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?

[POI]

The point is, the Bible is not the source of the reports, and therefore we are not getting the information from one source. If we can agree to this then we can move on to the rest.

The Bible is the apparent collection of 'sources'. And when we start, by comparing "Mark" and "Luke" alone, they are not logically compatible.

Now, back to the OP point(s). The NT authors prop up (faith and fear), ala Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I am not going to roll with that definition of faith.

Saint Thomas Aquinas defines faith as an act of the intellect that assents to the truth through the will, which is moved by God’s grace.

Though we cannot directly observe these metaphysical truths, we accept them because of God’s influence on our will, and this assent is based on divine revelation. Aquinas considers faith to be a form of knowledge.

Additionally, there are truths we accept on faith that are not divinely revealed, such as metaphysical beliefs like mathematical realism, which is accepted by many atheists. This kind of truth cannot be proven true or false through empirical evidence.

And then we must consider the fact that metaphysical truths can be objective though not empirical. For example, principles like causality, identity, or mathematical realism are considered objectively true by many philosophers, not because we can observe them directly but because they provide a coherent foundation for understanding reality.

[POI]

I am not going to roll with that definition of faith.

Okay, let's explore then....

My position is that the Bible pushed up (faith and fear) to gain new converts, because the NT writers were aware that most aren't going to receive hard evidence - like the said characters in the Bible are said to have had. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas' was told that more blessed are the ones who believe without such evidence. The Bible also pushed up faith and fear here, and beyond --- (Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc).

I look forward to your response....

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

Again, let us take one thing at a time.

Yes, we have a vast collection of claims here, just like we do with any other claimed holy book.

First, it would be a fact that what one of what you call "holy books" has to say, would have nothing whatsoever to do with any other of what you call a "holy book". In other words, even if we could absolutely determine that one of what you call a "holy book" would be found to be reporting falsely, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the other of what you call a holy book. Therefore, it is a useless argument to attempt to compare what one of what you call a holy book, to another of what you call a holy book.

Next, I am not aware of any other of what you call a holy book, comparing to what has been called the Bible. The religions I am aware of, have a main character, who claims to have heard from God in one way or another, and then goes on to author what you call a holy book, in which this main character tells us what God wants us to know, and, or how we should live. On the other hand, the main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing himself, which means the only way we know about this main character is by the reports we have of those who witnessed him when he was alive. Moreover, none of those who authored the material concerning this main character claimed to have heard from God, nor do they claimed to have been inspired by God to write the material. Rather, these folks were writing out what they claimed to be historical events, to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by you and I some 2000 years later. Add to this the fact that we have the majority of scholars today, some 2000 years later who tell us we can know from the facts and evidence we have from these writings, that the earliest followers of this main character, truly believed they had encountered this main character alive after death. With all of this being the case, I would like to ask you, what other of what you call a holy book, would compare to what we have, as far as what is contained in what we call the NT? There is a tremendous difference between a main character claiming to have heard from God in some sort of way, and going on to instruct us on what God would want us to know, and, or how we should live, and having to take the word of this main character, as opposed to having different sources who never claimed to have been instructed by God to author what they wrote, but were rather reporting to audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have ever been read by anyone other than the intended audience at the time, and they were not concerned about explaining what God would want the world to know, but were rather reporting on what they claimed to be an historical event, and if this historical event did not occur, then the whole falls with it?

Please explain what other claims compare to this?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

If all these claims merely suggested was that a homeless Jewish preacher was born, lived, worked in carpentry, and was ultimately killed for blasphemy, and the end, then, I doubt anyone would kick up much of any fuss.

Correct, and if the above was the case, we more than likely would have never known much about Jesus at all. However, the way it stands now, the name Jesus is one of the most, if not the most recognized names in history, and this man has had one of the most, if not the most significant impacts upon history. This has occurred, without Jesus leaving us a word in writing himself, and we know about him because of the testimony of those who followed him, with enough facts and evidence to convince most of the scholars that these folks truly believed they had encountered him alive after death. The reports these folks gave have consumed the lives of millions, upon millions of folks, and continues to do so some 2000 years later, and this would include you as well, and it consumed your life as a one-time believer, and it continues to consume your life now as you spend day, after day attempting to convince yourself there was no reason to believe what you were once so convinced of.

