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?

[Realworldjack]

[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?

If we did not have the Bible, we would still have the material contained in the Bible. This means, no one would be able to say, "the Bible says" because there would be no Bible to say anything. The fact is, the Bible does not say anything now. The author of Mark says, the author of Matthew says, the author of John says, the author of Luke and The Acts says, and Paul says, but the Bible does not say anything.

Next, at this point it is not a matter as to whether we can know if they are reliable. Because you see, you are insisting the information must and has to be false. If not then you are leaving open the possibility the reports may be true, and it does not matter how much of a possibility you believe it to be. If you are insisting the reports are false, then you will have to give some sort of alternative explanation as to why, and how we have the reports, which will hold up to the facts and evidence we have. The idea that the whole thing was made up just does not hold up to what we can know. Even the scholars tell us we can know the earliest followers truly believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death. However, even without the scholars telling us we can know this, the idea that the whole thing was made up, just don't add up.

We then move on to the idea which some have put forth, which would be the authors were writing decades after the events, and simply passing on what had been passed on to them down through the decades, and the stories became embellished. The first question here would be, how many decades are we talking about? I mean think about it. Let's take Paul for example. We know Paul was alive at the time of the crucifixion. We know Paul spent a number of years traveling around attempting to stop Christianity. We know Paul converted and according to Paul it was 3 years before he traveled to Jerusalem. A few years later Paul goes on his missionary journeys, and when he comes to the first town, he would have spent a few years there before moving to the next. When he arrives to the next town, how long would it be before Paul sits down to write his first letter to a Church? You see, we are already at decades from the crucifixion before Paul ever has a need to write a letter to a Church.

This brings us back to the fact that we know Paul was alive at the time of the crucifixion, and we know Paul spent time with the original apostles, and Paul reports the appearances of Jesus, not only to the twelve, but also to others as well, which eliminates the idea of embellishment through the decades. The fact is all of Paul's letters would have had to be authored before the year 70.

And so, we move on to the next in order to determine if we can come up with a scenario which may hold up to the facts and evidence we can know. The point is, there comes a time when we may need to stop asking how we can know the material is reliable, and maybe begin to ask the question, how could the reports be false.

[POI]

The author of Mark says, ....... the author of Luke..... says,

Starting here.... These two Gospels are not logically compatible with one another. Which logically means you must discard one of them, or both.

[Realworldjack]

The author of Mark says, ....... the author of Luke..... says,

Starting here.... These two Gospels are not logically compatible with one another. Which logically means you must discard one of them, or both.

I am not sure where you are saying they "are not logically compatible with one another"? What I do know is, we have those on the one hand who complain that the authors report certain event so closely that the authors must and had to copy each other. On the other hand, if we have any differences at all, then we have those who want to insist the difference demonstrate the unreliability. The question is, exactly what would make you happy? It is not uncommon at all for folks to witness the same event, and remember, and report things differently. In fact, if folks report things exactly the same, we suspect they may have rehearsed their testimony together. Me and my wife can witness the same thing, and then later when she begins to tell the story to others, I may have to correct her and say, "that is not exactly how it happened". At that point she may say, "Oh yeah that's right" or we may just disagree, but the point is, no one who is listening to her story is going to believe the main event of the story is false because we cannot get our story together.

At any rate, I understand there are differences, discrepancies, and maybe even contradictions, but they both report a resurrection, and I am trying to understand a reason for how and why we have these reports which would make sense of the facts and evidence we can know?

[POI]

The author of Mark says, ....... the author of Luke..... says,

Starting here.... These two Gospels are not logically compatible with one another. Which logically means you must discard one of them, or both.

I am not sure where you are saying they "are not logically compatible with one another"? What I do know is, we have those on the one hand who complain that the authors report certain event so closely that the authors must and had to copy each other. On the other hand, if we have any differences at all, then we have those who want to insist the difference demonstrate the unreliability. The question is, exactly what would make you happy? It is not uncommon at all for folks to witness the same event, and remember, and report things differently. In fact, if folks report things exactly the same, we suspect they may have rehearsed their testimony together. Me and my wife can witness the same thing, and then later when she begins to tell the story to others, I may have to correct her and say, "that is not exactly how it happened". At that point she may say, "Oh yeah that's right" or we may just disagree, but the point is, no one who is listening to her story is going to believe the main event of the story is false because we cannot get our story together.

At any rate, I understand there are differences, discrepancies, and maybe even contradictions, but they both report a resurrection, and I am trying to understand a reason for how and why we have these reports which would make sense of the facts and evidence we can know?

