Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[articulett]

The brain plays weird games to keep the woo thinking that their woo is rational.

I find it oddly fascinating-- and not completely dissimilar to schizophrenia. The cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias they use here is likely the very same "memes" that was used to brainwash them in the first place I suspect. They just can't "hear" the nuttiness of their own words. Their straw men take on a life of their own. I think skeptic forums would be a great place for those interested in the basic human psychology of belief.

 

[Sefarst]

I hope no one minds if I dive into this.

[/list]You don't think the Bible was written by regular, mortal, fallible, men and women too? I do, and as far as I know I am a pretty orthodox mainstream Christian? It's all down to if you reagrd the Bible as the direct revelation of God (like the Qu'ran) or if you see it as a record of the direct revelation of God. I strongly favour the latter. I would have thought to an atheist critic though the default assumption was that it is a collection of historical writings by different authors, composed at different times, and can be and should be studied thus - without regard to faith claims of religious adherents. In short why read the bible differently than how you read the Sumerian King list, Epic of Gilgamesh, Sargon Epic or Atrahasis Epic or any other Ancient Near Eastern (or indeed any other) historical text? I would apply exactly the same criteria.

I can't speak for six7, but I read the Bible exactly as I would Gilgamesh or others. Mostly, a collection of stories describing how a particular group of people at a particular time saw themselves, their history and their culture. If you agree with me that's that is what it is and how it should be viewed, we are in total agreement.

However, when DOC stands up and says he has evidence for how we know the New Testament writers told "the truth," we've left a lot of room for interpretation. I don't consider the Epic of Gilgamesh to be "the truth" in the way DOC and many other Christians mean it when they talk about the Bible. There really was a Pontious Pilate, a Roman empire, a Jerusalem, a temple, and there might have been an eccentric preacher(s) who gathered a following, pissed off the authorities and was executed in some way. Even if given that, I wouldn't say that the New Testament writers told the truth.

You seem to suggest that you see the Bible as a record of direct revelation from God. Why? What makes you think that? I personally don't see that position as any more able to be defended than DOC's.

 

[six7s]

Jesus here apparently (according to Matthew) makes a claim regarding his relationship to the Old Testament Law (first five books, The Pentateuch) but to understand what is meant would require us to examine in depth the teaching of Jesus in regard to the Pentateuch.

Maybe... maybe not

I feel it would be a waste of time to analyse the minutiae without first taking a 'high-level' (birds-eye) view to see if the whole shebang is founded in reality or myth

As I consider the latter (myth) to be blatantly obvious, I feel no need and see no reason to drill down into what - from my reckoning - is based on nonsense

Given that Matthew employs a structure in his Gospel which directly reflects the Pentateuch, he clearly is making some point about the relationship between the two

Why do you say "clearly"?

-- but also given that he shows Jesus breaking the Purity Code by a direct reading, we would have to consider how the Purity Codes and Law were interpreted in first century Judaism

"Have to"? Why? (i.e if not merely 'reinforcing assumptions', what is the goal of such a line of inquiry?)

I'm up for a full discussion in a ew thread if you so desire.

I'm always willing to read reasoned arguments...

No promises that I'll understand 'em... but hey... you can write, and I can read, so why not?

Logically nope. Jesus could have accepted the Old Testament as true, as he did, and that still tells us nothing about the historicity of or theological value of Jesus' teachings, even if you were able to show part of the old Testament were untrue.

Jesus, God incarnate, could accept that his previous words - or words ascribed to him - were bollocks and not refute them?

DAvid Hume, Charles Darwin and TH Huxley all held regrettably false racist beliefs about white superiority - none of that impacts of the truth of their thinking in other areas,

Indeed. But (and to me it's a crucial or pivotal but) the bible only deals with ONE area

[tangentialAsideAnalogyThingy]

If it had transpired that Peter (the rock) had been outed as a verifiable satanist/homicidal maniac/telemarketing salesperson/etc, do you really think that big building in Rome would be named after him?​

[/tangentialAsideAnalogyThingy]

As the Gospel accounts are of a Jesus who clearly was not omniscient, this is not in anyway a problem for Christianity.

Because christianity is patently inconsistent, then its right?

And first you would have to demonstrate the falseness of the Old Testament anyway.

There's no need for me to reinvent the wheel

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Preface

The SAB will help those who believe in the Bible to honestly reconsider that belief. It will help those who are unfamiliar with the Bible to resist the temptation to believe. And it will help those who have already rejected the Bible defend their position.

It is time for us all to stop believing in, or pretending to believe in, a book that is so unworthy of belief.

​

You get where i am coming from now?

In the board room of Sunshine Desserts, just around the corner form my place at 42, Confirmation Bias Close - right?

