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]

.

Using different words is not the same as using different meanings. Like I said, if the central message is not lost, then paraphrasing is cool.

Is this to say / admit that the words attributed to Jesus in gospels are NOT his words – but words of others attempting to convey what he said or meant?

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.

[help3434]

If the premises of your theology is supported by historical epistemology, then you simply have to go where the evidence leads you.

You haven't shown that there is enough evidence to lead me anywhere.

The further you go back to the source, the more truth value you will obtain. We get Mark's authorship from Papias, who was an adult in the 80's CE. The book of Mark was written in the 60's CE, and if the book was floating around Papias' neck of the woods some 20 years later, it shouldn't surprise us that he would know who wrote it.

Papias's reliability is contested by many modern scholars.

If it happened in time, it is history...theology or not.

What happened in time? Paul had a vision? We were talking about Jesus's life on Earth remember?

Okkkk. I feel you...and what I am saying is, we have more accounts of Jesus' resurrection than we do of the saints...so Jesus' resurrection has more validity than that of the saints, correct?

More validity is not the same as sufficient validity. We have more validity that Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon from ancient Gold plates because there is a statement signed by three witnesses saying they saw an angel fly down from heaven and show them the plates, and a statement from an additional eight witness saying they handled the plates and it look like ancient work with ancient engravings.

Hey, this is your logic, not mines. I am simply using the way of aikido, just going with the flow

History is on my side of things here.

You have yet to demonstrate that.

Ahhh. Light work. I do it all For the Kingdom.

What is light work? Setting an incredibly low bar for historical evidence? In that case you should contact the LDS missionaries ASAP because by the standard you appear to have the Church's claim about the origin on the Book of Mormon is established history.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes, two words are not hard to remember. Multiple lengthy sermons of course are a different story.



Tcg

The Holy Spirit (helped them memorize Jesus' words), or Jesus' words were paraphrased.

I'm fine with either one.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And yet the Bible pretends to quote VERBATIM the words of Jesus. I am sure you are aware of this fact.

Tcg

I am aware of the fact that the Bible quotes Jesus; now whether that is a word-for-word, verbatim quote...or whether it was a paraphrased quote.

That is the question. I am fine with either one.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Is this to say / admit that the words attributed to Jesus in gospels are NOT his words – but words of others attempting to convey what he said or meant?

The Gospel, according to what I perceive as good evidence; was written/or originated by either the apostles (Matthew, John), or friends of the apostles (Mark, Luke).

Now, based on the background information I have on the Gospel's authorship, it is not a matter of "others attempting to convey what Jesus said".

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

See the difference there?

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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If the premises of your theology is supported by historical epistemology, then you simply have to go where the evidence leads you.

You haven't shown that there is enough evidence to lead me anywhere.

And you haven't shown me that there is any counter-evidence to what I perceive as good evidence.

Papias's reliability is contested by many modern scholars.

That would all depend on which modern scholar you talk to.

What happened in time? Paul had a vision? We were talking about Jesus's life on Earth remember?

The man (Paul) believed, according to his own testimony, that Jesus APPEARED to him. If he believed it, then he wasn't lying.

So the question is, what lead him to believe it? And I'm saying; because he saw Jesus.

More validity is not the same as sufficient validity.

Right, just like "because no one wrote about it, doesn't mean that it didn't occur".

We have more validity that Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon from ancient Gold plates because there is a statement signed by three witnesses saying they saw an angel fly down from heaven and show them the plates, and a statement from an additional eight witness saying they handled the plates and it look like ancient work with ancient engravings.

Well, then I guess you have your "eyewitness" testimony, don't you? So, are you going to become a Mormon?

What is light work? Setting an incredibly low bar for historical evidence? In that case you should contact the LDS missionaries ASAP because by the standard you appear to have the Church's claim about the origin on the Book of Mormon is established history.

One day, I will have to open up a can on Mormons, too. In due time. I am dealing with JW's now, though.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Your question is meaningless. We don't have personal statements from all eyewitnesses who testified to seeing the resurrected Jesus.

And I am saying we don't need "personal statements from all eyewitnesses who testified to seeing the resurrected Jesus".

If we needed signed, personal statements from EVERY SINGLE PERSON who witnesses EVERY SINGLE THING in history..if that was the criteria for determining what is historical or not, then we really wouldn't have much of a genre of "history", would we?

If you held any X event in history to the same standard that you hold Jesus' Resurrection, then you would find that the stuff you consider "historical" would come dwindling down to the point where historical epistemology just wouldn't amount to anything.

Your rationale is...irrational...is what I am trying to say.

Any guesses as to how anyone would react if we did is pure conjecture.

Well, allow me to continue conjecturing; I don't for one minute buy the idea that "If we had written statements from all eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus, I'd become a Christian."

