Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #1

Post by 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?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #41

Post by PinSeeker »

Willum wrote: 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.
"Still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
Simon and Garfunkel
"The Boxer"
1968


Willum wrote: Now to return to topic.
No need. I already said what needed to be said. See posts 9, 26, and 38, if you haven't already. Just post 9 should be sufficient. But I know even all three won't be for you. But like I said, there's no need for us to continue.

Grace and peace to you.

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #42

Post by Don McIntosh »

Willum wrote: While this is true in a God-spawned universe, if not, we would have evolved to perceive efficiently and effectively.
I don't agree with that, but for argument's sake let's say I do. There still doesn't appear any way to empirically verify the proposition, "We would have evolved to perceive efficiently and effectively."

Besides, the biological world is loaded with creatures who couldn't begin to follow this conversation, let alone design an experiment to empirically verify the assumptions of the scientific method. LOL

So, if you choose a God-universe, you can never be sure you are right.
If not, you can.
That holds if empirical verification is the only reliable means of acquiring knowledge. But that's just the question at hand, isn't it?

Interesting line of thought though...even if it is a non sequitur. :-)

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Post #43

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
rikuoamero wrote:
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?

I am not speaking for anyone else. But my faith is not in those who bore witness to Christ. Such ones point TO Christ, but they are not Christ. My faith is in the person they bore witness TO: Christ Jaheshua.


I do not believe every single word written in the bible, OT or NT, simply because it is written. Men/scribes make mistakes, even the apostles, including translation errors. I also know Paul made mistakes at first (at least one that I know of: the command to shun a sinner), until he later learned the truth from Christ, and instead taught people to stop judging one another.


I depend upon (and look to) Christ to teach or confirm or reveal to me what is true, written or otherwise. My understanding is that He did say the things He is written to have said, even if there are a couple scribal/translation errors (such as translating 3 different words "sheol/hades, gehenna, and tartarus' - all into the one word, hell. This error is made worse by false teachers claiming that 'hell' is a place of eternal torment and suffering, fire and brimstone, etc).






Peace to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #44

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Divine Insight wrote:
What kind of nonsense is this?

Do you need to place your faith in King Tut to believe that he might have existed?
Then I misunderstood your point. I'm not sure that question even makes sense. "Do you need to place your faith in King Tut to believe that he might have existed".

No sense whatsoever.
Divine Insight wrote: Nope. In fact, everything you think you know about King Tut no doubt came from other sources.
Right, and everything we think we know about Jesus no doubt came from other sources.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
We have what we (believers) believe to be good evidence. You think otherwise. I'd like you to dispute the evidence...or do I need to make a thread about the historical evidence for Jesus?
Divine Insight wrote: And there is absolutely no independent historical writings to back them up.
The Gospels, and Paul's letters...all independent.

Divine Insight wrote:
No it absolutely does not stand up to historical scrutiny.
Then I challenge you to a debate on the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection. Debate me like you have some integrity and some common sense, and I won't have to forfeit.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Most of the people were illiterate. So expecting people who are illiterate to be able to write things down..kind of an unreasonable expectation, don't you think?
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Accept the debate challenge and bring this to the debate.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Ok, so hypothetically speaking, if we were to find 10 independent, nonBiblical accounts of this..would you become a Christian?
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Um, the "500 people seeing Christ" thing comes from 1 Corinthians, and as we all know, 1 Corinthians is not part of the Gospels...and that is where the 500 people are mentioned, which is an external Gospel source...something that you claim we don't have.
Divine Insight wrote: So how often is this going to happen before you finally confess that these fables don't stand up to historical scrutiny?
When you give me something to work with, I'll work.
Divine Insight wrote: And each and every one of them has created their own personal Jesus in their own imagination.
Or maybe it is your imagination that Jesus isn't the risen Messiah, when in fact, he actually is.
Divine Insight wrote: And they most likely won't even agree with you on what Jesus should be like.
Then I will deal with them how I deal with them.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I don't know anyone of whom I agree with 100% about any and every thing. Do you?
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
And that is just fine with us Christians.
Divine Insight wrote:
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.
But it is a start..
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
It does if it was prophesized and has since come to past.
Divine Insight wrote:
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.
Probably because those people aren't worthy of having "Faith" in.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I dismiss it because the presented evidence isn't strong enough for me to dump all of my eggs into the basket...which coincides with the same reason as to why you aren't on the Christian bandwagon.
Divine Insight wrote:
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, because many people/groups disagree about the particulars of Christianity, therefore, Christianity is false.