I didn't get where I am today by reading 'The Decline and Fall of the Holy Roman Empire'

Here you are conveniently overlooking one fundamental difference between the Bible and the writings of Sagan et al:

* the former purports to be the unerring word of a divine, omni-bloody-everything deity​

Where does it do this then?

cj... are you serious?

A Google Search for bible "word of god" yielded "about 4,010,000" results, one of which lead me to these verses

2 Timothy 3:16-17

¹⁶All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

John 1:1

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Luke 24:27

²⁷And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

For more of the same, see religioustolerance.org/chr_insp.htm

For a master class on in-fighting, circular reasoning, mud-slinging and much more - check out some uber-woo from my old clerics:
Introduction: The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version

You don't think the Bible was written by regular, mortal, fallible, men and women too?

Au contraire, mon petite chou-fleur

I reckon they were deluded, to boot

It's all down to if you reagrd the Bible as the direct revelation of God (like the Qu'ran) or if you see it as a record of the direct revelation of God.

How I personally regard the bible is irrelevant to the point I'm (at least) trying to make, which is what the bible is purported to be by the so-called authorities

I strongly favour the latter.

OK. Why? Or, more pertinent to my curiosity, why neither?

Here you make an extremely strong and to my mind unevidenced assertion - that the Bible is fiction. <snip/>

I guess I need to understand how you are employing that word "fiction" here?

Euphemistically, as in 'the collected works of some seriously deluded fantasy writers'

I could say a load of cobblers, a pack of lies from whoa to go, bollocks, nonsense, etc... but hey, I ain't that insensitive

This really should be a new thread though I think? WHat interests me first though is why one would employ different methodology for this text than for the works of Sagan? Why?

I sincerely think that my approach is consistent

As ever, feel free to highlight any of the gazillion or so errors in what passes for my 'thinking'

Hey I enjoy our discussions, and have great respect for you as a poster.

Group hug!

I hope my attempt at clarification is helpful!

Interesting, most definitely

Clarifying? I'm not sure

But hey, all of these pixels can be recycled

 

[cj.23]

I think skeptic forums would be a great place for those interested in the basic human psychology of belief.

I agree wholeheartedly, and have stuck my neck out with a suggestion for a mechanism of belief, no matter how crude. It's the opening post in the Beliefs thread - do join us as we seem to have drifted off topic over there!

cj x

 

[cj.23]

You seem to suggest that you see the Bible as a record of direct revelation from God. Why? What makes you think that? I personally don't see that position as any more able to be defended than DOC's.

I thought I was clear I did NOT believe the bible was a direct revelation from God? That would be how the Qu'ran is viewed. I see the Bible as a record of humans conception of the unfolding revelation of God -- a very different thing. DOC may or may not disagree with me - no idea - what DOC and I share is a belief that God revealed himself most fully in a man named Jesus, who was born, lived, and died 2000 years ago. God doesn't reveal themselves in books -- because books are so limited. The living God DOC and I believe in revealed himself to women and men throughout history, and the Bible is a record of the response in faith of some of those people, including the testimony to the incarnation.

Dunno if that makes any sense, but I therefore read the Bible in different ways as a scholar (where i regard it like the Sargon epic, or any other book) than if i am reading it devotionally.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Hi - have to go to bed soon so I'll deal with this, then get back to the rest in the morning lest they write on my tombstone "Here lies CJ: he did not know the name of the birds and the flowers, but he could describe the monthly sales projections for 72 flavours of exotic icecream - er, he could outline the history of a large number of biblical texts." Then again, I did not get where I am today by using my initials... (I rather suspect six 7's will get the references -- apologies to those not familair with Sunshine Desserts, who will merely assume i have gone mad!)

A Google Search for bible "word of god" yielded "about 4,010,000" results, one of which lead me to these verses

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Yep, All Scripture. Thing is when 2 Timothy is written what is Scripture? Not the New Testament, which clearly did not exist - 2 Timothy being part of it only later - otherwise it would be a wonderfully circular claim. Scripture could be used in the broadest sense for the Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament (and i apologise to my Jewish friends for all the times I use OT as a shorthand) or the part thereof also known as the Writings or Scriptures --
14. Psalms [תהלים / Tehilim]15. Proverbs [משלי / Mishlei]16. Job [איוב / Iyov] The "Five Megilot" or "Five Scrolls": 17. Song of Songs [שיר השירים / Shir Hashirim]18. Ruth [רות / Rut]19. Lamentations [איכה / Eikhah]20. Ecclesiastes [קהלת / Kohelet]21. Esther [אסתר / Esther] The rest of the "Writings": 22. Daniel [דניאל / Dani'el]23. Ezra-Nehemiah [עזרא ונחמיה / Ezra v'Nekhemia]24. Chronicles (I & II) [דברי הימים / Divrei Hayamim]
We can take it as either. Sure i think we can apply it more generally, but did the author of 2 Toimothy believe that? Dunno. It is a Christian interpretation that it belongs to the whole Bible, dating from I suspect the period of the setting fo the canon. The scripture in question does not literally mean that: we infer it, as we construct the doctrine of the Trinity from the text?

