What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 88 by bluegreenearth]

The gospels were not necessarily historical accounts nor were they intended to be

What do you mean by, "not necessarily"? Does this mean they may have been, but, "but not necessarily"? Because you see, we have at least two letters which are contained in what has been called the New Testament, and in these letters the author tells his audience at the time that he is indeed giving an historical account. Here is exactly what he says at the beginning of his first letter,

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

And now let us take a look at how this author begins his second letter, to this same individual,

I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

It seems to me the author is telling his audience, that what he is writing is indeed an historical "account of events". Of course this would not mean the author is telling the truth, or the information would be accurate, but it does indeed demonstrate that it was the author's intent to describe historical accounts.

So then, this is the evidence that at least these 2 letters were intended to be historical accounts. What would be the evidence to the contrary?

but were written in the style of religious propaganda by anonymous authors decades after the events they describe are supposed to have taken place.

Okay, you have some explaining to do here? We have direct overwhelming evidence that the author of the 2 letters above, would have been written by one who traveled around with Paul on his missionary journeys.

With this being a fact, this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles, and spent much time with them, which means he would have known the claims they were making first hand. However, the main thing here is, this demonstrates beyond doubt that these 2 letters would have had to have been written inside the lifetime of the Apostles.

prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Okay, with the definition above, how can personal letters, written from one individual, to another individual, be considered, "written in the style of religious propaganda"?

The fact of the matter is, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to this individual, and there is no indication that he has any concern, nor any idea at all, that anyone else would ever read these two letters besides his original intended audience. This same thing can be said concerning the letters of Paul.

Moreover, the 2 letters to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, were all addressed to those who would have already been believers. With the 2 letters to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, we have taken up a very large portion of what is contained in the NT. Ergo, it very well could be the fact that everything in the NT would have been addressed to those who were already believers, so how could this be, "propaganda"?

The gospels claim there were eyewitnesses to the events they describe but are not themselves eyewitness accounts.

Exactly how would you have come to this conclusion? You have already admitted the "authors would have been anonymous". With this being the case, how does one determine that the authors would not have been one of the, "eyewitnesses"? In other words, if we admit that we cannot know who may have authored these letters, (but we can with one of the gospels) then how can we know they would not have been actual witnesses of the things they report?

For example, if someone wrote a book claiming there were over 250 eyewitnesses who observed a UFO hovering over a small town in Kentucky 45 years ago, the author of that book would not be considered an eyewitness.

Okay, but what if we have a letter written some 2000 years ago, and in this letter we have the author using the words, "we" and "us" when describing the events, would this give any indication that the author is there to actually witness the events he is describing? Because you know, we actually have this with the author of the two letters to Theophilus.

With this being the case, we have an author who would have been alive during the time of the events, and would have had to write these accounts, inside the lifetime of the Apostles.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 81 by benchwarmer]

You mean the context where it says "whoever"?

Exactly! So let's think about this? It was his disciples which were with him, right? Disciples are students, and Jesus would be the teacher, right? So then, when we read these sort of passages, we are overhearing a teacher conducting a class with their students.

So then, now let us imagine, I write you a email explaining an event which may have happened at a local high school, and in this email I describe to you how the teacher stood in front of her class and said, "whoever brings me a typo they find in the newspaper over the next month will receive a $100.00 cash award."

Now, would you understand this teacher to be intending to give this award to "whoever", my walk in off the street who may have heard, or read this somewhere?

Yes. I guess that defeats your argument right there.

If the teacher balked, I would point out they didn't say "whoever in this class", they simply said "whoever". In English, whoever means:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whoever

Definition of whoever
: whatever person : no matter who —used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive

I understand it's inconvenient for your argument that we use standard dictionary definitions, thus my comment about twisting words to mean whatever you like. If you want to interpret things beyond what is plainly written, you are welcome to do so. However, don't expect others to follow along.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 92 by benchwarmer]

Yes. I guess that defeats your argument right there.

If the teacher balked, I would point out they didn't say "whoever in this class", they simply said "whoever". In English, whoever means:

Okay then, just to be clear, you are saying that if you heard, of read of such a thing, and went on to find a typo in the newspaper, you would go in and demand to receive this award? Or, would you understand clearly that this promise was confined to those being spoken to at the time?

Because you see, again, it is clear that Jesus was speaking solely to the disciples. He does in fact use the word "whoever", and he does use the word "they" in that same sentence when addressing only the disciples. However, can you explain why in the very next 2 sentences, why he would drop the word "they" and begin to use the word, "you"? Let's look at it again.

Again, speaking only to the disciples, Jesus says,

12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

First who is he speaking to, when he says, "I tell you"? But then notice in the next 2 sentences how the word, "whoever", and "they", are dropped, and the word "you" is in their place,

13 And I will do whatever YOU ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 YOU may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Now couple this with the fact that these very men he was talking to at the time, are in fact reported to have gone out, and preformed miraculous events. In fact, there certainly seems to be a distinction between these men, and the regular ordinary believer in the book of Acts. Right after the first sermon of Peter in Chapter 2 we read in verses 42 thru 43,

They (ordinary believer) were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles.