Non sequitur.
Divine Insight wrote: 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".
I did, and I am not convinced.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I can say a lot about them. They've been duped, too.
Divine Insight wrote:
Sorry, but Evangelists have already openly confessed to this one.
Then they are committing the genetic fallacy, too. Here is why it is fallacious;.even if we are to grant that Christian children are only Christian because they were "indoctrinated" at a young age...even if that is true, that says NOTHING about whether Christianity is true, or false.

You are just merely stating how the children came to believe in the religion...that says absolutely nothing about whether the belief is true, or false.

If, hypothetically speaking, Christianity is true...then the children are being indoctrinated with a belief that is true....which sheds a completely different light on things, doesn't it?
Divine Insight wrote:
The proof is in the pudding. What else can I say?
LOL.
Divine Insight wrote:
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?
Oh ok. Well, that throws the entire genre of history out of the window.
Divine Insight wrote:
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.
I think you, sir, should rethink your assessment.

Divine Insight wrote: 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.
"If". We are saying he did.
Divine Insight wrote:
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.
Oh, so two people can't read the same thing and have two different interpretations about what they are reading? Oh, that's never happened before, right? That doesn't happen at all, huh?
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I admire your confidence.
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
The scriptures have been carefully preserved and protected as sacred, holy books..handed down to us by men who were inspired by the living God.

Inigo Montoya
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #45

Post by Inigo Montoya »

[Replying to post 42 by Don McIntosh]




So your counter seems to focus on empiricism not necessarily being the sole or most reliable pathway to acquiring knowledge. I'll entertain it while pointing out it's a bit of a distraction. So let me ask you bluntly. When it comes to claims made thousands of years ago citing what may as well be magic, what, besides empiricism, are you going to make use of in the quest to demonstrate these things occurred?

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #46

Post by Don McIntosh »

Inigo Montoya wrote: [Replying to post 42 by Don McIntosh]

So your counter seems to focus on empiricism not necessarily being the sole or most reliable pathway to acquiring knowledge. I'll entertain it while pointing out it's a bit of a distraction. So let me ask you bluntly. When it comes to claims made thousands of years ago citing what may as well be magic, what, besides empiricism, are you going to make use of in the quest to demonstrate these things occurred?
That's a fair question. Clearly empirical verification of historical events is out of the question, because the events have already happened and for us to verify them would require us to be present. But that doesn't leave out investigation of evidence altogether. We can still make rational, coherent, parsimonious reconstructions of history using the evidence available: primary sources (the Gospels, the letters of Paul and Peter), secondary sources (early church fathers, apologists and historians), and various corroborating archaeological findings.

The quality, quantity and early composition of the Gospels and Paul especially leaves us with near-uniform testimony to the resurrection by a large community of believers within a few decades of the events – and that's with a strong oral tradition and likely some written sources floating around before their putting pen to papyrus, so to speak. Recall also that many of these believers, some within walking distance of Jesus' tomb, paid a heavy price for maintaining that he had risen from the dead. Richard Swinburne for one has presented a sophisticated inductive argument for the resurrection using facts like these and Bayesian confirmation theory. I agree with him that testimony of credible witnesses (like the earliest disciples) ought to be believed in the absence of prevailing counter-evidence.

So in short I'm all for empiricism, even if I recognize certain limits to its usefulness apart from deduction and other forms of inference (not to mention our willingness to believe things that ring true).

As to magic: I suppose in principle that could explain many of the healing miracles and signs like turning water into wine, but the resurrection seems like it's in a class by itself. I know Justin Martyr went to some lengths to answer that objection back in the second century, but I can't remember how his argument went or how relevant it would be today. Maybe I can get back to you on that one.

Inigo Montoya
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #47

Post by Inigo Montoya »

[Replying to post 46 by Don McIntosh]

Welcome to the forum, by the way. A sharp and articulate wit is always a delight in this long standing feud.
I agree with him that testimony of credible witnesses (like the earliest disciples) ought to be believed in the absence of prevailing counter-evidence.
 

