Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Proof Of Christianity - The Right Way
Posted by: Keith Dec 18 2003, 07:55 AM
First off, if you are trying to prove or disprove God you have already made a mistake. Logic would point to the fact that over the last few thousand years no one has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt if God does or does not exist and therefore it is unreasonable to assume we can today. If someone does, great, but until then I’m not going to waste my time thinking I can.
So what then? We have to do the best we can with what we have. Look at evidences for and against each way of believing, science and religion, and then make the best choice we can. For that which we are unsure we must have “faith” (yes even evolutionist’s must have some level of faith in science)
So to start… Evidence for Christianity.
1. We have found pieces of scripture which have been scientifically dated near the time of Christ
2. We have found the biblical places mentioned in the new testament
The conclusion:
If some moron goes running around with his new book and it were a lie, then when he went to a town and it said Jesus raised someone form the dead in their town, they would know that never happened and thus the book is a lie. Thus you see, I can not disprove the bible, but in the past they could have. So the question is, why did they become Christians? I can only think it was because the stories were true and they knew it.
Posted by: Redshift Dec 18 2003, 08:01 AM
QUOTE
For that which we are unsure we must have “faith”
Alternatively we could simply be honest with ourselves and remain unsure.
I dislike blind faith. It's what causes small children to get into cars with strangers.
How does that quote go? With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind. I forget who said it.
QUOTE
Thus you see, I can not disprove the bible, but in the past they could have. So the question is, why did they become Christians? I can only think it was because the stories were true and they knew it.
I don't know Keith... By that logic ALL religions would be true.
Posted by: otatop Dec 18 2003, 08:23 AM
You say I have "Blind faith" I say you are afraid of things you can't scientifically prove. Name calling won't get you far though.
That is the first of many evidences for what I believe. If I have evidence behind my decision, then I no longer have "Blind faith". Instead I have a hypothesis supported by evidence. My challenge to you is that the evidence suggests that Christianity is the truth, not anything else.
The difference between Christianity and “All religions” to me is the evidence. If you look at Islam, Muhammad specifically, you see a man who supposedly was told by God everything in their religion. There is no way to prove or disprove him, it’s all if you believe Muhammad the man. The bible as I just showed is more complicated. If I were going to write something that was a lie, I would talk about something that happened a long way away in town that don’t exsist so that people wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong. But it doesn’t. The difference… Christianity can be proved wrong or at least back then it could have been, but so far it never has been. Hardly “Blind faith”.
Posted by: MalaInSe Dec 18 2003, 09:32 AM
QUOTE (otatop @ Dec 18 2003, 08:23 AM)
The difference between Christianity and “All religions” to me is the evidence. If you look at Islam, Muhammad specifically, you see a man who supposedly was told by God everything in their religion. There is no way to prove or disprove him, it’s all if you believe Muhammad the man. The bible as I just showed is more complicated. If I were going to write something that was a lie, I would talk about something that happened a long way away in town that don’t exsist so that people wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong. But it doesn’t. The difference… Christianity can be proved wrong or at least back then it could have been, but so far it never has been. Hardly “Blind faith”.
Please read up on the origins of the "book" you talk about it. There was no "book" until long after anyone who had any first hand knowledge was dead. There were writings produced at different periods of time, the first being undisputedly at least 60 years after the death of Jesus. Those writings were not compiled until a few hundred years later.
You are also talking about a book written in Greek in a community that spoke mostly other languages. The philosophers spoke Greek and, honestly, they didn't give a rat's ass about what was true or not as long as it gave them lots to discuss. The common people were not reading the Bible. Also keep in mind that this a culture that already believed that gods mingled with people. That Jesus raised the dead is hardly impressive when Jupiter is galavanting around getting maidens pregnant, and Aeneas is sending postcards from the underworld.
Virgin births were a dime a dozen in the classical world.
Now, if you want to discuss Islam, there are Muslim writings recorded during the time of Mohammed. Without a doubt, Mohammed existed (there is no extant evidence that Jesus existed). His followers wrote some of his non-Qu-ranic teachings down. The Qu-ran was not written down during Mohammed's life, but it was memorized in its entirety by his followers and later passed on and written from memory (this is more of a feat to us than it would have been to them). There is no such "chain of custody" for the New Testament.