Taken directly from Benchwarmer. The red is my current stance, to some degree, when reading Mark against Luke. Is the blue one, more lor less, your position?:

If the gospels:

1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #144]


Okay, allow me to state my position again. It is a fact we have the material which has been contained in the NT. It is a fact there is a reason we have these reports. What I am looking for is an explanation for these reports, which would explain all the facts and evidence we can know. I think we can agree the reports were not made up, because this would not explain all the facts and evidence we have. The scholars agree with this in that they are convinced by the facts and evidence we can know that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. So then, since we have eliminated the idea these folks made the stories up, what would better explain the facts and evidence we know? So then, since you are convinced, the stories are unconvincing, and that they can be easily dismissed, what best explains the reason we have the reports?

[Clownboat]

Okay, allow me to state my position again. It is a fact we have the material which has been contained in the NT.

All religious promotional material ever written has material in it which is contained within it.

It is a fact there is a reason we have these reports.

All religious claims have reasons for reports made within them.

What I am looking for is an explanation for these reports, which would explain all the facts and evidence we can know.

Just pretend you were examining a religion where you didn't believe you had an eternal soul tied to it. You would arrive at the same conclusion that you currently arrive at for competing religions. That would be that the claims were made up by men. Religions really seems just that simple. The one you belong to because of where you were born on this planet is not special.

I think we can agree the reports were not made up

Reports get made up or embellished all the time and you know this.

because this would not explain all the facts and evidence we have.

There are no facts nor evidence that a decomposed body actually returned to life. If there were, we would analyze these facts and evidence and believe the claims. Instead, faith is required in order to believe.

The scholars agree with this in that they are convinced by the facts and evidence we can know that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

See competing religions and the claims they are convinced by. Face it, you believe what you believe due to where you were born. You then pretend that the religion you believe in is credible. If you were born in the middle east, you would make for a really good Muslim.

So then, since we have eliminated the idea these folks made the stories up, what would better explain the facts and evidence we know?

The stories were made up, embellished or the resurrection was believed in, but 'spiritual' in nature.

So then, since you are convinced, the stories are unconvincing, and that they can be easily dismissed, what best explains the reason we have the reports?

It boggles the mind that you seem to not know about other religious beliefs and the claims made within them. Are religious reports to be believed? Is that your stance, or is yours one of special pleading?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #146]

Okay, let's just take one thing at a time, and I will pick and choose,

Just pretend you were examining a religion where you didn't believe you had an eternal soul tied to it. You would arrive at the same conclusion that you currently arrive at for competing religions.

Exactly what conclusions do I currently have concerning other religions? Next, what of those who have examined Christianity, who were opposed to it, and who did not believe they had "an eternal soul tied to it" who converted to Christianity? One of the many examples I can think of, authored a book entitled, "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert". The author was a lesbian who was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University, and she was the head of the LBGTQ at the university, and she was in the process of writing a paper on "The Rise of the Christan Right in America". It was during this process, as she performed her investigation, that she converted to Christianity, and she credits her vast knowledge of language for her conversion. Let us keep in mind, this woman was completely opposed to Christianity, and she had every reason to be opposed. In her words, she says, "I was scared of Christians and their ideas". Not only this, but she also had everything to lose, and she did. This was a process which took years. I remember reading her story of how she was about to have to give a speech in front of the LBGTQ at the school, and how the speech would be completely different than she had planned, and she realized that she would lose her job. Of course, I am not suggesting in the least that her story gives any validity to Christianity, but it certainly demonstrates that one does not have to believe they have "an eternal soul tied to Christianity" to convert.

[POI]

My hypothesis, is that you wish the Bible did not exist, because it becomes damning to your epistemology?

It is a fact we have the material which has been contained in the NT.

Duh It's called the Bible.

It is a fact there is a reason we have these reports.

Duh again There's always a reason or reason(s), regardless of validity or not. So far, you have offered absolutely nothing to move this conversation forward in the slightest.

What I am looking for is an explanation for these reports, which would explain all the facts and evidence we can know.

And somehow, the best explanation is that it actually happened? Here is where you and I diverge greatly.

I think we can agree the reports were not made up, because this would not explain all the facts and evidence we have.

No, we do not agree. Some of them have to be made up. A comparison between Mark and Luke attests to this... Luke copied some stuff from Mark word for word and also changed some details drastically. Mark came first, which means we can remove Luke. The question then becomes, how trustworthy is Mark itself? We also know Mark has been edited.

The scholars agree with this in that they are convinced by the facts and evidence we can know that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

None of them were deposed. Please recall, way back when in another thread, when you mentioned your lawyer friend. If a said witness is not deposed, how credible are they in their claims? Case/point, I can post a video today, of many having simultaneous bonafide "Jesus experiences' while in church. And yet, it's hardly even newsworthy at all. But, for whatever reason(s), some superstitious ancients, who were completely unvetted, get more authority. Maybe because this is what the 'theocracy of the day' wanted?

