this debating forum.

What has that to do with the OP?

[John Human]

.

Exactly what have 'two scientific presuppositions' to do with "Why is the NT true?"

The telling point was being made that what sometimes passes for science is just as problematic/imaginary/fanciful/preposterous as some of the whoppers in the Bible.

Stating an opinion that something else is untrue does NOT say anything about the NT being true or not true (the OP topic).

You seem to forget that YOU are the one who brought up science as a rebuttal of For The Kingdom's point of view. For The Kingdom pointed out the limitations of your argument, a valid point that you scornfully rejected. I elaborated on For The Kingdom's relevant point, which you choose to dismiss.

And Darwin isn't a member of this debating forum.

What has that to do with the OP?

Your question misses the point , which is that your incivil, disrespectful scorn of For The Kingdom's relevant rebuttal of YOUR bringing science into the discussion to rebut For The Kingdom's dubious take on the reliability of the Bible (which I also rebutted, without any reference to science) has no place on this forum.

[Zzyzx]

.

Exactly what have 'two scientific presuppositions' to do with "Why is the NT true?"

The telling point was being made that what sometimes passes for science is just as problematic/imaginary/fanciful/preposterous as some of the whoppers in the Bible.

Stating an opinion that something else is untrue does NOT say anything about the NT being true or not true (the OP topic).

You seem to forget that YOU are the one who brought up science as a rebuttal of For The Kingdom's point of view.

It might be prudent to review posts 187 and 193

From post 187

I have not been indoctrinated to believe in a ‘lord and savior’.

Cool. Because I have not been indoctrinated to believe in the Mother of Nature.

Many people prefer to believe their favorite religious tales rather than accepting what has been learned about nature over the past few centuries.

Some even believe they will do well after they die (and that others will not) based on believing tales told by ancient religion promoters and/or modern preachers.

From post 193

Many people prefer to believe their favorite religious tales rather than accepting what has been learned about nature over the past few centuries.

Many people also prefer to believe in scientific tales (macroevolution, abiogenesis), rather than accepting religions based on Supreme Beings and Creators that you have to answer to if you've done wrong.

Some even believe they will do well after they die (and that others will not) based on believing tales told by ancient religion promoters and/or modern preachers.

Some even believe that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk, which is based on believing in tales told by men in white lab coats and such.

Where, exactly, and by whom was science brought into the discussion?

For The Kingdom pointed out the limitations of your argument, a valid point that you scornfully rejected. I elaborated on For The Kingdom's relevant point, which you choose to dismiss.

Kindly quote verbatim my ‘scornful rejection’ with URL.
Also kindly quote the ‘limitations on [my] argument’ that were pointed out.

And Darwin isn't a member of this debating forum.

What has that to do with the OP?

Your question misses the point ,

Correction: My point IS that bringing up Darwin has nothing to do with the OP (just as bringing up origin of life or of the universe has nothing to do with whether or not the NT is true).

which is that your incivil, disrespectful scorn of For The Kingdom's relevant rebuttal of YOUR bringing science into the discussion to rebut For The Kingdom's dubious take on the reliability of the Bible

Accusations of incivility and disrespect do not justify vigilante or corrective action by members. If valid, such things are reported to the Moderating / Administration team.

has no place on this forum.

Are you a new Administrator?



To reiterate my point: One does not prove the NT true by casting doubt upon science.

[John Human]

From post 189

Many people prefer to believe their favorite religious tales rather than accepting what has been learned about nature over the past few centuries.

Here is where Zzyzx brought science into the discussion.

Where, exactly, and by whom was science brought into the discussion?

See above.

For The Kingdom pointed out the limitations of your argument, a valid point that you scornfully rejected. I elaborated on For The Kingdom's relevant point, which you choose to dismiss.

Kindly quote verbatim my ‘scornful rejection’ with URL.

In response to For The Kingdom's listing of macroevolution and angiogenesis as examples of "scientific" mythology, you scornfully (and perhaps disingenuously) wrote in post 196: "In spite of myopia and obsession among some Apologists, science includes just a bit more than evolution and origin of life -- as any 101 science course demonstrates to those who are capable of learning."

To reiterate my point: One does not prove the NT true by casting doubt upon science.

I have no problem with that statement, but it doesn't seem relevant to anything that For The Kingdom actually said. If you disagree, please provide the relevant quotation from For The Kingdom.

With that said, I am inclined to strongly disagree with For The Kingdom's general position. I think his evaluation of the gospels as history is deeply flawed. However, at the end of the day I might not be able to prove that to an impartial observer.
_________________

[Zzyzx]

.

In response to For The Kingdom's listing of macroevolution and angiogenesis as examples of "scientific" mythology, you scornfully (and perhaps disingenuously) wrote in post 196: "In spite of myopia and obsession among some Apologists, science includes just a bit more than evolution and origin of life -- as any 101 science course demonstrates to those who are capable of learning�

That was a bit harsh. Had it been reported rather than handled vigilante fashion, one of the other moderators might have agreed and called it to my attention.

From post 189

Many people prefer to believe their favorite religious tales rather than accepting what has been learned about nature over the past few centuries.

Here is where Zzyzx brought science into the discussion.

It would be very foolish to claim that only scientists learned about nature over the past few centuries, wouldn’t it? What about common people, farmers, mariners, architects, industrialists, miners, pilots, etc?

NOW, if personal grievances have been aired sufficiently, let’s return the thread to the OP

The NT presented today as evidence of divine interference would be dismissed as rubbish but, miraculously, it is widely accepted as true.

Why?

Is it because the description of Christ is convincing?

Is it because Christ is reported to have said lovely things?

Or is it because people just believe the many miracles attributed to Jesus?

[John Human]

NOW, if personal grievances have been aired sufficiently, let’s return the thread to the OP

The NT presented today as evidence of divine interference would be dismissed as rubbish but, miraculously, it is widely accepted as true.

Why?

Is it because the description of Christ is convincing?

Is it because Christ is reported to have said lovely things?

Or is it because people just believe the many miracles attributed to Jesus?

I would suggest the word "intervention" instead of "interference." Regarding what people believe in general, I think that the cultivation of belief, or the ability of respected authority figures to inculcate specific beliefs in receptive underlings (especially children) is a fact of human nature that can be explained in terms of an essentially benevolent overarching natural order of things, although of course this element of human nature can be exploited and cruelly perverted.

Regarding modern-day fundamentalist Christianity in the USA, it is my understanding that many such congregations have demon-controlled "zombie cores" of weak-willed, well-meaning parishoners whose religious thoughts are carefully controlled and reinforced by the demon underlings (or created clones) of a minister's dominant demon.
_________________