John 1:1

The Word is just logos - the divine imperative. It means Jesus, in the author of John's theology - not the Bible. At the beginning Jesus was with God, and was God. The Qu'ran is believed to be eternally preexistent - and so is Christ - but this is a major difference between Christianity and Islam. The logos is a person, not the Bible.

Luke 24:27

Absolutely - Jesus was believed to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament - that was the major thrust of the early Christian apologetic to the Jewish people - that he fulfilled the promises of God. Does not in any way suggest the Bible is however somehow directly dictated from on high?

Hey I'd better go - I'll reply in the morning as I said -- it's always a pleasure.

cj x

 

[six7s]

Yep, All Scripture. Thing is when 2 Timothy is written what is Scripture? Not the New Testament, which clearly did not exist - 2 Timothy being part of it only later - otherwise it would be a wonderfully circular claim.

Yep, yep, and another scoop of yep with a flake

The (patently, absurdly) circular logic (that not only forms the basis of but also pervades the entire compendium) must extend to Timothy, which (cf who) was destined for inclusion in the scriptures

 

[Sefarst]

I thought I was clear I did NOT believe the bible was a direct revelation from God? That would be how the Qu'ran is viewed. I see the Bible as a record of humans conception of the unfolding revelation of God -- a very different thing.

You said:

It's all down to if you reagrd the Bible as the direct revelation of God (like the Qu'ran) or if you see it as a record of the direct revelation of God. I strongly favour the latter.

I said:

You seem to suggest that you see the Bible as a record of direct revelation from God. Why?

But this is somewhat nitpicky. My point is, if, as you say, the Bible is a human record of the unfolding revelation of God, how could you possibly know this?

DOC may or may not disagree with me - no idea - what DOC and I share is a belief that God revealed himself most fully in a man named Jesus, who was born, lived, and died 2000 years ago. God doesn't reveal themselves in books -- because books are so limited. The living God DOC and I believe in revealed himself to women and men throughout history, and the Bible is a record of the response in faith of some of those people, including the testimony to the incarnation.

Dunno if that makes any sense, but I therefore read the Bible in different ways as a scholar (where i regard it like the Sargon epic, or any other book) than if i am reading it devotionally.

cj x

So God reveals himself through a man named Jesus. How did he reveal himself? You say you read it differently as a scholar than as a believer, what differences do you make? Do you believe in the resurrection?

 

[six7s]

Jesus here apparently (according to Matthew) makes a claim regarding his relationship to the Old Testament Law (first five books, The Pentateuch) but to understand what is meant would require us to examine in depth the teaching of Jesus in regard to the Pentateuch.

Maybe... However, I suggest we all keep in mind item #5 from The Pentabarf

<snip/>
KNOW YE THIS O MAN OF FAITH!

<snip/>

II - A Discordian Shall Always use the Official Discordian Document Numbering System.

<snip/>

V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

So in other words you would need Christ to appear to you in person, along with even more conditions for you to believe in the Resurrection.

This means there is absolutely no evidence I could present in this thread that would convince you of the truth of Christianity. It would seem that just by being in here and posting so many times (152 posts) -- and also by criticizing and arguing with me you are implying that it would be possible for me to somehow convince you of the truth of Christianity if I could just present enough evidence in the thread. We now know that no matter what I do or say in this thread (or any other thread) it will not be enough.

I think that's why some other people in here have refused to answer that question I posed about what evidence would convince them. Because they also know there is "nothing" I could do or say in here that would convince them. And then they would not be able to complain about the lack of evidence anymore.

Just a quick point on this:

DOC, even if anyone here has what you'd consider unreasonable standards, even if the answer is that you could never convince (convert) them that the resurrection happened, so what? I'm one of those people. Essentially, a myth that old can't be proven true, if it describes something impossible. Noone could lift that kind of evidentiary burden.

So you could never reason me into being a Christian, but that doesn't stop the debate. You couldn't "win" to the degree that you'd like to, but what you could end up doing is inform me. At best I'd leave this debate leaning a bit more towards the existence of a historical Jesus. Failing that, a bit wiser on Biblical studies, or early history.

Your postings do little to help that, though others post interesting facts.

In short, you don't get to stop me or anyone else from critisizing your poor arguments even if we don't admit to be impressionable to your arbitrary standards.

 

[cj.23]

Maybe... However, I suggest we all keep in mind item #5 from The Pentabarf

Be careful lest you are turned in to a precious Mao badge and are distributed to the poor in the region of Thud. Hail Eris! I'm off to partake of a hotdog bed. night

cj x

 

[Hokulele]

The Word is just logos - the divine imperative.

