NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[Difflugia]

This is a case in point. You keep conflating the scholarly view of a first-century belief in a resurrection with the modern Christian belief that the resurrection was necessarily a bodily one.

False. I am acknowledging that the majority of the scholars are convinced the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Jesus. This does not necessitate that the majority of scholars believe that they in fact did encounter Jesus alive after death. What this does mean is, we have enough facts and evidence to convince the majority of scholars (whether Christian or not) that the earliest followers were somehow convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

For varying definitions of "alive," yes.

Now, how are the scholars so convinced this would be the case? Well, that would be by reading the material contained in the NT. So then, while there are folks who want to insist the material contained in the NT is not reliable (and I am not arguing that it is) it is reliable enough for the scholars to be convinced that the authors were not intending to write fiction, fable, tales, etc. but were truly convinced in what they were reporting.

No. You're conflating the thematic content with historicity. The scholars are convinced that the Christians wrote stories about a resurrected Jesus and that those stories reflected creedal beliefs of early Christians. That the early Christians were "truly convinced in what they were reporting" is a misunderstanding of the scholarly position.

This means, these earliest followers were not at all attempting to deceive folks, which would also mean, they could not possibly be attempting to get folks to believe in the resurrection upon faith.

This is false as you've stated it. The scholarly position is that the idea of a resurrection was pervasive enough in early Christian tradition that the early Christians probably believed in some sort of resurrection. That says nothing about the reliability of the accounts or the motivations of the authors.

So then, as you can see, I am not "conflating the scholarly view of a first-century belief in a resurrection with the modern Christian belief that the resurrection was necessarily a bodily one". Rather, I am acknowledging the fact that the majority of scholars (whether Christian or not) are convinced by the evidence, the reports were not made up, no matter the explanation.

You're splitting hairs at best. Even if your first sentence is true, the second is decidedly false. The scholars are convinced that the early Christians believed in a resurrection. That is completely compatible with the stories about the resurrection being legendary, fictionalized, or some other type of "made up."

Thank you so much. So, you agree there could not have been any sort of hoax involved, which would mean these folks could not have possibly been attempting to get folks to simply believe in the resurrection upon faith.

That's not what that means. Christians now want me to believe in God through faith, but they're not perpetrating a hoax. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a fictional allegory of Christ's sacrificial, salvific death and resurrection. It didn't happen in any historical sense, but it's not a hoax and the author believed that Jesus was resurrected.

If these folks were claiming a spiritual resurrection, then why would there be a need to point to the empty tomb? I mean, at this point they could have said, "while the tomb still holds the remains of Jesus, his spirit rose up from the grave"?

You're conflating the scholarly view of a first-century belief in a resurrection with the modern Christian belief that the resurrection was necessarily a bodily one. That's what you said you weren't doing.

The form that the resurrection tradition took by the time the Gospels were written isn't necessarily what the earliest Christians believed.

I mean, it is from the NT these scholars are convinced the earliest followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death, and it is this same NT that reports upon an empty tomb, which would make no sense if we are only talking about a spiritual resurrection.

The scholars are convinced that the earliest followers believed that they encountered Christ alive after death in some way. That doesn't extend to believing that the "reports" in the New Testament accurately reflect what the earliest Christians believed, let alone being historically accurate.

Assuming you maintain this stance and don't later equivocate on "very well may have been" to claim anything more than merely possible, then we're on the same page.

My friend, we are on the same page, because I have never said anything different.

You just a moment ago said that a spiritual resurrection "would make no sense" based on the empty tomb reports. That's beyond "merely possible."

The problem is, if the reports were fictional, we can eliminate the possibility that these earlier followers intended to report fiction.

No.

Moreover, claiming that it is possible the reports involved the spiritual and the fictional does not eliminate the possibility that it did in fact involve the physical bodily resurrection.

Nobody said it did.

What is the probabilities that a whole group of folks would claim to have witnessed the same person alive after death?

It depends on what "witnessed" means. We don't know what the earliest Christians claimed or how many of them claimed it. All we have are the accounts in the Gospels and Pauline epistles.