Now, I do not care who you are, that is a most extraordinary tale. I mean, you have mostly ordinary fishermen, who were somehow convinced they had encountered their leader after death and go on to continue to live their life in such a way, and these ordinary fishermen go on to have one of the most, if not the most, enormous impacts the world has ever known.

My friend, the only thing you have eliminated would be the miraculous. You certainly have not eliminated the extraordinary, because I can assure you that it is in no way ordinary for common everyday folks to have such a tremendous impact.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

Not only are we supposed to take the Bible's word that Jesus was born in a barn, lived and did work as a carpenter, was homeless, raised up a cult following

My friend, you are not supposed to believe anything. Rather, if one is interested, they should follow the evidence where it leads. You seem to believe the evidence leads to the reports somehow being made up. The thing is, I have no problem with that in the least. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no reason to believe the reports, especially when such a person claims to have been a convinced Christian at one time.

I have no doubt in my mind that you had no reasons to be convinced, because most of the Christians I know really do not have a good reason to be convinced. Most Christians really do not know what they believe, nor why they believe as they do, but this in no way demonstrates there is no reason to believe. Claiming to have been a convinced Christian at one time, who goes on to claim they were convinced for no good reason, does not add anything at all to the validity of what one now believes. What it does tell us is that we are dealing with one who can be convinced of something without the use of the mind. The question which naturally would come to mind now would be, how are we to be sure the mind is engaged now?

Next, these deconversion stories are not convincing at all. In fact, it would be exactly what I would expect. In other words, since I know most Christians really do not know what they believe, nor why they believe it, it is not a shock at all to come to realize they are leaving the faith. It is almost comical. I mean, when one was a Christian, they had these conversion stories of how they came to believe, as if these things have anything at all to do with it. Now that they have changed the mind, they have their deconversion stories as if this is some sort of testimony in the opposite direction. Allow me to demonstrate to you how these sorts of stories mean nothing at all.

As I said in a previous post, I have read the book, "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert", which was authored by a former lesbian, who was a tenured professor at Syracuse University, who was the head of the LBGTQ at the University. She says that she was not only afraid of Christians, but she was also afraid of their ideas (and I would have to say for the most part she would have good reasons for this) and she was in the process of writing a paper on "The Rise of the Religious Right in America". However, during the process, she converts to Christianity, and she credits her vast knowledge of language for this conversion to Christianity. This woman became so convinced that she lost most all she had. She lost her job, many lifelong friends, and she claims this transformation came because of the use of the mind.

The point is, I really do not believe you will find anyone else who would have had more reason to be opposed to Christianity, and yet converts to that which she hates, and she did so by attempting to write against it, and it was her investigation which led to her conversion. Now, do you think in any way that her story adds any validity at all to Christianity? Of course, you do not, nor do I. We can go through countless stories on both sides, and it means nothing at all at the end of the day. Moreover, and as I have already stated, it is not shocking at all to me that we have folks leaving the faith. The fact is what is bewildering to me is that we do not have even more.

So then, as you read what is contained in the NT, you are reading what the authors intended to communicate to audiences at the time, and they had no idea that you or I would ever read what they had to say, and therefore they were not in any way attempting to tell you what you are supposed to believe. Allow me to attempt to give you an example.

Let us suppose my wife knows an event out of the ordinary has occurred, but she does not know all the details. Now let us suppose that I send her an email explaining the details, and you somehow are able to read this email and find the story to be unbelievable. You see, the problem is, I was not writing this information out in order to convince you. In fact, I was not writing the information in order to convince my wife, because she is already convinced. So then, since my audience is my wife, who already believes the event occurred, I am not concerned with attempting to get anyone to believe anything.

As we turn our attention to what is contained in the NT, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of it was addressed to those who already believed. This of course would include the letters of Paul which were addressed to the Churches, along with what is called the "pastorals". Now, as we combine this with the material addressed to Theophilus, who is introduced as one who already believes, we have the overwhelming majority of the material being addressed to believers. With this being the case, what little we have left may well have been intended for believing audiences. The point is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was not intended to persuade the unbeliever, and therefore is not attempting to "tell us what we are suppose to believe".