Mohammed did not claim to be divine, and his explanation of the role of Jesus is a lot more logical than the one Christianity gives. Issues with the modern practice of Islam aside, Islam has far more intellectual integrity than Christianity EVER had.
On the basis of your criteria, you should be Muslim. Nah, you're too illogical.
Renee
Posted by: bdpuffin Dec 18 2003, 09:55 AM
QUOTE
There were writings produced at different periods of time, the first being undisputedly at least 60 years after the death of Jesus. Those writings were not compiled until a few hundred years later.
And, if I may jump in here, there are many more writings, just as ancient, both gospels and letters, that are not included in what is called the New Testament for reasons that are either arbitrary or politically motivated. What you have is a 'book' that is a compilation of certain ancient texts selected to the exclusion of others.
bdp
Posted by: Consummate Deist Dec 18 2003, 10:08 AM
I really have no idea what you are saying, you don’t make much sense, but just for your edification here is some information on the New Testament – The New Testament’s gospels were not written by eye-witnesses! They were instead written several generations after the supposed happenings described in them. A 3rd Century Bishop by the name of Fauste had this to say about the gospel (pay attention, it is from one of the founding fathers of your religion) and I quote: 'Every one knows that the Evangeliums were written neither by Jesus nor his apostles, but long after their time by some unknown persons, who, judging well that they would hardly be believed when telling of things they had not seen themselves, headed their narratives with the names of the apostles or of disciples contemporaneous with the latter.' Early Christians may have followed a religion, but that is one of many quotations that indicate that early Christ Cult beliefs were nothing like the present day beliefs and that they gave very little credence to the gospels. One of the opposition, a pagan philosopher named Celsus said this about Christianity in 178CE, “Clearly the Christians have used... myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.” Celsus was one of the foremost thinkers of his age. His critique of the Christians was so damaging that Christians destroyed every copy of his work they could find, once they came into power through the deathbed conversion of Constantine. As for proving or disproving the babble, the ball is in your court. When someone makes a fantastic claim, they are the ones who must prove them, not the disbeliever disprove them. As far as evidence proving Christianity, only if you take that evidence from an antique collection of Hebrew and early Cult mythology and that hardly counts. If you can’t prove your religion is the truth, then shut up and depart. If you can prove it, then I (a 3rd generation Deist) will convert and follow your God, but you don’t see me rushing to buy a babble, do you? If you had ever studied the history of your Cult and archaeology of Palestine, you would easily see how patently obvious the falsehood of your Cult is.
Posted by: Lokmer Dec 18 2003, 10:12 AM
Also, to be fair, the gospels are dated in a range from Mark in 60 CE (conservative) to Mark in 80 CE (mainstream) to Mark in 120CE (radical - though this position is much more difficult to maintain because of the recent discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark quotations in one of Clement's letters dated 90CE), with all the other gospels following. There are decent cultural/historio-linguistic arguments for all of the datings - I personally tend to favor the early dating for Mark but later datings for the other gospels, but at this level it is pretty much a dispute made up of inference to the most plausible theory.
Paul's writings (Romans and Corinthians, especially), are generally agreed by conservatives, liberals, and radicals to have been written in the late 50s CE.
But, even in the most conservative dating scheme (laid forth in Redating the New Testament - I forget the author's name at the moment), the first writings about Jesus don't appear until 30 years after his death, and the first reference to him (the disputed reference in 1 Cor. 15 - there is good evidence that it is an interpolation) didn't appear until 20-25 years later. In both cases, this is easily enough time for the common uneducated ancient Christian to conflate any historical figure with a lot of mythical material, so the Gospels are, at best, faithful reproductions of 3rd hand 2nd generation oral traditions edited into a narrative. At worst, they are a 3rd or 4th generation attempt to reconstruct a theologically correct narrative out of conflicting oral traditions to solidify the growing authority structures in the (as yet only semi-organized) church.
-Lokmer
Posted by: BillJ Dec 18 2003, 11:03 AM
QUOTE
First off, if you are trying to prove or disprove God you have already made a mistake.
We are not trying to disprove god, we are disproving bible god.we already know man wrote the bible, we know that your pathetic to believe it, and you show other people how they can do less in this world, by not thinking.