So then, since we have eliminated the idea these folks made the stories up, what would better explain the facts and evidence we know? So then, since you are convinced, the stories are unconvincing, and that they can be easily dismissed, what best explains the reason we have the reports?

I say some claims were made up, and some were mistaken. Just like when I look at this video, I'm pretty sure none of these fine earnest folks are really being contacted by the 'holy spirit'.

[Clownboat]

Exactly what conclusions do I currently have concerning other religions?

The gods of other religions are human inventions, unlike the god concept you believe in due to your geographic location on this planet (which I find to be an odd mechanism for believing in a god concept).

Next, what of those who have examined Christianity, who were opposed to it, and who did not believe they had "an eternal soul tied to it" who converted to Christianity?

Scare tactics are effective. Believe or burn works on many, especially children sadly. Some just like the idea of having a way to see loved ones again, in an eternal paradise no less.

<Snipped your irrelevant eternal soul diatribe>
Clownboat: "Just pretend you were examining a religion where you didn't believe you had an eternal soul tied to it."
Instead of doing this (considering your thoughts on Islam for example), you go on to tell me about some other person who I have not asked to analyze my words while pretending they don't have an eternal soul on the line. Nothing more than a 'dodge'.

If you were born in Iran, you would be Muslim (there are exceptions of course) and you would look at the explanations for these Biblical reports (to use your words) and you would arrive at them not being credible. You are unable to do this with Christianity, because you have an eternal soul on the line. This is why I requested that you pretend you were examining a different religion's claims.

I do have first hand knowledge of just how hard it is to be set free from such religious beliefs.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #148]

My hypothesis, is that you wish the Bible did not exist, because it becomes damning to your epistemology?

This sort of demonstrates that you do not understand that we would have the material contained in the Bible, even if we did not have the Bible. I mean, you do understand there was other material that was considered for being a part of the NT which was not contained in the NT, but you can still read this material, correct? As an example, James was hotly contested, but it was eventually allowed into the Bible, but even if James would have been excluded from the NT, we would still have the material which has been attributed to James. If The Gospel of Mark had been excluded, we would still be able to read The Gospel of Mark. In other words, simply because certain material was not allowed into the Cannon, does not mean the material disappeared. In the same way, if the Bible had not been composed, we would still have access to all the material contained in the Bible, along with all the rest which was not contained. In that way, it would not be what the Bible says which "becomes damning to my epistemology", but rather what Mark says, Matthew says, Luke says, Paul says, which "becomes damning to my epistemology" since there would be no Bible to say anything. The point is, my reason for wishing the Bible had never been composed, is because this would mean that folks like you, and even Christians would not be able to say, "the Bible says" when the Bible does not say anything at all. It is like you hold the Bible in some sort of high regard, while I as a Christian have no regard for the Bible in the least.

Duh It's called the Bible.

It's called the Bible, but the fact is, what is contained in the Bible we had long before any sort of Bible. Add to this the fact that the overwhelming majority of what we had long before the Bible, was addressed to those who would have already been believers, then we can demonstrate that the overwhelming majority, and most likely the whole of what has been called the NT was not intended for the unbeliever. In other words, it can be demonstrated that the authors did not intend what they wrote to be contained in what you call a holy book for the purpose of convincing the world. In fact, according to what is contained in the NT, these early followers, never intended the message to go outside of "The House of Israel". I mean, it is recorded that even Jesus asked a certain woman, "should I take from the children and give it to the dogs"? The point I am making is, the authors never intended what they wrote to convince you.

Duh again There's always a reason or reason(s), regardless of validity or not. So far, you have offered absolutely nothing to move this conversation forward in the slightest.

Nor have you moved the conversation forward as to what could possibly explain the reports of the resurrection along with the facts and evidence we can know. Your problem is the fact that I am not attempting to convince you that you should believe the reports, and I am fine with whatever position you take. The problem comes in, when we have those who were once convinced Christianity was true, who are now just as convinced Christianity is false, who now want to insist they did not use the mind in order to be convinced Christianity was true, who now want to insist it was the use of the mind, which convinced them, there was no reason to believe, what they were once so convinced of, and they are just as convinced they are correct now, as they were when they were convinced when they were wrong.

And somehow, the best explanation is that it actually happened? Here is where you and I diverge greatly.