What are the probabilities that we would have enough facts and evidence to know these folks truly believed this to be the case,

If "this" means "some sort of resurrection," then enough to apparently convince a majority of scholars. This still hasn't been actually demonstrated, remember, I'm just accepting it as true for this particular discussion.

which means they were not reporting what they knew to be false?

It doesn't mean that.

What are the probabilities that these same folks would go on to continue to proclaim this same thing well into old age, facing persecution for doing so?

We don't know that nor do we know that the scholars believe that.

What are the probabilities that these same reports go on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts the world has ever known?

Who knows? It doesn't matter, though, because their impact has nothing to do with how the "reports" relate to what early Christians believed.

I do not know what the probabilities would be, but I can tell you that the probabilities of even one of the above being true is not good, and for all of them to be true is not very good in the least.

That's why the things you've said are unlikely to be true together. The key is to figure out which things you're wrong about.

that these earlier followers were reporting what they were convinced was the truth.

The scholars are convinced that the followers believed in a resurrection, not that what they wrote about it was accurate or historical.

I can't insist that a dead man coming back to life is impossible

I can, and I do!

Then you've already conceded this debate.

but I can insist that it's no more probable than the existence of Santa Claus.

You are taking yourself out of the conversation by making such comparisons because there are no serious scholars who would do such a thing. In other words, I am not aware of any scholars dedicating their whole life to the study of Santa who come away convinced that we have enough facts and evidence to know that those who first reported upon Santa truly believed he delivered toys on Christmas eve to all the children of the world. The serious scholars would laugh you out of the room and I do not have time for such nonsense.

If you presented this as an analogy for Christianity, I'm not the one the scholars would be laughing at.

In this discussion, that the belief of early Christians involved a bodiliy resurrection.

As we have discovered above, I have never made such an argument.

You made that argument again in this very discussion ("I mean, it is from the NT these scholars are convinced the earliest followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death, and it is this same NT that reports upon an empty tomb, which would make no sense if we are only talking about a spiritual resurrection."), so you're deeply confused about something.

My friend, we have actual evidence the author traveled with Paul.

We have the same actual evidence that Gandalf was a travelling companion of Bilbo Baggins and that Prancer and Blitzen are travelling companions of Santa Claus.

Can you imagine why this might be? Sure you can, because if the author was with Paul, he could not possibly report on what the apostles in Jerusalem were doing until, or unless, Paul was to come back in contact with them again.

Of course, he could. It would be the same way that J. K. Rowling reported on what Harry, Ron, and Hermione were doing even though she never set foot in Hogwarts.

So then, I am not insisting the author was a traveling companion of Paul, but I am insisting that we have very good evidence this was the case.

That's unfortunate.

However, if you are insisting the author was not a traveling companion of Paul, then you are the one who is speculating.

We have very good evidence that this is the case.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #97]

You missed my point again. Jesus tells Thomas that the ones which believe without seeing are revered more. In other words, Jesus ain't gonna be giving direct evidence to many/most, like he did for Thomas. Blessed are the ones who have faith anyways. The storyline suggests that many will not believe without hard evidence. The Bible states Jesus rewards those who apply true faith without evidence. The mention of eternal torment adds further encouragement for folks to jump on the Jesus train.

The first thing you need to understand is the Bible does not say anything. What was written was written hundreds of years before the Bible. Next, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to audiences at the time, who were already believers, and the authors had no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by anyone other than the intended audience, and they certainly did not know about the Bible. Since the overwhelming majority of the NT (and the little that is left may well have been addressed to those who were already believers) was addressed to those who were believers, this demonstrates the authors were not attempting to convince anyone to believe, since those who were addressed already believed.

However, the bottom line is, I have no problem with what it is you believe concerning the Christian claims, and I will not argue that you do not have reasons to hold the position you have. But the thing is, you cannot rightly insist there are no facts, evidence and reasons to believe the claims, because there indeed is. My friend, the majority of scholars have come to the conclusion, whether they are a Christian are not, that the earliest followers were not making the reports up. Whether you would like to admit it or not, that is huge, because it tells us that we at least have enough facts and evidence to know that they truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, and they continued to proclaim this for decades. So then, while I have no problem with what you believe, and I do not insist you have no reason to hold to such a position, the problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, I have no reasons to hold to the position I have, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. I will go on to tell you that comparing Christianity to the religions of the world, or comparing it to alien sightings, or Santa does nothing for anyone's argument who attempts to make it other than to demonstrate one who has disqualified themselves from the conversation.