QUOTE
Logic would point to the fact that over the last few thousand years no one has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt if God does or does not exist and therefore it is unreasonable to assume we can today.
Actually logic tells us, that the bible isn't logical, and therefore something that creates nature in a logical functioning way, did not inspire the pathetic bible.
QUOTE
So to start… Evidence for Christianity.
1. We have found pieces of scripture which have been scientifically dated near the time of Christ
Christ only exists on paper, that is not evidence, evidence clearly proves something to be true or false, and if it did so I would be a christian.
QUOTE
2. We have found the biblical places mentioned in the new testament
This proves that its the word of god. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
QUOTE
The conclusion:
If some moron goes running around with his new book and it were a lie, then when he went to a town and it said Jesus raised someone form the dead in their town, they would know that never happened and thus the book is a lie. Thus you see, I can not disprove the bible, but in the past they could have. So the question is, why did they become Christians? I can only think it was because the stories were true and they knew it.
It's called brainwashing, and if you read the bible it is set up in such a fashion to stop you from thinking, questioning, and using your human instincts.
Here is my conclusion: You failed horribly to use logic, you made your self look absolutely stupid, and you can fuck off.
Posted by: Keith Dec 18 2003, 11:06 AM
The “bible” was indeed written be different people after Jesus died. Now, to be correct, the “new testament” is mainly a collection of letters written by different people at different times. In the early church many of the leaders got together and tried to create a collection of them which they believed to be accurate and true. They based their choice on many factors available to them in their time.
No, the letters were not instantaneously spread at the time Jesus died and yes SOME of them were written much later. However, the letters written by the Paul etc. were indeed written by eye witnesses. Even so, we do have a piece of the Gospel of John dated to 125AD which shows it’s at least that old. Chances are that it’s not the original, and therefore was copied meaning the origonal gospel is older then that. So my point stands. Even if the people receiving the gospel of John were not eye whitnesses, their grandparents most likely were. If someone came to me and said a guy was raised from the dead in my town even 60 years ago, I would say “you’re a liar”. News that big doesn’t get forgotten, and if someone was raised from the dead 60 years ago here, I would know about it.
I’m well aware of the history of the text of the bible and I think it’s a credit to the religion, not a hindrance. When you look at something and try to determine if it is a lie or the truth, one of the factors to consider is motive. My point with the Islam reference is that Muhammad became rich and powerful because of his religion. Those who wrote the letters starting the bible gained nothing except disrespect.
Also note, the bible is not the only proof Jesus existed. If you required references to this let me know but I’d have to find out what books they were. I think from memory there is something written by one of the rulers of the time who briefly mentions him, but never the less provides a references to the fact that he exists.
It is not for me to prove Christianity to you. It is for you to make the best decision with the evidence you have before you. Each one of us must accept that we may be wrong and deal with those consequences. What can be expected of us however is that we maintain an open mind about the things we disagree with.
If anyone is curious, you can check out the link below to read up on biblical evidence from someone who is more experienced then me.
http://godisforus.com/information/bible/nttext/nttext.htm
Posted by: BillJ Dec 18 2003, 11:15 AM
All based on speculation!!! That site is nothing but old news!!!
Posted by: MalaInSe Dec 18 2003, 11:31 AM
QUOTE (Keith @ Dec 18 2003, 11:06 AM)
...
If someone came to me and said a guy was raised from the dead in my town even 60 years ago, I would say “you’re a liar”. News that big doesn’t get forgotten, and if someone was raised from the dead 60 years ago here, I would know about it.
...
Also note, the bible is not the only proof Jesus existed. If you required references to this let me know but I’d have to find out what books they were. I think from memory there is something written by one of the rulers of the time who briefly mentions him, but never the less provides a references to the fact that he exists.
It is not for me to prove Christianity to you. It is for you to make the best decision with the evidence you have before you. Each one of us must accept that we may be wrong and deal with those consequences. What can be expected of us however is that we maintain an open mind about the things we disagree with.
...
1. Not in a society that already believed that such things were possible. Not only did the state religion hold that such things happened, so did a myriad of other mystery religions existing at the time.