I find this to be the heart of the matter. And right away it troubles me. I firstly can't account for how we ascribe credibility to the ghosts of characters in any narrative of dubious authorship. More importantly, though, is this idea we ought to just believe fantastical claims -- extremely ancient ones, at that -- because some don't see the natural order of things as whopping evidence to the contrary. Specifically, what biology tells us about what happens to dead things. Now if the idea is to class it as supernatural, or the handiwork of a god, it's a different kettle of fish. But to cite a lack of evidence contrary to reanimated corpses ascending into space concerns me. The weight of all human history ought to make up that category.

What am I missing?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #48

Post by Divine Insight »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: The Gospels, and Paul's letters...all independent.
Surely you're joking?

A handful of basically 5 people Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul who are basically spreading rumors hardly amounts to independent historical evidence.

There is no credible independent evidence to back up these obviously bias authors who were clearly spreading the same hearsay rumors, each one adding their own absurd twists. They aren't even consistent with each other.

In fact, when you stop and think about it, all of Christianity is basically founded on the hearsay Gossip of 5 men. Two of whom clearly repeated the originator. Matthew and Luke basically just regurgitated the rumors started by Mark adding their own inconsistencies into the mix.

So really when it comes down to it all of Christianity is basically founded on the rumors of just three men. Mark, Paul, and John. That's not a very impressive foundation for an entire religion.

There is absolutely no credible independent evidence for any of these rumors. In fact, the evidence against them is overwhelming.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Then I challenge you to a debate on the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection. Debate me like you have some integrity and some common sense, and I won't have to forfeit.
There is absolutely no credible historical evidence that anyone rose from the dead. We don't even have any credible historical evidence that Jesus was crucified and seen again after his crucifixion. Even that is totally unknown. All we have are rumors that cannot be verified. And even if a man was crucified and seen alive (with his wounds in tact as the Gospel rumors claim about Jesus) that would not even remotely imply that he had actually died. To the contrary, the only sane rational conclusion would be to assume that he had survived the crucifixion which would be very possible.

So to even speak of a "resurrection" as being "historical" is utter nonsense.

If you want to debate that you lose already.

There's absolutely no way that you can present any credible historical evidence that anyone had risen from the dead. At best all you could argue for is that someone was believed to had died only to discover later that they had survived the ordeal.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Most of the people were illiterate. So expecting people who are illiterate to be able to write things down..kind of an unreasonable expectation, don't you think?
No not at all. In fact, this is an extremely weak argument on your behalf. Claiming that most people were illiterate doesn't help at all. Because the people who were literate would have heard the rumors being passed around by the illiterate people and would have at least reported that these rumors were being passed around. There isn't even any historical evidence for that.

So no, this doesn't help the religion at all.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Accept the debate challenge and bring this to the debate.
You have independent historical evidence of people seeing saints that had risen from their graves?

If you have such evidence no need to debate with me about it, just present it to the world and you'll instantly become world famous. It wouldn't even matter if I didn't exist at all.

Clearly you have no such evidence. So what's to debate?

I don't have time to debate people who have nothing but empty hot air to offer.

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?p=92495
Ok, so hypothetically speaking, if we were to find 10 independent, nonBiblical accounts of this..would you become a Christian?
[/quote]

Why make this about me? If you can find 10 independent, non-Biblical accounts of this that were written BEFORE the Gospel rumors were written, you'd be famous. No need to bring me into the mix at all.

Keep in mind also that the Gospel rumors were quite belated in their authorship. The Gospels weren't written down for decades after these events had supposedly happened. It's not going to be impressive to point to more rumors after the Gospel rumors had already been written. That's even more belated yet.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Um, the "500 people seeing Christ" thing comes from 1 Corinthians, and as we all know, 1 Corinthians is not part of the Gospels...and that is where the 500 people are mentioned, which is an external Gospel source...something that you claim we don't have.
Sorry but Paul cannot be said to be an "independent" source because Paul was clearly proclaiming Jesus to be "The Christ" after having had a delusional vision when he was sick and nursed back to health by someone who already believed in these religious rumors. So Paul was as biased as could possibly be. Not to mention that Paul doesn't claim to have ever seen Jesus outside of a vision. So he's hardly a credible witness. He simply claimed that some 500 people supposedly saw Jesus. Where did he find all those people? In Christian church? No doubt.

If you go to a Christian Church today you can probably find 500 people who claim to have a personal relationship with a living Jesus. Clearly this isn't impressive.