So, what was the ordinary believer doing? Were they doing any miracles? Who was doing the miracles? I think it would be those Jesus was speaking to in the passage you referred to in John.

However, if this is not enough for you, when we get to chapter 4 in Acts, in verses 32 thru 33 we read,

32 The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all.

So again, who was it that was performing this "great power"? Again, I believe it was those Jesus was speaking to in the passage we have been discussing, while the ordinary believer was not doing these things.

But we are not through yet. When we arrive to chapter 5 in verse 12 we read,

12 Now many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles.

The question again is, who was performing the "miraculous signs, and wonders"? Would it be the ordinary believer? Or, would it have been those Jesus was giving this promise to in, "The Gospel of John"?

Who is it that is attempting to twist what is being said here, and for an advantage? The fact of the matter is, you will have to concede, that it is indeed possible Jesus was confining what he was saying to those he was speaking to at the time.

However, when we arrive to what is reported in Acts, we can clearly see it was only those Jesus was speaking to who would have been performing these signs, and wonders, and this would not involved the ordinary believer, which sort of makes it even more clear, the promises in the passage in John would have been confined to those he was speaking to at the time.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 92 by benchwarmer]

Yes. I guess that defeats your argument right there.

If the teacher balked, I would point out they didn't say "whoever in this class", they simply said "whoever". In English, whoever means:

Okay then, just to be clear, you are saying that if you heard, of read of such a thing, and went on to find a typo in the newspaper, you would go in and demand to receive this award?

Yes, assuming I felt the reward was worth my time. I thought I was crystal clear the first time.

The rest of your post trying to confine the meaning of 'whoever' is irrelevant. I will concede that perhaps the words attributed to Jesus were not transcribed properly and he didn't actually say 'whoever'. Blame the scribes for that one. As written, 'whoever' means 'whoever' unless there is a modifier in the same sentence or a clear admission that when 'whoever' was used it actually only means 'whoever' in a limited context. i.e. Whoever does X will get Y. When I say 'whoever' I mean only among you standing in front of me.

If I stand on my porch and say "Whoever finds my cat get will get $1000" and only my neighbor and my brother are standing in front of me at the time do you really think I will confine it to them? If someone else was behind my hedge and overheard me and brought me my cat do you think I should not give them the $1000? If my brother tells my sister and she finds my cat I should not give it to her either? I did say 'whoever' not 'one of you two'.

Like I've said twice now, if you want to limit the context based on personal interpretation go for it. That's not what the text plainly says, but knock yourself out believing what you like.

[1213]

And the author of the first and earliest Gospel, "Mark" has no birth narrative, or knowledge of any Virgin Birth traditions. None demonstrated anyway. Could Mark be the closest thing we have to a genuine NT author who is an actual disciple of Jesus of Nazareth? If not an eyewitness, perhaps the close associate of an eyewitness, maybe Peter?

I think John is the closest, because he shows best that he knew Jesus. The others are more like telling about events, but John speaks more about the ideas of Jesus. What Mark tells, is easy to tell and sort out, Mark could have done it by listening someone who knew about things that have happened. I think what John tells, needs more direct connection.

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

My strongest reason is the Bible and that things go as the Bible tells. Also, I choose to believe because I think the teachings about good and evil are true and good.

1213,

How could we determine if the Bible's accounts of supernatural events are reliable or unreliable?

[bjs]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

If you look at the context of my statement, you would notice that I did not use the words “faith� or “trust� in a way that is anything like what you discuss in your post.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

If you look at the context of my statement, you would notice that I did not use the words “faith� or “trust� in a way that is anything like what you discuss in your post.

My apologies for the confusion. I used your statement as an opportunity to clarify how faith and trust is defined in my epistemology. I wasn't necessarily responding directly to your statement.

[bluegreenearth]

What do you mean by, "not necessarily"? Does this mean they may have been, but, "but not necessarily"?

Yes. They might describe what the authors claimed to be events they believed occurred, but the purpose of the texts were to evangelize an emerging religious belief; not to "necessarily" write a professional historical account using the same methods, style, and format as trained historians did during that time.

In anticipation of the potential objection you might have to this assessment, I will acknowledge that not every historical account must be written by trained historians to be considered reliable. However, because the historical account in question contains claims of supernatural events, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that these texts were written by leaders of a religious movement with a motivation to convert other people to their faith and not written by unbiased historians.

It seems to me the author is telling his audience, that what he is writing is indeed an historical "account of events". Of course this would not mean the author is telling the truth, or the information would be accurate, but it does indeed demonstrate that it was the author's intent to describe historical accounts.

