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?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

The question is, why have so many people simply accepted fantastic accounts as correct? A stinking corpse rises up …. a man walks on the sea ….he then walks on air and vanishes …


In an age of scams and impersonators, we are reluctant to credit tales of wonder. And yet these old stories have still not been consigned to the waste paper bin. Is this in itself a miracle or does it speak badly for the credulity of humans?

[ttruscott]

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

Why?

Faith is an unproven hope that when exercised has the quality of consolidating into certainty.

THe world with a true NT is far more hopeful for some people and is a better explanation for the events of their lives, their experiences, than a world of no GOD.

It is indeed often miraculously true that someone whose last thought was to ever be a one of those religious but it happens...a curiosity.

[marco]

Faith is an unproven hope that when exercised has the quality of consolidating into certainty.

I struggle to follow. Paul chattered on about hope:


Romans 8:23-25 23 "Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently."

I can accept he thought there was meaning in this but I don't. So too with "unproven hope". At best it is a tautology: a hope is something not yet attained, and consequently unproven.

THe world with a true NT is far more hope for some people and is a better explanation for the events of their lives, their experiences, than a world of no GOD.

Yes, hope keeps us alive. The Romans used to say: Dum spiro, spero - while I live, I hope. Hoping it will be fine tomorrow is all very well but it guarantees nothing. But for those in need, any port in a storm will do, and if that means placing one's faith in the NT, amen.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Faith is an unproven hope that when exercised has the quality of consolidating into certainty.

For me, this is a perfect definition of Christian delusion.

The same sort of faith makes kiddies certain the Tooth Fairy is going to leave them a coin.

Suggestible minds can be persuaded of all manner of fantastical things that are unproven … even that a human virgin was impregnated by a Holy Spirit.

[marco]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Faith is an unproven hope that when exercised has the quality of consolidating into certainty.

For me, this is a perfect definition of Christian delusion.

The same sort of faith makes kiddies certain the Tooth Fairy is going to leave them a coin.

Suggestible minds can be persuaded of all manner of fantastical things that are unproven … even that a human virgin was impregnated by a Holy Spirit.

It is the mark of a human to place faith in something: a football team, a country, a mother, a career.... I have no hesitation in saying that the faith I had in Santa was as strong as any faith people have in God, and it was harlessly beautiful. Perhaps all faith has a shelf life. The faith in God that blows up aeroplanes is just a manifestation of hope, trust, conviction. Christ said faith can move mountains - he should have added that it can blow them up too.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

I can only answer for myself in this situation. While I would love to discard Christianity as rubbish, as I read, and study the letters contained in the NT, it is far more difficult to believe all these things could have been fabricated in some way, as opposed to it being the truth.

In other words, it is far more difficult to believe that all these men pulled of such a hoax, than to believe they were simply reporting the facts as they knew them.

The evidence for Christianity is based upon letters that were written between different audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by any one other than their original intended audience, and not one of them could have possibly had any idea, that the letters they were writing at the time, would have been contained in a Bible, which they would have had no idea about.

These letters contained in the NT, are simply the by product of the lives of these men, and they are certainly evidence of the things they report, and are evidence of they way in which they lived their lives.

There is no other religion in the world based upon such evidence, and it does not even compare.

As I have said in the past, the bottom line here is, it is not nearly as simple as a lot of Christians make it out to be, by simply saying, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

However, it is also certainly not as simple as many unbelievers seem to imagine, by discarding the claims simply based upon how incredible the claims may be, and it is astounding to me, that there are so many who can imagine that it would be just that simple.

[marco]

In other words, it is far more difficult to believe that all these men pulled of such a hoax, than to believe they were simply reporting the facts as they knew them.

You have said this a few times and each time I struggle to understand the point you are making, which seems to you so lucidly convincing.

Matthew reports that corpses got up and walked along the road to Jerusalem. He has made this up and this becomes part of a grand total of tales.

Luke supplies us with a narrative that links Jesus imaginatively with Bethlehem, and so to a prophecy. To do this he invents a census and an impossible Roman demand that would have subject peoples wandering around. Astute Augustus would never have allowed this. Luke also supplies a genealogy of Jesus right back to Adam. The names of course disagree with Matthew's attempt.

Three evangelists give an imaginative account of Christ - all alone in the wilderness, with vocals courtesy of Satan.

Paul, commenting at a distance, tells us of different types of bodies in the universe.


And all this is evidence of truth. As Pilate said: What is truth?

The evidence for Christianity is based upon letters that were written between different audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by any one other than their original intended audience, and not one of them could have possibly had any idea, that the letters they were writing at the time, would have been contained in a Bible, which they would have had no idea about.

Yes, they were largely fiction writers. They wanted to glorify a man they liked, just as Rome glorified its Emperors by deifying them. They believed what they said and embellished it too. Paul chose to build some moral principles around Jesus.

However, it is also certainly not as simple as many unbelievers seem to imagine, by discarding the claims simply based upon how incredible the claims may be, and it is astounding to me, that there are so many who can imagine that it would be just that simple

I don't see that simplicity has anything to do with it. It involves common sense. Some primitive author saying a man raised up a stinking corpse is repeating a tale he heard. The tale is not true. I don't doubt the writers were persuaded. Today we have the President of the World Chess Federation utterly convinced he was kidnapped by aliens. I don't think he was; nor do I think Jesus rose from the dead, which is an even more unlikely claim. One's faith persuades one that impossible things took place somewhere in the world 2000 years ago. We cannot base this on proof - just on blind faith.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

Faith is an unproven hope that when exercised has the quality of consolidating into certainty.

For me, this is a perfect definition of Christian delusion.

Good morning SallyF,
do you trample my hopes and the definitions of my experiences because your hopes have failed you or because they are so much better than mine?

Does the tooth fairy have a bible?
Does the tooth fairy give billions a common experience spiritually?

Your false analogy used as a strawdog argument only sings to the choir of secularism.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

First off, we have to look at the authors intent. Were the books (NT) intended to be works of fiction, or works of truth (non-fiction).

If fiction, then Christianity is just 2,000 years of complete and utter hogwash. If true, then we should all pay close attention (for those of us that care).

If the author intended for it to be true, then the author believed what he wrote..and if the author believed what he wrote, then the author wasn't lying.

So then the question becomes; why would the author believe that what he wrote was true??

Ahhh, and that is the sweet spot right there.

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?

Based on the historical evidence (historical method). Believers base the truth value of Christianity upon the historicity of said events.

Now, there is no way to prove with 100% certainty of ANYTHING that happened in antiquity...however, as Bart Ehrman put it; we can prove what "probably" happened, based on the historical method.

It is based on the preponderance evidence, basically. And believers are saying; based on the preponderance of evidence, Christianity/the N.T. are true.