I already did. John 20:29 - "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". The following requires blind faith, as you and I, who read the pages of the Bible, were not there to have any of these said supernatural experiences.

This passage is not promoting faith without evidence. Jesus is saying, Thomas has seen Jesus crucified, dead, buried, and risen again while those after will not witness these events. You do not get to translate this to mean, belief without any evidence. Again, if this is what was being promoted by the authors, there would be no need in pointing to things such as the empty tomb. The fact of the matter is, the author of 1 Peter tells his audience, "always be ready to give a defense for the faith". This is courtroom talk meaning be ready to give the evidence. It certainly does not mean, simply be ready to tell folks you have a blind faith.

We are talking about the NT writers. I again need to reference the UFO link. This link is just a small list of countless claims floating around about E.T.'s. Many of these claims suggest that 'extraterrestrial' sightings have been made. If I wanted to create a following, I could simply curate as many of these individual stories, to taste, as possible. I can tweak them accordingly, and also add motivating factors - like propping up the faith and fear, etc... I could make a comprehensive book about it.

Case/point, how many similar claims suggest direct contact from an almond-head-shaped extraterrestrial? Many claims exist. It must be real! Now, have an inspired group place all these claims together, add some other stuff, and make a religion out of it.

None of what you are saying above has a thing in the world to do with whether the Christian claims would be true or false. I mean, what evidence to you have which would even suggest this was the aim of the authors contained in the NT? The evidence against what you have to offer, is the fact that the majority of scholars are convinced these authors were convinced in what they report which means they were not attempting to prop up some sort of religion. You are simply wasting your time attempting to compare Christianity to religion, or any of these other claims. If we could demonstrate all these religions, you are comparing Christianity to would be false, along with demonstrating there are no aliens, this would not have a thing in the world to do with Christianity. Is your reasoning, if we can determine any of these religions to be false, along with determining there are no aliens, along with we know Santa is not real, then this somehow demonstrates Christianity to be false? Or is it that it makes Christianity to be more unlikely to be true? GOOD GRIEF!

I'm not saying that YOU did. The mere existence of this popular argument is the compelling evidence that this religion is not to be taken upon 'facts and evidence', but instead upon "faith".

AGAIN, GOOD GRIEF! Simply because there are Christians who offer this sort of wager has nothing whatsoever to do with it. As an example, I will never forget my dad saying such a thing. As we were riding down the road one day talking, he said concerning Christianity, "even if Christianity is false, it is not a bad way to live and if it ends up being false, we have nothing to lose". Keep in mind I am not attending Church at this time, and I am thinking, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I am a Christian now, and it is still stupid thinking. I can assure you the apostle Paul did not offer the "Pascal wager" because it was Paul who said, "If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied." So, while you seem to be suggesting there are Christians today offering the "Pascal wager" (and I agree you are correct) Paul certainly was not offering the "Pascal wager" and far from it.

Where Christianity is concerned, where do you land, a) or b)?

I always land on B whether it concerns Christianity or something else. In other words, even when I am convinced the position I hold is correct, I always ask folks to stop and let's look at the reasons those opposed may have, in order to determine if they may have good reasons to hold such a position, and if they do we should acknowledge this to be the case and not insist that the position we hold would be the only logical position. This is the exact reason I continue to say that I have no problem with the position those opposed to me hold to, and I will not insist they have no reasons to hold to such a position. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist I have no reason to hold to the position I have, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. Cognitive dissonance involves those who want to insist they must and have to be correct, and all others must and have to be in error, simply because of what they would rather believe. In other words, it is not just that they cannot admit any possibility of error on their part, but they also cannot even admit to the possibility that those opposed have any reason whatsoever to believe as they do.

This would then require an option c) above. Do you have one?

There is no option c. You understand that you may have some sort of bias, and you do all you can do in order to understand the opposing argument and go on to admit those opposed may in fact have reason to hold to the position they have (which I do) or you continue to insist that the position you hold is the only logical position which most folks do when they are a convinced Christian, and they go on to do the same thing when the mind has changed. In other words, when they were a convinced Christian, there was no logical reason for anyone to be opposed to Christianity, and now that they have changed the mind, there is no logical reason to hold to any other opinion then the one I have come to.