2. Please, by all means, present your evidence. In case you haven't heard, the Josephus reference has been debunked, but if you have something, we would love to hear it. By the way, I don't consider the bible to be evidence of his existence either so your assertion that there is "other" evidence is a little inexact in my opinion.
3. Why are you here? You seem to be trying awfully hard to convince us. For the record, I do believe that the bible is a load of unmitigated bunk, but worse, are the people that claim to follow it and do so only selectively... not that its really possible to know what you're supposed to do anyway from the instructions anyway.
Renee
Posted by: Libertus Dec 18 2003, 11:44 AM
QUOTE
You say I have "Blind faith" I say you are afraid of things you can't scientifically prove. Name calling won't get you far though.
He said that he doesn't like "blind faith" as a concept. In the educated world, this is not considered name calling. Maybe you should tone down that sensitivity a bit.
QUOTE
If I were going to write something that was a lie, I would talk about something that happened a long way away in town that don’t exsist so that people wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong.
Or what about in a town fairly close . . . like maybe Nazareth the non-existent (at the time) supposed hometown of Mr. Jesus of (the future town of) Nazareth. Last time I checked, there was still no archaeological record of it existing during the time of 5BCE-5CE. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, unless of course, you are going to say that the bible said it was.
Xpen
Posted by: chefranden Dec 18 2003, 12:05 PM
QUOTE (Keith)
My point with the Islam reference is that Muhammad became rich and powerful because of his religion. Those who wrote the letters starting the bible gained nothing except disrespect.
My guess is that you disrespect Marx, therefore by your logic Marxism must be true. Pat Robertson, the mad bomber of Foggy Bottom, has become rich and powerful from his religion, therefore by your logic Christianity must not be any truer than Islam.
Posted by: Libertus Dec 18 2003, 12:12 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Dec 18 2003, 12:05 PM)
QUOTE (Keith)
My point with the Islam reference is that Muhammad became rich and powerful because of his religion. Those who wrote the letters starting the bible gained nothing except disrespect.
My guess is that you disrespect Marx, therefore by your logic Marxism must be true. Pat Robertson, the mad bomber of Foggy Bottom, has become rich and powerful from his religion, therefore by your logic Christianity must not be any truer than Islam.
Thanks Chef,
That's the other point that I wanted to make earlier.
Pat is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many many multimillionaire's and large six-figure income makers who make it all off the backs of their brethren.
Pat
James Dobson
T D Jakes
Jerry Falwell
Creflo Dollar
ET AL
ET AL
These guys aren't doing too bad for humble servants.
And this doesn't even count the hundreds or thousands of pastors of larger churches in America making their piddly couple hundred Gs a year, while writing off all of their expenses on their Mercedes as "Ministry Expenses". Please.
Xpen
Posted by: Consummate Deist Dec 18 2003, 01:56 PM
QUOTE
However, the letters written by the Paul etc. were indeed written by eye witnesses.
Paul was not an eyewitness, he only had a vision during what appears to have been an epileptic seizure. This does not qualify as an eyewitness.
QUOTE
Even so, we do have a piece of the Gospel of John dated to 125AD which shows it’s at least that old. Chances are that it’s not the original, and therefore was copied meaning the origonal gospel is older then that. So my point stands.
Not really, since it is dated to 125CE and John has been dated to approximately 120CE, it only proves that (original or not – and you can only speculate on that) John was written over 90 years after the supposed events…..Which means it couldn’t have been the apostle by that name. Once again – not a eyewitness
QUOTE
Even if the people receiving the gospel of John were not eye whitnesses, their grandparents most likely were.
Sheer speculation – there is no secular contemporary proof that Jesus ever existed. To say that someones grandparent most like were eyewitnesses is fraudulent at the best, pure lying at the worse. Also, after 90 years, it would more likely be their Great Grandparents.
QUOTE
If someone came to me and said a guy was raised from the dead in my town even 60 years ago, I would say “you’re a liar”. News that big doesn’t get forgotten, and if someone was raised from the dead 60 years ago here, I would know about it.
That’s right and there were several Jewish historians writing at that time, none of which ever heard of someone raising from the dead at the period of time you are talking about or any other time. Several Greek and Roman historians in that area were also writing at that time and never reported a resurrection either
QUOTE
My point with the Islam reference is that Muhammad became rich and powerful because of his religion. Those who wrote the letters starting the bible gained nothing except disrespect.