We are not greatly diverged. I am not suggesting the best explanation is that it actually happened. I am asking what would explain the facts and evidence we have? I am also insisting that when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false, they will come away understanding there are no easy answers as you seem to insist. It was easy when you were a convinced Christian, and now that you have changed the mind it is just as easy now, and I am telling you that it is not that easy in the least, and for one to convince themselves there are easy answers, is for one to simply believe what they would rather believe, whether believer, or unbeliever.

No, we do not agree. Some of them have to be made up.

When I am talking about the claims being made, I am only talking about the claims of the resurrection. I am not talking about all the details surrounding the claims of the resurrection. The point is, even if we were to demonstrate where the authors may have gotten a few details incorrect, would not eliminate the resurrection. As an example, most all scholars agree the earliest followers were truly convinced in what they report, even if they believe that the stories contradict. The way in which you make it sound is that the authors made some things up in order to pull something off, while the scholars believe these folks were reporting what they were convinced was fact.

A comparison between Mark and Luke attests to this... Luke copied some stuff from Mark word for word and also changed some details drastically. Mark came first, which means we can remove Luke. The question then becomes, how trustworthy is Mark itself? We also know Mark has been edited.

My friend, you are stating these things as if they were fact, when they have not been demonstrated to be fact. On the one hand we have those who complain that the authors are so closely aligned in what they have to say, that they must and had to copy each other, and on the other hand we have those who complain that they report the same events differently that this is evidence the reports are false. It has not been demonstrated in the least that any of the authors had a copy of another. Where would they get these copies? Do you understand just how difficult it was in those times to copy? It is not like everyone would be walking around with copies like we have today. Copies would be hard to come by.

Before we move on, I will agree that Mark was either edited, or the ending was left off of the earliest manuscripts. I tend to believe the ending was added later on, but I do not know what this would have to do with the reports of the resurrection being false.

Case/point, I can post a video today, of many having simultaneous bonafide "Jesus experiences' while in church.

This is not "Case/point" in the least. We are talking about ordinary fishermen who followed a man for some 3 years, who watched their leader crucified, who then go on to begin to claim this leader had rose from the dead after 3 days in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claims, and these claims these ordinary fishermen were making go on to have, one of the most, if not the most significant impact in the history of the world, and you want to compare this to a hand full of folks in Church dancing around like they are "drunk in the holy ghost"? GOOD GRIEF! How in the world does the two compare?

And yet, it's hardly even newsworthy at all.

Which is exactly the point! Do you even realize what you are doing now? What these ordinary fishermen were reporting actually goes on to be called, "The Gospel" which not only means, "news" it actually means, "good news" and this "good news" these ordinary fishermen were proclaiming, (which was that this Jesus had rose from the grave) has arguably the most significant impact the world has ever known, and I am here to tell you that attempting to compare these claims to other claims is just not going to get it, unless one is easily convinced. There are no other extraordinary claims which compare in the least.

The whole point here is what these ordinary fishermen were proclaiming is not only "news worthy" but it actually becomes one of the biggest news stories the world has ever known.

But, for whatever reason(s), some superstitious ancients, who were completely unvetted, get more authority.

It is not that these folks get any authority at all. The point is folks wrote out what they claim to be a resurrection, to audiences at the time, who were already believers, which demonstrates that what they authored was not intended to convince the world, and we have this material saved, and the question then becomes, what best explains the facts and evidence we can know by reading this material? As an example, I think we can eliminate the possibility that these folks made the resurrection story up since the facts and evidence seem to demonstrate they were reporting what they were convinced was fact. So then, we move on to the next. I am just telling you, it is not like you are going to be able to read the material we have and come away with the idea that Jesus was crucified, and these folks came up with some sort of concocted story. Again, the only ways one can come away convinced of such a thing is, they have not really done the study, or they choose to believe what they would rather believe, or they are easily convinced.

Maybe because this is what the 'theocracy of the day' wanted?

Yeah! Now that would explain it. Never thought of that one. GOOD GRIEF!

I say some claims were made up, and some were mistaken.

I can go with that. However, I do not believe the facts and evidence we have will allow us to be under the impression that the claims of the resurrection were made up. So then, even if we were able to demonstrate that most all of the other stories concerning the life of Jesus were mistakes, or made up, what would this have to do with the facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these folks were truly convinced Jesus came alive after death, and continue to proclaim this for the rest of their lives, many of them dying because of it, and these claims they were making has the most enormous impact upon the world, continuing to consume the lives of folks such as yourself, some 2000 years later?

Just like when I look at this video, I'm pretty sure none of these fine earnest folks are really being contacted by the 'holy spirit'.

I am convinced that nothing we see in this video has a thing in the world to do with the Holy Spirit, but what I am attempting to figure out is, what in the world would this have to do with the claims of the resurrection? Allow me to help you out. Nothing whatsoever!