Many of the NT claims pertain to the supernatural. I used to only believe the supernatural claims from the Bible, and nowhere else.

Which demonstrates you were guilty of cognitive dissonance. As for me, I have not studied, and am not interested in these other claims, and the only reason I ever became interested in the claims of Christianity is because I understood my children would be exposed to it. With this being the case, I have not rejected any of the other claims, because I have not had a reason to investigate any of the other claims. But the thing is, I do not have to know a thing about any of these other claims, in order to know if there may be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims. One would have nothing to do with the other.

You are admitting to cognitive dissonance when you were a Christian, but this does not in any way necessitate that all Christians must and have to be guilty of cognitive dissonance. You also seem to be under the impression that once you admit to cognitive dissonance with the position you once held, that we should be sure you could not possibly be guilty when you change the mind. This is not how it works. In other words, when one admits to cognitive dissonance in order to change the mind, this does not tell us they have now rid themselves of cognitive dissonance, especially when they hold to the same attitude they had as a Christian in that they continue to insist they must and have to be correct. The same goes for one who was a convinced Christian at one time, who tells us they were a Christian who did not engage the mind in order to be a Christian. This does not in any way demonstrate to us, the mind is now engaged. In fact, it very well may be evidence we are dealing with someone who can make such decisions without the use of the mind. It is what I call, "easy in, easy out".

But I now reject all claims to the supernatural, unless hard evidence were to suggests otherwise - which it has not yet.

And we can be sure that cognitive dissonance is not involved this time, correct?

The claims from the NT are no different than the claims from the Quran.

This explains a lot right here! There is a ton of difference between the two. Just as one small example, the major character of Islam, went into a cave and came out ensuring folks he had heard from God, and that he was a prophet of God, and goes on to explain what God would have us to know and do. With this being the case, one would have to take the word of the main character in order to believe. Compare this to the main character of Christianity, who leaves us nothing in writing at all, which means the only way we know about this main character is by the testimony of others, meaning more than one, and we have enough facts and evidence concerning these reports, to convince the scholars that those who reported on this main character truly believed they had encountered this main character after his death. My friend, that is a tremendous difference and that is just the beginning. But this sort of thinking is not shocking coming from one who was convinced of something they now admit there would be no facts and evidence to support. Since they were convinced of Christianity with no facts and evidence involved, they can now point to another religion without knowing very much about it, and make the statement "the claims in the NT are no different than the claim of any other religion". All I can continue to say is GOOD GRIEF!

Now to you... Why do you 'know' supernatural claims are true from the NT, without requiring any 'faith'?

My friend, faith is required when there would be no facts and evidence to examine. When you have facts and evidence you can base your position of the facts and evidence, no faith required.

Further, if you require no faith, then doesn't Jesus think less of you?

There is no faith required in believing that Jesus was a real historical figure, because we have the facts and evidence to base such belief upon. Moreover, the NT writers did not ask their audience to employ faith in order to believe the resurrection. Rather, they supplied facts and evidence. Faith is required in order to believe the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus atone for sin. As I have already said, one cannot look at, study, analyze, or weigh forgiveness. Forgiveness must be excepted by faith. We have facts and evidence for the rest.

Maybe your standards for what you refer to as 'facts and evidence' are nowhere near as stringent as mine

This coming from one, who admits to being a convinced Christian at one time, who now wants to tell us they were convinced when there would be no facts and evidence to convince one of such a thing. I mean, the hits just keep on coming. You really cannot make this stuff up!

especially when the claims are about something supernatural?

Which is more than likely the main reason you reject the claims. In other words, just like when you were a Christian you did not allow the facts and evidence to get in the way of what you would rather believe, and now that you have changed what you would rather believe, we simply engage cognitive dissonance and ignore any facts and evidence, and simply go with the fact that we would rather not believe in the supernatural. GOOD STUFF!

I'm a Product Of Indoctrination. Many do not read the Bible, believers included. As stated above, I trusted authority around me. This was my own personal journey. All I'm saying is that many fall away after they finally read the Bible. (i.e)

Isaac Asimov "said that the Bible is the most potent force for atheism if it is read properly."