You have never seen the riches accumulated by the church from it’s very foundation. Seems like they said that God struck a husband and wife dead for holding out on the Apostles and the church…..
QUOTE
I think from memory there is something written by one of the rulers of the time who briefly mentions him, but never the less provides a references to the fact that he exists.
You are undoubtedly referring to the Letter of Jesus to the King of Edessa. Nothing less than the handwritten note of the godman himself.! Delivered by the Apostle Thaddeus, together with a self-portrait by the artist – Jesus Christ (he wiped his face with the canvass)! Actually, the text is borrowed from the 'concordance' of Tatian, compiled in the second century, and known as the 'Diatessaron'. The forgery is almost certainly the work of Eusebius, Christian propagandist of the fourth century. He was the first to mention the letter and claimed to have personally 'translated' it from Syriac (Ecclesiastical History I, xii).
QUOTE
It is not for me to prove Christianity to you.
Oh but it is, you are the one coming here uninvited and telling us you are going to give up evidence, yet never doing it.
QUOTE
It is for you to make the best decision with the evidence you have before you.
Yep, made that decision years ago, your cult has been found very wanting and it's evidence very unconvincing.
QUOTE
Each one of us must accept that we may be wrong and deal with those consequences.
Yep, I am not worried at all, however, You better hope that the Muslims aren’t right, their Hell is worse than yours.
QUOTE
What can be expected of us however is that we maintain an open mind about the things we disagree with.
Not when it is total manure, like the babble and it’s so called evidence.
QUOTE
If anyone is curious, you can check out the link below to read up on biblical evidence from someone who is more experienced then me.
http://godisforus.com/information/bible/nt...text/nttext.htm
Been there, more tired apologist much rehased and long disproven bull shit, seems like they would come up with something new after 2000 years...Their arguments are the sames ones Origen and Esuebius used back then!
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 18 2003, 05:56 PM
Some observations ...
If hell was created after Satan fell, that means hell had a beginning. But if hell had a beginning, it cannot be eternal since eternal means without beginning or end.
Ditto for the "soul." If we are given a soul at some point during our gestation (or at the moment of birth), then our "soul" has a beginning and cannot therefore be eternal.
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 18 2003, 06:04 PM
QUOTE
For that which we are unsure we must have "faith"
"Must?"
There's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one. As an agnostic, I'm familiar with at least one more option -- namely to suspend belief for insufficient evidence.
I wouldn't have a problem if you said: "For that which we are unsure BUT choose to believe anyway, THAT requires 'faith'."
But, there's nothing wrong with not knowing. In fact, there's more wisdom and humility in acknowledging uncertainty than claiming certainty when it is not warranted -- like many Christians do when they say "I KNOW I'm going to heaven when I die because I believe in Jesus."
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 18 2003, 06:16 PM
QUOTE
Here is my conclusion: You failed horribly to use logic, you made your self look absolutely stupid, and you can fuck off.
I think this site is getting more well-known. There seems to be an increase in would-be apologist/trollers.
In a way, it's sad because there are people here who would be better served (emotionally) if they could confide in ... and get advice from other ex-Christians without being broadsided by a mindless fundamentalist ... to say nothing of the time and effort diverted to a usually futile effort to convince the believer that he's full of crap.
Of course, "going after a fundy" does have a certain therapeutic effect. But, in the end, I'm not sure ex-ers are best served by engaging so many of these fundy drones.
And, it's not like they have anything new or original to say.
Posted by: bdpuffin Dec 18 2003, 06:26 PM
QUOTE
If you required references to this let me know but I’d have to find out what books they were.
Doesn't matter - Josephus, Tacitus, et al - are all only repeating things they've been told about this new sect called Christianity and its founder. Second and third hand accounts.
bdp
Posted by: bob Dec 18 2003, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (otatop @ Dec 18 2003, 08:23 AM)
You say I have "Blind faith" I say you are afraid of things you can't scientifically prove. Name calling won't get you far though.