So no, Paul doesn't count as a credible independent source anymore than any member of a Christian Church today should be considered to be a credible independent source.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: So how often is this going to happen before you finally confess that these fables don't stand up to historical scrutiny?
When you give me something to work with, I'll work.
The horse is dead and I've already beaten it into the ground. What more do you want me to do? Continue beating the ground where the dead horse used to be? :-k
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: And each and every one of them has created their own personal Jesus in their own imagination.
Or maybe it is your imagination that Jesus isn't the risen Messiah, when in fact, he actually is.
The proof is in the pudding. Every Christian has invented their own Jesus and they all disagree with each other on precisely what Jesus is like.

It's pretty obvious that they can't all be in contact with a single supernatural entity.

Case closed.

How much proof do you need before you are willing to accept the truth?
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: And they most likely won't even agree with you on what Jesus should be like.
Then I will deal with them how I deal with them.
What? You're going to deal with the Christians who don't agree with what you think Jesus should be like?

Sorry, but that only validates my points. Apparently you think your Jesus surpasses everyone else's Jesus. This is a common trait of many (if not all) Christians.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I don't know anyone of whom I agree with 100% about any and every thing. Do you?
I don't claim to be in touch with a living supernatural ghost. Do you?
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
And that is just fine with us Christians.
And why should anyone care?

And who is "Us Christians". Have you missed the fact that very few Christians can agree on much of anything when it comes to Jesus? About all they are willing to agree on is that he was the Son of God who made their salvation possible. After that, they agree on extremely little.

By the way, I used to be a Christian and even as a Christian I was keenly aware that not all Christians thought of Jesus in the same way I did. In fact, many Christians hated my Jesus because my Jesus was too "nice" for them. They prefer a mean Jesus who hates people who refuse to be Christians.

So even when I was a Christian my greatest adversaries were other Christians, not non-Christians.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
But it is a start..
A start isn't good enough. It doesn't take much to start rumors.

In fact, think about. If some religious preaching man was crucified for blaspheme and lived through the ordeal (or even of there were strong rumors that he had been seen alive after the crucifixion) that alone could START a religious movement.

So a "start" is totally meaningless. What's important is a consistent picture afterward that can be independently verified historically. And that is totally missing in Christianity.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
It does if it was prophesized and has since come to past.
But it wasn't prophesied. In fact, the very reason that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah was precisely because he didn't meet the criteria of the prophesy.

The Messiah was supposed to rise up, become the King of Israel and bring peace to all the nations of the world. Jesus didn't do any of that.

The Christians argue that he WILL do this when he returns. But sorry, claiming that Jesus will come back at some future date to fulfill prophesy hardly amounts to prophesy fulfilled.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Probably because those people aren't worthy of having "Faith" in.
And why would Jesus be worth having faith in if he wasn't offering people eternal life and free amnesty for being sinners.

And keep in mind here also that offering free amnesty to sinners hardly constitute "Justice". So Christianity violates the very concept of justice. So you can't even argue that it's a God who cares about justice. It's a God who tosses justice out the window in favor of giving free amnesty to anyone who is willing to join and support the religion.

That should be a dead give-a-way to you right there that this religion didn't come from any God. Especially not one who gives a hoot about justice or righteousness.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I dismiss it because the presented evidence isn't strong enough for me to dump all of my eggs into the basket...which coincides with the same reason as to why you aren't on the Christian bandwagon.
Why would you accept evolution when you see it as something that would violate your chance at obtaining free amnesty and eternal life in an imagined paradise?

I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to give that up once you have been convinced that it's real.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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, because many people/groups disagree about the particulars of Christianity, therefore, Christianity is false.

Non sequitur.
Actually it is indeed quite sequitur. It's follows logically from the simple fact that if there truly was a God behind this religion the followers of this religion wouldn't be so totally confused and in disagreement.

So yes, it's quite sequitur. It clearly demonstrates the fallacy of this religion.

So you can know with absolute certainty that Christianity is a false religion.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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".
I did, and I am not convinced.
Like I say, no amount of evidence is going to convince you to give up free amnesty and eternal life in paradise. So as long as you believe that to be true you're not going to believe anything else.

And that's understandable actually. It makes perfect psychological sense.