Now there is a good reason to reject Christianity. Does your mind really work this way? I mean, what you are saying above has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian claims being true or false.

I'm answering the question, based upon what you and I already agreed upon, via post 85 Morals are both superfluous and irrelevant. Ironically, Jesus' greatest command is also a moral. So I guess, game over...

You continue to avoid the question. I will try again. Does your attempts to follow the golden rule cause you to be a moral person?

[POI]

this demonstrates the authors were not attempting to convince anyone to believe, since those who were addressed already believed.

Then the NT authors would not prop up "faith" and "fear".

However, the bottom line is, I have no problem with what it is you believe concerning the Christian claims, and I will not argue that you do not have reasons to hold the position you have.

Then I guess the meat and potatoes of this exchange is over.?.? My assessment will be left uncontested by you?

Now on to the other stuff said below, which does not directly relate to NT writers being savvy enough to prop up faith and fear, as they were aware that most would not believe by way of any 'evidence.' The objective was to win converts. And a great way to do this is to encourage faith, promoted with fear.

But the thing is, you cannot rightly insist there are no facts, evidence and reasons to believe the claims, because there indeed is.

Just like there exists mounds of "facts & evidence" to suggest humans have been probed anally by almond-head-shaped E.T.'s.

My friend, the majority of scholars have come to the conclusion, whether they are a Christian are not, that the earliest followers were not making the reports up. Whether you would like to admit it or not, that is huge, because it tells us that we at least have enough facts and evidence to know that they truly believed Jesus rose from the dead, and they continued to proclaim this for decades. So then, while I have no problem with what you believe, and I do not insist you have no reason to hold to such a position, the problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, I have no reasons to hold to the position I have, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. I will go on to tell you that comparing Christianity to the religions of the world, or comparing it to alien sightings, or Santa does nothing for anyone's argument who attempts to make it other than to demonstrate one who has disqualified themselves from the conversation.

Cough cough,... UFO link. The same exact thing(s) can be said there. I could comprise of a comprehensive list of patrons whose earnest accounts were that they all have direct experiences with E.T.s. Now, how would I get the ones who have never been probed/other, to believe? Hmmm? Oh, I know, prop up faith and fear.

This passage is not promoting faith without evidence. Jesus is saying, Thomas has seen Jesus crucified, dead, buried, and risen again while those after will not witness these events. You do not get to translate this to mean, belief without any evidence. Again, if this is what was being promoted by the authors, there would be no need in pointing to things such as the empty tomb. The fact of the matter is, the author of 1 Peter tells his audience, "always be ready to give a defense for the faith". This is courtroom talk meaning be ready to give the evidence. It certainly does not mean, simply be ready to tell folks you have a blind faith.

No. Jesus tells Thomas that he reveres the ones more-so, who have not seen and still believe. This means the ones which apply faith, without having a direct "Jesus moment," are appreciated more.

AGAIN, GOOD GRIEF! Simply because there are Christians who offer this sort of wager has nothing whatsoever to do with it. As an example, I will never forget my dad saying such a thing. As we were riding down the road one day talking, he said concerning Christianity, "even if Christianity is false, it is not a bad way to live and if it ends up being false, we have nothing to lose". Keep in mind I am not attending Church at this time, and I am thinking, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I am a Christian now, and it is still stupid thinking. I can assure you the apostle Paul did not offer the "Pascal wager" because it was Paul who said, "If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied." So, while you seem to be suggesting there are Christians today offering the "Pascal wager" (and I agree you are correct) Paul certainly was not offering the "Pascal wager" and far from it.

Context, Realjack, context.... The Bible reveres faith over being convinced by 'hard evidence', ala doubting Thomas. Since this is in John 20, is one of the reasons Christians use Pascal's Wager. You do not see any evolutionary biologists going around telling unbelievers in this discipline to believe or else. Why? Because disbelieving does not present with the threat of eternal torment

You understand that you may have some sort of bias,

My position here is simple. I doubt any/all claims which claim the supernatural. Christianity included.... Through life experience, yes, we are forced to harbor some safe guards. Not all claims are as easily accepted equally. (i.e.);

claim 1 - I got in a fender bender yesterday.
claim 2 - I was contacted by a demon yesterday.