That is the first of many evidences for what I believe. If I have evidence behind my decision, then I no longer have "Blind faith". Instead I have a hypothesis supported by evidence. My challenge to you is that the evidence suggests that Christianity is the truth, not anything else.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Is that in your particular version of the bible Mr. Top, or not? Let me ask you, when you became a christian, did you become one because you wanted to, or because you felt you needed to? Was it the scientific evidence that brought you to the feet of the master, or was it the realization that you were a sinner? My guess is that your discission had nothing to do with fossils. It had everything to do with fire (of the eternal kind). If I am correct, then why the hell are fossils so important to you now? As a Christian, you have absolutely no need for scientific confirmation of your beliefs. If you do need that, then I would suggest to you that the faith you have experienced is not "saving faith", but some kind of week kneed intellectual assent to a rather frightening dogma.
A thousand years ago, there was no science available for christians to twist and mold into their own personal proof putty. Back then, if I told you I didn't believe in your god, you wouldn't put your best biological / geological / archeological arguments on display for me to mull over. You would simply turn me in to the local authorities (the church) and they would prove to me that there is a god by killing me (after a rather lengthy entree of torture).
You and yours have come a long way Mr. Top, but your arguments are no less unconvincing. I have said it till I am blue in the face. Please just admit that you cannot prove that the bible god is real, but you believe in him because you want to. That will take an incredible load off your shoulders. You won't have to spend hours dissecting every piece of creationist literature for ammunition. You won't have to rehearse your pseudo-science arguments in front of the mirror to make sure you not only sound convincing, but that you have the look as well. And when the next lost soul you encounter says, 'I just don't believe in all that creation and flood stuff', you can simply reply, 'okey dokey, have fun in hell', and walk away.
Posted by: Keith Dec 19 2003, 04:45 PM
I find this quite interesting and fun, but I think I should tell you a bit about myself so you understand me better. I’m hardly an apologetic PHD’d educated individual. I was in another thread and realized it was way off topic and wanted to see someone discuss simply the facts, thus the purpose of this discussion.
I am a 22 year old Computer Programmer, not a preacher, Christian professor, etc. I noticed many of you know more then I do and I find that interesting. I do like having people to discuss this with since I value your opinions but unfortunately I don’t have that much free time so you can expect my posts to be occasional.
Now that you know a bit more about me, my response…
The fact that we have old fragments of the books and that a few (but not all) of the cities have been found is hardly proof. When you try to determine if someone is lying or not lying you look at a variety of these factors. I know that if I were trying to create something that was a lie, I would try to make claims that were unable to be proven wrong. I would speak of a far away land, or about a time long long ago (hundreds not tens of years ago). It doesn’t make sense that someone trying to make a false religion would take such risks. Proof? Hardly. Convincing factor? I think so. No other religion I know of opens itself up to risks like this, they are all some guy get's this great revalation and we should believe him because he says so. When I speak of evidence, I'm more refering to evidence beyond "because they said so". I haven't heard other religions speaking of evidence beyond the "because he said so" response.
I’ve gotten responses from people talking about the fact that the bible was not spread instantly because they did not have instant communications. Honestly this is a very good point I will concede. (Again, I’m not extremely educated in the religious field) Never the less the bible speaks of many towns and places, specifically mentioning churches in many of these cities. If they did not actually travel to these various places, then say 80 years later when word does reach these places the inhabitants would wonder why there are letters written to churches in their city that don’t exist, and thus would prove Christianity wrong. So I feel strongly that word did travel.
Another factor to consider, this happened in the Jewish culture. This is not a culture happily accepting of fables of people rising from the dead. Anyone who knows anything about the Jewish will tell you they are extremely traditional. I can see in the surrounding countries people making up similar stories, however the Jewish community was not very accepting of this sort of thing. Thus the culture this took place was not one in which this story would have propagated well.
About current Christians getting rich…
Well unfortunately the people who claim to be practicing Christianity are not all actually Christians, and those who are Christians still make mistakes. The point was that the people who started the religion had nothing to gain. Christians today are another story.