I somewhat agree. The author may have believed he was describing a historical account but failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the information was credible because he was communicating with people who already shared his religious faith and weren't demanding proof. In fact, the formal concept of healthy skepticism and critical thinking is relatively modern and didn't even exist in the minds of most average ancient people.

In anticipation of another potential objection here, I will acknowledge that most people throughout all of human history did inherently possess a certain amount of skepticism and ability to think critically. However, the more reliable and formalized investigative process in use today by modern skeptics and critical thinkers mitigates for the confirmation bias and other fallacious influences that routinely corrupted the thought processes of most ancient people included those who received higher education.

So then, this is the evidence that at least these 2 letters were intended to be historical accounts. What would be the evidence to the contrary?

They were not "necessarily" intended to serve as "professional" historical theses. The evidence for this is exposed through a comparison of the style and format of those letters with the style and format of contemporary historical accounts of other events documented by professional historians of the time using their standard methods.

but were written in the style of religious propaganda by anonymous authors decades after the events they describe are supposed to have taken place.

Okay, you have some explaining to do here? We have direct overwhelming evidence that the author of the 2 letters above, would have been written by one who traveled around with Paul on his missionary journeys.

With this being a fact, this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles, and spent much time with them, which means he would have known the claims they were making first hand. However, the main thing here is, this demonstrates beyond doubt that these 2 letters would have had to have been written inside the lifetime of the Apostles.

Actually, it is not a fact according to the consensus of New Testament scholars from both the Christian and secular communities who acknowledge that the earliest known manuscripts of Luke-Acts are anonymous. Many modern scholars challenge the traditional view you've presented (Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 267–8. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.) (Metzger, Bruce; Coogan, Michael (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 'Acts of the Apostles', "Luke, The Gospel According to"). Of course, this doesn't disprove the traditional view but justifiably calls it into question.

Nevertheless, even if we assume for the moment that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul, it doesn't conclusively demonstrate the author was alive during the time of Jesus. The consensus of scholars agree that Luke-Acts was probably written between 80-90 AD (Charlesworth, James H. (2008). The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-2475-6) (Burkett, Delbert (2002). An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7). This would have been around 50 years after the Crucifixion and at least 35 years after Paul begin his missionary work. So, if the author of Luke-Acts was old enough to pal around with Paul at the start of his missionary work in approximately 45 AD (lets say 20 years old to be liberal), he would have been at least 60 years old when he wrote Luke-Acts. According to the consensus of experts in the field, if people in and around classical Rome were lucky enough to survive until they were 20 years old, they could expect to live no more than an additional 30 years on average (Frier, Bruce (2009). "Chapter 27: Demographics". The Cambridge Ancient History XI: The High Empire, A.D. 70–192. Cambridge University Press. pp. 788–789. ISBN 9781139054393). Given the odds, there is high probability that the author of Luke-Acts would not likely have survived long enough to write the 2 letters in 80-90 AD if he was old enough to have traveled and interacted with Paul and the other Apostles in 45 AD. Granted, it is possible the author could have beat the odds, but the point is that it would be irresponsible for us to ignore this evidence.

Okay, with the definition above, how can personal letters, written from one individual, to another individual, be considered, "written in the style of religious propaganda"?

The fact of the matter is, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to this individual, and there is no indication that he has any concern, nor any idea at all, that anyone else would ever read these two letters besides his original intended audience. This same thing can be said concerning the letters of Paul.

When we consider the language from Luke 1-3, "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.", the author seems to clearly indicate that the information he is about to provide is yet another compiled account of things passed down to them from people who are claimed to be eyewitnesses and servants of the word; a curious expression as there could be multiple interpretations of what "the word" is actually referring to. In any case, we must ask why the author felt it was necessary to draft a completely independent account if there were other known attempts that already accomplished that task. A clue to the author's potential motivation comes from the line, "so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." It seems the author had some reason to believe the recipient(s) of the letter needed to be made certain of the established teachings.

One motivation may have been that the author believed his intended audience was exposed to what he believed to be forged accounts designed by competing Christian cults for the purpose of winning converts. As such, he was sending his own account to restore the recipient's confidence in the established teachings of their own Christian cult. However, if the author's letters were actually the forged accounts designed to compete with the other popular versions of Christianity which are known to have existed during that time, then this would qualify as religious propaganda. We cannot yet rule-out this possibility.[/quote]

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 94 by benchwarmer]

This is the way in which the text of the law reads concerning, "the flag protection act",

WHOEVER, (emphasis mine) knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Now the question is, would this "WHOEVER" include any, and all people, no matter who they are? Or, would this "WHOEVER" be confined to the citizens of the, United States? Because you see, I cannot imagine those in Iran, or Iraq being very concerned about this at all. However, the act does say, "WHOEVER".

Next, when Jesus uses this word, "whoever