Honestly, which of the two might you more-so believe without more scrutiny?

And we can be sure that cognitive dissonance is not involved this time, correct?

My rejection of claims is for consistent reason(s). Meaning, any/all claims to the "supernatural" are met with the same level of scrutiny. Since there exists countless haunted houses, with countless witnesses to these haunted houses, I guess you more-so believe them, then you do about the claims form the Bible. Right?

My friend, faith is required when there would be no facts and evidence to examine. When you have facts and evidence you can base your position of the facts and evidence, no faith required.

No "my friend". We've been over this already. Why are we going backwards? To hold to a conclusion about a claim, the less evidence, the more faith is required, and vice versa.

Further, if you possess no faith, then Jesus thinks 'less' of you over and above the ones who apply faith while lacking evidence. Sorry. Why?

"29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Faith is required in order to believe the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus atone for sin. As I have already said, one cannot look at, study, analyze, or weigh forgiveness. Forgiveness must be excepted by faith. We have facts and evidence for the rest.

Negative. "Doubting Thomas" did not believe he rose. This was why Jesus had to show him he came back. (i.e.):

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” .”

You see Realjack, the metaphor is that many are like "Doubting Thomas". Me included. This is why NT writers propped up faith and fear.

Now there is a good reason to reject Christianity. Does your mind really work this way? I mean, what you are saying above has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian claims being true or false.

What I'm saying is that all it takes for many to no longer believe, is to read the darn thing. The debate about 'what is truth', is an entirely different topic.

You continue to avoid the question. I will try again. Does your attempts to follow the golden rule cause you to be a moral person?

You continue to avoid the glaring contradiction. If morals are both superfluous and irrelevant, than Jesus' greatest given commandment is also superfluous and irrelevant. Please recall my OP statement:

then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

[bluegreenearth]

You are simply wasting your time attempting to compare Christianity to religion, or any of these other claims. If we could demonstrate all these religions, you are comparing Christianity to would be false, along with demonstrating there are no aliens, this would not have a thing in the world to do with Christianity. Is your reasoning, if we can determine any of these religions to be false, along with determining there are no aliens, along with we know Santa is not real, then this somehow demonstrates Christianity to be false? Or is it that it makes Christianity to be more unlikely to be true? GOOD GRIEF!

Perhaps I might be able to provide some clarification to this confusion without taking a side in the debate. First of all, it is correct that the validity of Christian claims stand or fall based on their own merits independent of whether any other extraordinary claims are determined to be true or false. However, this isn't the purpose of comparing the claims of Christianity to other extraordinary claims. The purpose for such comparisons is to examine the reliability of the reasoning process (i.e., method of investigation) that underlies the decision to accept a particular claim as being true. This is important because it would not be justifiable to accept a conclusion that was derived through an unreliable reasoning process, even if that conclusion was later demonstrated to be correct through a more reliable method of investigation. Despite the possibility that an unreliable method of investigation could arrive at a correct conclusion regardless, it would not be possible to justify the correctness of the conclusion until a more reliable reasoning process produces an equivalent outcome. The way to test for reliability in this context is by consistently applying the method of investigation to competing and contradictory claims and comparing the outcomes. If reliable, a reasoning process would not be expected to produce conclusions that compete with or contradict each other. For example, if the same reasoning process that leads to the acceptance of the Christian claims also leads to the acceptance of other non-Christian claims that are incompatible with Christianity or have otherwise been demonstrated to be false, then this would be a strong indications of a problem with the method of investigation itself. Please note, when such a comparison succeeds in demonstrating the unreliability of a particular reasoning process, this does not imply anything about the truth value of the claims it was applied to. It merely means a more reliable method of investigation is needed to produce conclusions that can be justifiably accepted. So, while an unreliable method of investigation makes it unjustifiable to accept the Christian claims, it does not make Christianity false or more unlikely to be true. I hope that explanation served a relevant purpose in this discussion. If not, thanks for taking the time to consider the information I've offered.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #104]

I think so, because I caught the appeal above to 'facts' or 'evidence'. We doubters cannot deny those. But ther point is whether those evidences are true as written, real events as distinct from invented or given a spin.