If I thought that I was going to be granted eternal life in a paradise as long as I reject everything that might even remotely threaten that opportunity I'd probably be in denial of reality too.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I can say a lot about them. They've been duped, too.
Exactly. Everyone's been duped but you. :roll:

This is exactly what you must believe to remain in this religion. And not only have all the Muslim, Jews, Hindus, etc, all been duped, but you also need to believe that all the Christians who disagree with your ideas of what Christianity is all about have also been duped.

Just think of how extremely lucky you must have been to have accidentally stumbled onto just the right version of Christianity and avoid being "duped" like the vast majority of other humans on this planet.

That's just truly amazing.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Sorry, but Evangelists have already openly confessed to this one.
Then they are committing the genetic fallacy, too. Here is why it is fallacious;.even if we are to grant that Christian children are only Christian because they were "indoctrinated" at a young age...even if that is true, that says NOTHING about whether Christianity is true, or false.

You are just merely stating how the children came to believe in the religion...that says absolutely nothing about whether the belief is true, or false.

If, hypothetically speaking, Christianity is true...then the children are being indoctrinated with a belief that is true....which sheds a completely different light on things, doesn't it?
Well, I would suggest that you stop and think about this for a while, because don't forget that all the other children have been "duped" into believing in the wrong religions, or wrong version of Christianity.

When does this religion become about "Justice" or "Righteousness" when so many people are being duped?

I think this does indeed speak to the validity of this religion (or lack thereof).

You just can't be claiming that people are being duped when the religion is supposed to be about righteousness. Are all Muslims truly evil people?

Surely you don't believe that? Yet if they aren't they we have good people being "duped". How does that work in a religion that is supposed to be about righteousness and justice?

It just doesn't hold water.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: The proof is in the pudding. What else can I say?
LOL.
I take it this is a nervous laugh now that you see I'm making rock solid points.


For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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?
Oh ok. Well, that throws the entire genre of history out of the window.
So what? Why would I need to defend the accuracy of History?

To the contrary I'm quite confident that many things we have learned about history are wrong.

In fact, haven't you heard that even historians have recognized that the victors write the history books. So we always get a historical perspective from the "winners".

For example: "Alexander the Great?"

I'm quite sure that the people he pillaged and raped didn't think he was so "Great".

History tells one-sided stories. So if you think history is dependable you've been "duped".

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I think you, sir, should rethink your assessment.
My points are rock solid.

And keep in mind, if Chrsitianity was truly about justice and righteousness I wouldn't have anything to worry about anyway.

The only way I would be in trouble with Christianity is if the God of Christianity is extremely unjust, unrighteous, and a hateful demon.

I see no reason to believe that I was created by such a heartless hateful God.

Yet this is what Christianity demands that I must believe. I'm going to hell simply because I don't believe in 2000-year-old rumors about an imaginary God who supposedly had humans crucify his Son so he could offer them undeserved amnesty and toss justice and righteousness out the window.

Think about it. It makes absolutely no sense at all. This religion is not only a bunch of rumors, but it's not even well-thought-out rumors. It's a terrible religion that simply tries to damn anyone who refuses to join it and support it.

That's what it is.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
"If". We are saying he did.
But you absolutely have to. Otherwise you're stuck with a bunch of dogma that even you cannot say isn't anything more than man-made hearsay rumors.

So you really have no choice but to proclaim your "Holy Book" as truly being "Holy" and you can't have that if there is no supernatural God actively keeping the texts "Holy".

So you really have no choice in the matter.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Oh, so two people can't read the same thing and have two different interpretations about what they are reading? Oh, that's never happened before, right? That doesn't happen at all, huh?
It can't happen if the texts are God-inspired and if you misunderstand them your eternal fate hangs in the balance. That would hardly be justice or righteous.

You just can't have your cake and eat it too.

The bottom line is that you then need to accept everyone who reads these texts and gets the wrong idea are simply "evil people" who deserve to be damned.

If you can accept that one, then I guess this religion is for you.

There's just no way that's going to make any sense to me. In fact, I know for a fact that I'm not an "evil person" yet I see nothing but problems with these texts. Constantly contradictions, utter absurdities, grossly immoral principles being taught, and a God who can't even solve the simplest of problems.

So since that's what I see then I must be a horrible evil person. :roll:

Sorry, but I know better than that.

So that idea cannot be true.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
I admire your confidence.
I am 100% confident that the Hebrew mythology of Yahweh, and the later rumors about Jesus are definitely not true as they are written.

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt about this in my mind at all.

I cannot say that no possible God exists. Nor do I say that.