About this discussion…
It’s pointless to point out that I may be wrong. Just ask me and I’ll tell you, I very well could be wrong. I have a hard time believing that with as many religions and ideas there are that beyond a shadow of a doubt I am right. My point, to have a discussion and get your feedback on my thoughts. I’m not an experienced apologeticist and don’t claim to be. Do let me know your thoughts on if the fact that we have found pieces that are very old, and archiological evidence of some of the cities is a “convincing factor”, but obviously I will admit it is not proof. It’s all about making the best decision with what you have. Expect my next post on Monday
Posted by: chefranden Dec 19 2003, 05:24 PM
QUOTE (Keith)
No other religion I know of opens itself up to risks like this, they are all some guy get's this great revalation and we should believe him because he says so. When I speak of evidence, I'm more refering to evidence beyond "because they said so". I haven't heard other religions speaking of evidence beyond the "because he said so" response.
Are you sure? You have just said that you are not a biblical scholar. Are you a scholar of comparative religion? Hinduism for example is not the revelation of just one guy. Check out the Vedas and Upanishads sometime. They make your bible look like a Chick tract. I'll just bet the only thing that you know about other religions is what they told you in church. And I'll bet that is pretty much your only source of information about your own religion as well.
QUOTE
If they did not actually travel to these various places, then say 80 years later when word does reach these places the inhabitants would wonder why there are letters written to churches in their city that don’t exist, and thus would prove Christianity wrong. So I feel strongly that word did travel.
Nobody argues against the historicity of the church or even of Paul. It is the historicity of the "founding events" that is challenged. Of cities and towns, only the historicity of Nazareth has been challenged here.
QUOTE
I can see in the surrounding countries people making up similar stories, however the Jewish community was not very accepting of this sort of thing. Thus the culture this took place was not one in which this story would have propagated well.
Are you sure? The jews were very synchronistic religiously. For example they absorbed a great deal of religious philosophy in Babylon which is the source for your belief in heaven and in hell. In any case Christianity as you know it was invented by Paul among the gentiles. He didn't have much luck among the jews. He even boasted that his contact with original disciples was minimal and he considered his (one guy?) revelation to be superior to theirs.
Posted by: bob Dec 19 2003, 06:27 PM
Keith,
I think most anyone who has read anything concerning archeology in the middle east will admit that the bible is a useful tool (how valuable, I don't know). I am fairly sure, from what I have read, that most of the cities mentioned in both the old and new testaments actually existed. But does that prove that the bible god is real? I hope you will agree that it does not.
Did David exist?, probably. Was he a king?, maybe so. Was he the king of a mighty nation. I think the evidence says no.
Did Moses exist?, probably...maybe. Did he lead a massive Hebrew nation to freedom through the dessert for 40 years?, I think the evidence says no.
The bible says that Jesus was the son of God, born in Bethlehem, sentenced to death by Pilot, and was crucified outside Jerusalem. If archeologists have discovered ancient Jerusalem, found Pilots tomb, and even found Jesus tomb, since they have proven 3 out of 4, do we automatically concede that the bible is correct? Or do we demand proof that this Jesus was the son of God, and that there even is a god before, we will concede.
Here's a for instance; In Genesis 37 we read about Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. According to my trusty Schofield Reference Bible, that occurred around 1729 BC (BCE). In verse 25 of that chapter the author mentions a company of merchants with their camels loaded with spices, balm, and myrrh. According to the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, both university level scholars, this could not have happened when it supposedly did due to archeological evidence demonstrating that, "camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the Near East until well after 1000 BCE. And an even more telling detail--the camel caravan carrying "gum, balm, and myrrh," in the Joseph story--reveals an obvious familiarity with the main products of the lucrative Arabian trade that flourished under the supervision of the Assyrian empire in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE" (p37)
The point is this, the author of Genesis tried to write a history of a certain time, but he included certain aspects of his own time, not knowing that camels were not used until 1,000 years after his story supposedly took place. Kind of like me writing about Robin Hood driving a BMW around Nottingham. Hell, haven't they always had BMW's?
Posted by: Lokmer Dec 19 2003, 10:20 PM
QUOTE
When you try to determine if someone is lying or not lying you look at a variety of these factors. I know that if I were trying to create something that was a lie, I would try to make claims that were unable to be proven wrong. I would speak of a far away land, or about a time long long ago (hundreds not tens of years ago).