The whole point about Bible criticism (or ought to be) is that it is not credible and the 'Facts' are that the claims reported are not true, are invented or at least given a spin.

Touchstone case - the nativities. They contradict so badly that they are a 'Touchstone' example of gospel fabrication.

One example? it 'does not alter doctrine'? the second worst example is the resurrection(s) and that takes down Christianity entire, if it is wrong.

The rest is just bolstering the case. the additions to Mark, the omissions of so much important stuff. I have found the 'Explanations' were no more than faithbased dismissal, trading on the fact that few people really read the Bible, and almost nobody analyses it.

So many irrelevant discussions, and most (cosmic origins, Life, consciousness and morality) don't get you to Jesus even if they were valid. We have the Leap of faith to Biblegod and Jesus and never mind the other gods.

So IF that was challenged (we never get that far) the Bible would be the leap of faith. In fact that happened on an earlier Forum where arguing first cause got to which God and he immediately leaped to the Gospel of John, and the argument about Bible reliability was the one that was relevant in the first place.

We know (or should) that the appeal to Paul on the resurrection is a flam. He is talking about something not only different but contradictory to the Gospel resurrection. But then, the gospel resurrections are contradictory, too.

[POI]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #104]

The entire objective of this thread is to 'demonstrate' that the NT writers were aware that most aren't going to receive 'hard evidence', like 'Doubting Thomas" received. When I say NT writers, I mean the ones who fiddled the original stories to win later converts. The NT was not an official thing until 100's of years later. Even "RealJack" acknowledges this much. In order to win converts, after emperor Constantine and beyond, the objective was to make this religion THE religion. And what better way to do that then to prop up (faith and fear). Why? As I told "RealJack", most are not going to have any of the same experiences in which is expressed in the Bible.

So yes, though it is fun to discuss one's epistemology/etc, my analogy about harvesting UFO claims is/are presented to draw a direct parallel. NT writers harvested earlier circulating oral traditions, as well as some writings, and culminated them all together to prop up a new official religion. And the way to win more converts was to prop up faith, since 'hard evidence' is off the table; as discussed when mentioning 'doubting Thomas'. Add in fear, by the mention of eternal torment, and viola, you have the makings of an official religion, endorsed by official authority.

This allows many to ignore, or present needed apologetics/spin, to dismiss the illogic presented in there as well.

It's not about what necessarily IS true. It's instead about how the writers tried to win converts.

[POI]

Double post, sorry

[POI]

Faith and fear, as demonstrated by "facts and evidence".



Oh, but this is not the right interpretation

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

Guys,

I am getting involved in too many different conversations to keep up with, but I want to respond to this one.

First of all, it is correct that the validity of Christian claims stand or fall based on their own merits independent of whether any other extraordinary claims are determined to be true or false. However, this isn't the purpose of comparing the claims of Christianity to other extraordinary claims.

First, are you speaking for everyone? Because I can assure you that the comparison has been made by others in order to point out the assumption that one simply accepts one extraordinary claim, and rejects all other extraordinary claims simply based upon what one would rather believe. It is a fact that many folks operate in this way, but this does not in any way necessitate that it would be impossible to come to the conclusion that there are good reasons to believe one of the claims, while not knowing, or even caring if there may be good reasons to believe the other claims. In other words, simply because I am arguing that there are good reasons to believe one of the claims, does not mean I am insisting there would be no good reasons to believe the other claims.

The purpose for such comparisons is to examine the reliability of the reasoning process (i.e., method of investigation) that underlies the decision to accept a particular claim as being true.

What you continue to want to do is to bring the scientific method into the equation, and while I certainly believe in science, what we are dealing with here is outside the realm of science. Science cannot tell us if any of these extraordinary claims have occurred in history. Rather, science can only tell us if any of these claims would be scientifically possible. However, simply because science determines that an event would be scientifically impossible, does not at all demonstrate the event did not occur. Rather, this would simply mean that if such an event occurred, science would not be able to explain it, because such an event would be outside the realm of science.