But I'm just as confident that Yahweh and Jesus do not represent God as you probably are that Zeus and Apollo were not God.

In fact, aren't you confident that Zeus and Apolo do not represent God?

If you are, then why should you admire my confidence that Yahweh and Jesus do not represent God?

I would imagine that you are also confident that Allah isn't God and the Qur'an doesn't represent the word of God.

I've just recognized one more God fallacy than you have. That's all.

We're almost at the same place. You only have one more God fallacy to recognize as false and you'll be exactly where I'm at now. So you aren't that far behind me.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
The scriptures have been carefully preserved and protected as sacred, holy books..handed down to us by men who were inspired by the living God.
You know that can't be true.

If that were true there would only be One Christian Church, and every decent righteous person would know which one it is.

But that's not the case, and you know it.

So it can't be true that there is some supernatural God protecting the sacred holy books of Christianity.

Like I say, the proof is in the pudding.

It's not about me or my opinions.

Every point I've made thus far would still be true even if I never existed.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #49

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 48 by Divine Insight]
A handful of basically 5 people Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul who are basically spreading rumors hardly amounts to independent historical evidence.
You got some of that wrong, DI. Don't forget Mark's original ending doesn't have a a resurrection appearance from Jesus. Don't forget that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, and that both copied from each other.
These stories aren't independent. They copied one another to large extents.
Two of whom clearly repeated the originator. Matthew and Luke basically just regurgitated the rumors started by Mark adding their own inconsistencies into the mix.
...really should read full posts before replying. So no, you didn't get it wrong or forgot. I apologise.

FtK says
The scriptures have been carefully preserved and protected as sacred, holy books..handed down to us by men who were inspired by the living God.
Square this with the original ending for Mark, FtK.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: Christians seem to be having faith in the NT authors

Post #50

Post by Don McIntosh »

Inigo Montoya wrote: [Replying to post 46 by Don McIntosh]

Welcome to the forum, by the way. A sharp and articulate wit is always a delight in this long standing feud.

Thank you, and that feeling is mutual. (Forgive me if the font sizes appear erratic in my post. I'm using a different computer and I can't seem to fix the formatting.)
I agree with him that testimony of credible witnesses (like the earliest disciples) ought to be believed in the absence of prevailing counter-evidence.
 

I find this to be the heart of the matter. And right away it troubles me. I firstly can't account for how we ascribe credibility to the ghosts of characters in any narrative of dubious authorship. More importantly, though, is this idea we ought to just believe fantastical claims -- extremely ancient ones, at that -- because some don't see the natural order of things as whopping evidence to the contrary. Specifically, what biology tells us about what happens to dead things. Now if the idea is to class it as supernatural, or the handiwork of a god, it's a different kettle of fish. But to cite a lack of evidence contrary to reanimated corpses ascending into space concerns me. The weight of all human history ought to make up that category.

What am I missing?
Well, I think the bit about the credibility of "ghosts of characters" and anonymously written narratives is a fair point but may require a separate discussion on my part. Otherwise I will say straight up: that was a well-argued and rhetorically engaging rebuttal.

I actually agree with you that at first blush, our understanding of how the world works counts as (very strong) evidence against claims to the contrary. But I have reason to think we don't understand how the world works nearly as well as we're supposed to, and I would add that the troubling statement in question should be read in its larger historical-religious context (the "different kettle of fish" you mentioned). That part I could have explained better.

More to the point is what exactly makes up the human history that makes up this purported evidence against miracles. The Christian claim, remember, is that the resurrection is actually a part of that history. If the resurrection did occur, then we have historical precedent for miracles; and if any of the Old Testament miracles occurred, then there is historical precedent for the resurrection itself. But to say that there is no precedent for miracles because no miracles have taken place would not only beg the question but artificially dilute the prior probability of a miracle yet further.

And of course history often works against the logic of induction, rather constantly surprising us with things we never expected could happen based on previous experience. Think of Roger Bannister's four-minute mile in 1954, or the successful demolition of the World Trade Center by foreign terrorists using domestic airliners as missiles in 2001. Think of the drastic revision, abandonment or outright falsification of most any popular scientific theory proposed prior to the twentieth century. Etc.

Given all this, I think the real question is whether we have historical evidence suggesting that a miracle occurred, not whether a particular philosophy of science or of history has the authority to forbid it.

Post Reply