I am under the good assumption that, if we had what is being asked for, then it would be a different objection to the truth value of the alleged witnesses.

The goal posts will be moved and will continue to move. The aim is for unbelievers to reject Christianity, regardless of the presented evidence.

That is the narrative, and it has been that way since day one, and will continue to be that way.

What we do know is that you are a Christian even though we don't have personal statements from all eyewitnesses who testified to seeing the resurrected Jesus.

I sure am.

Once again it is clear that accepting the Christian faith is not based on fact, but on a leap of faith.

Wow, sounds a lot like the belief in evolution and abiogenesis.

You believe not because of facts, but because of faith.

Tcg

Sure, it is based on faith. Reasonable faith.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is this to say / admit that the words attributed to Jesus in gospels are NOT his words – but words of others attempting to convey what he said or meant?

The Gospel, according to what I perceive as good evidence; was written/or originated by either the apostles (Matthew, John), or friends of the apostles (Mark, Luke).

Thus, gospel writers, whoever they may have been, conveyed words attributed to Jesus -- and are subject to human frailties rather than being words directly from Jesus.

It is gratifying to see people starting to catch on. Often years are required to overcome religious indoctrination.

Now, based on the background information I have on the Gospel's authorship, it is not a matter of "others attempting to convey what Jesus said".

OH, is this to say that your ‘background information’ was written by Jesus and not by others conveying what he said? Theologians with be anxious to study your material.

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

As we are aware, human memory is quite fallible, so people remember things differently and are not reliably truthful and accurate.

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.

rather than accepting religions based on Supreme Beings and Creators that you have to answer to if you've done wrong.

Christianity’s tales of their favorite ‘supreme being and creator’ indicate that a person can do all the wrong they wish provided that they ask forgiveness and repent before they die. Right?

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.

Do the men in white lab coats promise rewards ‘after you did’ to bribe people to believe them?

[help3434]

And you haven't shown me that there is any counter-evidence to what I perceive as good evidence.

I think I have made arguments about why the Gospels aren't good historical evidence. The Gospels have stuff that nobody involved in writing them could have witnessed, like everything before Jesus's adult ministry and his temptation by Satan. There is nothing to verify that Luke and Mark's second source is even accurate to the supposed witnesses they heard it from. Matthew's Resurrection of the Saints comes from nowhere and casts extreme doubt on his reliability as a source, the time that John was written casts doubt that it is a reliable eyewitness testimony.

The man (Paul) believed, according to his own testimony, that Jesus APPEARED to him. If he believed it, then he wasn't lying.


So the question is, what lead him to believe it? And I'm saying; because he saw Jesus.

APPEARED? Saw? Acts said he heard a voice, which the men with him may (Acts 9) or may not (Acts 22) have also heard.

Right, just like "because no one wrote about it, doesn't mean that it didn't occur".

I don't have to prove a negative to show that evidence is not just weak, but conspicuously and suspiciously weak.

Well, then I guess you have your "eyewitness" testimony, don't you? So, are you going to become a Mormon?

Wait, you are the one with really low standards in regards to considering even supernatural claims to be historically established facts, not me. I have already been a Mormon and now consider that church's truth claims to be hogwash.

[John Human]

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.

Once again, my rebuttal of the Darwinian fantasy of "natural selection" causing the appearance of modern humans: The Darwinian explanation requires a miraculous matching pair of "original" humans that mutated, unable to breed with members of the parent species. It also requires the "magical" random appearance by random mutation of the locking knee joint in all of its complexity; the various parts can't function unless they are all in there, fully formed. It also requires two miraculous examples of the the miraculously simultaneous development of the enlarged pre-frontal cortex and the "soft" cranium that doesn't finish developing until after birth. It also requires the assumption that the children of this miraculous first couple with miraculous matching mutations bred with each other, and then the grandchildren, etc., without the newly-evolved species quickly dying out in a few generations due to inbreeding. In other words, it seems clear that the first appearance of modern humans had to be in the form of a gene pool sufficiently large to avoid extinction through inbreeding, which also disproves a literal reading of the biblical account of Adam and Eve.

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.

And so we have the fantasy of "reductionist materialism," insistently denying the existence of anything that can't be physically measured. How did that happen? If you study the history of science, you can usefully contrast John Dee (whose far-ranging speculative mind embraced various scientific topics together with the study of angels) with Francis Bacon, the grandfather of the scientific method. Likewise, we can contrast the scientist, mathematician and theologian Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (whose Monadology actually included a back-handed reference to reincarnation) with the underemployed John Locke, who used physical sense experience as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge. My point here is that, before science became immobilized in the strait-jacket of reductionist materialism, recognized contributions to scientific endeavor did not preclude active interest in metaphysical/theological questions.
_________________