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

Alternatively, if we are instead to apply skepticism to such claims, and investigate, like we would any other claim(s) to the supernatural, we are left with very little to propel us against retaining skepticism

I am certainly sorry that you accepted Christianity to be true without any skepticism. You are not alone, because many Christians do the same. What I cannot understand is how one translates the fact that they did not use skepticism when coming to their conclusions, that this somehow means that no one could use skepticism. I can assure you that I used extreme skepticism when I was investigating the claims. I cannot imagine one simply accepting as fact that one was raised from the dead. However, one cannot simply use skepticism in one direction. It also needs to be applied in the other. I certainly do not have the time or the space to go through my whole thinking process, but one of the things I was extremely skeptical about was the idea these folks could have pulled off some sort of hoax. Now, let us add to this the fact that there are scholars who will not attempt to come up with alternative explanations because they understand that none of these alternatives can explain all the facts and evidence we have. All you have to do is to sit down and come up with some sort of alternative, and then sit down and determine if such a scenario would even be possible. As an example, I believe we can eliminate the possibility that the early followers made the stories up, and we can do this without the majority of scholars coming to the conclusion that these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. Since we have eliminated this idea, we are off to the next, and you will begin to see that there really is not easy answers. If the reports are not true, there has to be some sort of explanation for the reports, so what exactly would that be?

Whether you would like to believe it or not, those who are closest to me say I am skeptical to a fault. In other words, I do not believe much of anything. So, yeah! I am extremely skeptical of a report of one rising from the dead, and I have no problem with one stopping right there. However, if one continues on, they are going to find out they have some serious problems, if they continue to use skepticism on both sides of the equation.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

Yes, a very small scrap (from 'John') has been dated back to as early as ~125-150 AD. Prior to this, nothing has been located.

My friend, it does not take a whole lot of thinking to know beyond doubt that the letters of Paul would have had to have been authored before 70 AD. This is a fact which cannot be denied. Whether you would like to admit it or not, we have very good evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul, and we even have evidence the author was Luke. With this being the case, we know the letters of Paul were authored before 70 AD and if the author of the letters to Theophlus was a traveling companion of Paul, this would mean the overwhelming majority of the NT was authored before 70 AD.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

Let's see if we can take one thing at the time and come to some sort of agreement.

Not only are we supposed to take the Bible's word that Jesus was born in a barn

I am not asking you to "take the Bible's word". In fact, I wish the Bible had never been composed. The Bible does not tell us anything at all, because the authors penned the words hundreds of years before the Bible. This may sound like I am parsing words, but it is extremely important, in that there is a tremendous difference between a book reporting on an event, as opposed to different sources reporting on the same event. The point is, the Bible is not the source of the reports, and therefore we are not getting the information from one source. If we can agree to this then we can move on to the rest.

If we remove the Bible, what else is there? Further, how do we know they are reliable?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to POI in post #128]

Alternatively, if we are instead to apply skepticism to such claims, and investigate, like we would any other claim(s) to the supernatural, we are left with very little to propel us against retaining skepticism

I am certainly sorry that you accepted Christianity to be true without any skepticism. You are not alone, because many Christians do the same. What I cannot understand is how one translates the fact that they did not use skepticism when coming to their conclusions, that this somehow means that no one could use skepticism. I can assure you that I used extreme skepticism when I was investigating the claims. I cannot imagine one simply accepting as fact that one was raised from the dead. However, one cannot simply use skepticism in one direction. It also needs to be applied in the other. I certainly do not have the time or the space to go through my whole thinking process, but one of the things I was extremely skeptical about was the idea these folks could have pulled off some sort of hoax. Now, let us add to this the fact that there are scholars who will not attempt to come up with alternative explanations because they understand that none of these alternatives can explain all the facts and evidence we have. All you have to do is to sit down and come up with some sort of alternative, and then sit down and determine if such a scenario would even be possible. As an example, I believe we can eliminate the possibility that the early followers made the stories up, and we can do this without the majority of scholars coming to the conclusion that these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. Since we have eliminated this idea, we are off to the next, and you will begin to see that there really is not easy answers. If the reports are not true, there has to be some sort of explanation for the reports, so what exactly would that be?

Whether you would like to believe it or not, those who are closest to me say I am skeptical to a fault. In other words, I do not believe much of anything. So, yeah! I am extremely skeptical of a report of one rising from the dead, and I have no problem with one stopping right there. However, if one continues on, they are going to find out they have some serious problems, if they continue to use skepticism on both sides of the equation.

I think fake news, exaggeration, myth and rumor are all elements that have to be considered but truth has its own coherence, ils own consistency. True narratives can stand up under scrutiny. There are few book that have been as scrutinized as the four gospels.