Which is where John and Paul most likely parted company. The other Greek meaning to logos would be as an opposite to an action or deed (ergon). Yin and yang? Logos and ergon?

Paul believed that redemption could only be had through actions.

John?

 

[six7s]

Which is where John and Paul most likely parted company. The other Greek meaning to logos would be as an opposite to an action or deed (ergon). Yin and yang? Logos and ergon?

You Say Goodbye, And I Say Hello

Paul believed that redemption could only be had through actions.

Is this why, in 1971, he focused his skills and talents on penning such classics as 'Too Many People' and 'The Back Seat of My Car'?

John?

I guess that we can only imagine if his ideas of giving peace a chance will ever be realised

 

[Hokulele]

Is this why, in 1971, he focused his skills and talents on penning such classics as 'Too Many People' and 'The Back Seat of My Car'?

Nah, that was back to John (Happiness is a Warm Gun).

 

[cj.23]

Yep, yep, and another scoop of yep with a flake

The (patently, absurdly) circular logic (that not only forms the basis of but also pervades the entire compendium) must extend to Timothy, which (cf who) was destined for inclusion in the scriptures

Sorry I'm losing track of what I'm discussing and where, and time pressures mean I have been neglecting some threads. Sure you can argue that 2 Timothy was always going to be part of Scripture, and apply it to all the writings in Canon - but that was clearly NOT the authorial attempt, and requires us to accept a faith claim.

Now if we are critiquing a certain claim, say the faith claim "all Scripture is inspired of God and inerrant" it may be relevant. For discussion of the actual truth or otherwise of the Gospel accounts however, not so. So I find it curious to accept a faith claim to try and refute a faith cliam.

cj x

 

[six7s]

... I find it curious to accept a faith claim to try and refute a faith cliam

I have a hunch that this is what makes you a theist and me an atheist; I regard the 'faith-claim' of the Judaeo-Christian god to be dependent on one set if inextricably linked elements - if it ain't 100% internally consistent, then it has no credibility whatsoever and, therefore, does NOT serve any useful purpose in trying to understand reality

In contrast, I suspect that all theists feel (cf think) that accepting the (literally) fantastic benefits of blind-faith belief exceeds the costs of acknowledging that - in reality - there is no evidence to suggest that H sapiens sapiens is significantly different from any other species on the planet

Having been born and raised in a theistic family and community, I recognise what is often termed a 'god-shaped hole' in the heads of theists, where the void of ignorance is filled - perfectly - by cherry-picking any arbitrary selection from the plethora of myths that litter the world

 

[wmadoss]

I like in the UK, where School Prayer is not just allowed, it's required by law.

Thank GOD I live in sweden. That sounds HORRIBLE.

Over here (atleast in my experience) its woo woo over religion and if you are religious you are probably a little weird.

Funny how we never have problems with any schoolshootings or other comparable tragedies although we should be the most immoral country in the world (if atheistic means immoral).

Ofcourse we are a small country but still, (I guess you could pick almost all of Scandinavia).

And safe-keeper praying is DEFINATELY not required by law in sweden, if you were to pray I think you may have a bigger chance of being bullied though. Never seen a student praying in a swedish school.

 

[arthwollipot]

wmadoss, you are also describing much what it's like here in Australia.

 

[cj.23]

Thank GOD I live in sweden. That sounds HORRIBLE.

Over here (atleast in my experience) its woo woo over religion and if you are religious you are probably a little weird.

Funny how we never have problems with any schoolshootings or other comparable tragedies although we should be the most immoral country in the world (if atheistic means immoral).

Ofcourse we are a small country but still, (I guess you could pick almost all of Scandinavia).

I don't think the UK has any problem with school shootings, or not that I have ever noticed. Levels of church attendance are incidentally roughly comparable to Sweden - well in Sweden 5% attend Church on Sunday, in the UK 7% last figures I saw, but even that is disputed. I think the UK is from my perspective as a Dane in the UK about as secular as Scandinavia across the board.

cj x

 

[DOC]

I don't think the UK has any problem with school shootings, or not that I have ever noticed. Levels of church attendance are incidentally roughly comparable to Sweden - well in Sweden 5% attend Church on Sunday, in the UK 7% last figures I saw, but even that is disputed. I think the UK is from my perspective as a Dane in the UK about as secular as Scandinavia across the board.

Not going to church does not mean one does not believe in Christian ideology or that one does not consider themselves a Christian. Also the above line of thinking seems to assume that if more people in the UK and Scandinavia went to church the society would be more violent. This would probably be a false assumption and in fact the violence levels could be even lower then they are now if more people became Christian.