So then, if I would like to know if a resurrection has occurred in history, I can certainly refer to science in order to determine if a resurrection would be scientifically possible, but this would simply be a piece in the puzzle, and one would need to understand that science is not the final arbitrator in this case, because the issue is outside the realm of science. The point is science is extremely valuable, but for one to be under the impression that science will ever have all the answers is for one to have an unreliable reasoning process, because there are many things outside the realm of science. The bottom line is again, science can certainly tell us that a resurrection is scientifically impossible, but this certainly in no way tells us that a resurrection has never occurred. Rather, it simply tells us that if a resurrection has occurred, science would not be able to explain it, since such an event would be outside the realm of science. There is a tremendous difference between one holding science in high regard, and believing in the scientific method, as opposed to one being under the impression that the scientific method is the way in which we should seek to answer all questions.

This is important because it would not be justifiable to accept a conclusion that was derived through an unreliable reasoning process

Correct, and I tell other Christians this myself. In other words, I point out the fact that, they really do not know what they believe, nor why they believe it. This means, they have come to believe upon a faulty reasoning process. In fact, I believe I can demonstrate from this very site that we have former Christians who freely admit to the fact that they had no reasons to be convinced Christianity was true, and yet they continued to be Christian well into adulthood. The problem here is, they certainly seem to be under the impression that since they had no good reason to be convinced, that this somehow demonstrates that all other Christians must, and had to come to the conclusions they had based upon the same method, and I think you would have to agree that this sort of thinking would be faulty. I am just telling you that you would have to agree that there are many folks who were at one time convinced Christians, who have now rejected Christianity, who are convinced that since they are admitting to a faulty reasoning process, that this somehow demonstrates that all Christians must and have to have the same reasoning process, and if this is correct, then you would have to agree that this would be a faulty reasoning process. The point is faulty reasoning does not simply lie with the Christian. Rather, it also pertains to those who freely admit to using a faulty reasoning process to become a Christian, who now want to convince us they have a more reliable reasoning process, which is what caused them to reject what they were once convinced of. Well, pardon me if I am not convinced their reasoning is any better now. In other words, simply because one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the mind is now engaged.

even if that conclusion was later demonstrated to be correct through a more reliable method of investigation.

Correct, and again I continue to attempt to explain to fellow Christians, "while what you claim to believe may be true, you really do not know what you believe, nor why you believe it." What I am doing is to explain to them their reasoning is faulty. What I think you are failing to realize is the fact that there are some things which can be believed, which cannot absolutely be demonstrated. In other words, we can both look at the same facts and evidence, and come to completely different conclusions, and we could both have very good reasons to be convinced as we are. Now, we can acknowledge this to be the case and agree to disagree, going on to agree that one or the both of us are in error, or we can continue to insist that the other is guilty of faulty reasoning.

This is important because it would not be justifiable to accept a conclusion that was derived through an unreliable reasoning process, even if that conclusion was later demonstrated to be correct through a more reliable method of investigation.

Allow me to explain to you the conclusions I have come to, and you go on to explain my faulty reasoning. I am convinced there are very good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. While it would be impossible for me to go into the whole reasoning process here, I am also convinced there very well may be good reasons to believe the claims may be false. Therefore, I am not insisting that I must, and have to be correct, and there would be no reasons to be opposed to the position I hold. I am not insisting that all who are opposed have faulty reasoning, although I am convinced that many opposed do in fact have faulty reasoning, while going on to acknowledge that many, if not the majority of those who are Christian have faulty reasoning. Although I have demonstrated that many of those opposed to the position I hold have faulty reasoning , I do not insist this demonstrates that all opposed must and have to have a faulty reasoning. Therefore, I am here on this site in order to discuss, and debate the facts and evidence concerning Christianity, in no way in order to convince anyone to convert to Christianity. Rather, I am here to determine how my arguments hold up to those opposed, not insisting those opposed have no reasons to be opposed.

As far as the rest of what you have to say, I believe you are a scientist, and you rely heavily upon the scientific method. Again, I believe in the scientific method, and I hold science in high regard. However, I understand that there are many things which are outside the realm of science and am not under the impression that science has the answers to all questions. In other words, science deals with science, and uses the scientific method. Historians deal with history, and this does not employ the scientific method, since these are different realms.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #109]

One of the NT writer's objective(s), whoever they actually were, was to gain new converts, right?

The Bible happens to mention faith, as well as mentioning eternal torment, many times, right?

An effective way to gain new converts would be to prop up levels of faith and fear, right?