Actually, this sort of thing is VERY common in religion and mythology. For example, have you ever read Homer? "The Golden Ass"? The Vedas and Upanishads? "The Epic of Gilgamesh"? All of these are mythic/legendary compositions that take place mostly in a particular time in a historically verifiable place. Some of them, like "The Illiad", have even led archaeologists to lost cities. Does that mean it was inspired by God or an accurate history? Of course not. It's not even a strong argument to that effect. All it proves is that the author knew his mileiu.
The true questions that one generally asks of a historical document to find out how historical/fictional it is run along these lines (analysis of how the Bible fares is in italics):
1) What is the evidence for its date of composition? How close was it to the events it recorded?
Evidence for the date of composition of the Gospels is sketchy. Based on referential literary evidence, Luke was written in 96 CE or later - he borrowed several passages from Josephus in both Luke's Gospel and Acts. John we think was written before 120 CE, since the oldest fragment we have that appears to come from that gospel is dated at 125. Mark we know to have been earlier than Luke, and could have been written anytime after 60 CE, as the attitude portrayed towards the Pharisees would not be prevelant before that time (they were the group that taught many of the same things that Jesus did - they and the Essenes). Matthew was also written after Mark, but we don't know when - it's safe to assume that it was after 70 CE because of some anachronistic references to the Jews - Matthew either never visited Israel or lived there after the destruction of the temple.
So, we have a best case scenario where the earliest gospel is composed 30 years after Christ's death, and ~10 years after Paul begins his ministry, with the latest gospel (John) being composed sometime around 70+ years after the crucifiction. By these standards, their reliability is questionable.
2) Do other primary sources that would be expected to comment on the stated events refer to them at all? Is there any outside corroboration?
No verifiable reference to Jesus exists outside of the Gospels. Josephus, who was compulsive about reporting on such people at great length gives only a paragraph to Jesus, and 9/10ths of that paragraph are an obvious forgery - Josephus, as a Pharisee and devout Jew, would never have affirmed Jesus' divinity or messiahship. The remaining fragments may be genuine, but they are disputed as they come in an awkward place in the narrative. There are no other references to Jesus within 90 years of his death, and only one reference to Christians in Rome in the writings of Suetonius (in the section on Claudius). No later historical references exist that are not based on the gospels or the testimony of Christian evangelists.
3) Are the events portrayed consistant with the culture/time they took place in?
Matthew and Luke both display an appaling lack of knowledge concerning Jewish teachings and customs. All four gospels portray the Pharisees in an historically inaccurate light. All four gospels portray Pilate in an historically inaccurate light (he never, according to Josephus, released prisoners and was such a bloodthirsty tyrant that he was recalled to Rome to answer for his despotism. He never heistated to execute a man whose guilt was not certain). All four gospels portray Jewish legal proceedings inaccurately. All four gospels portray the legal working relationship between Herod, the Sanhedrin, and Pilate in a highly implausible - though not impossible - manner. All four gospels disagree on what Jesus taught, who he believed himself to be, when he was born, what his last words were, when he was raised, whether he appeared to anyone after the resurrection or not, whether the witnesses at the tomb told anyone or not, who saw him and in what order, the state of the empty tomb, whether he was a ghost or a physical body after the resurrection, and what the reaction of the thieves crucified with him was. Acts portrays Christians as being expelled from the synagogue 30 years before they actually were expelled from the synagogue. The gospels also get some things about Jewish life and culture right.
4) Is there any archaeological evidence to back it up?
There is no direct archaeological evidence to back up the gospel story. There is very little archaeological evidence for Christianity before the destruction of the temple, but this is not evidence against the Bible since the personal nature of the story means that we should expect to not find any archaeological evidence. However, the town of Nazereth is built atop a necropolis which was being actively used throughout the first century, something forbidden by Jewish law. There is no evidence for the town of Nazereth existing before the destruction of the temple - Josephus does not reference it and there are no extant ruins. If it did exist, it is probable that it was a small family farm or ranching community that had developed into a city by the time the gospels were written. Evidence for this sort of establishment is sketchy but present, from what I understand.
5) Is the language and grammar consistant with extant writings from the period?
Generally the greek of the NT is consistant with 1st century Koine greek.
6) Is the document signed (i.e. does it claim an author)? If it is, do we have an original or corroborating references to its authorship in contemporary documents?
None of the gospels claims an author. The first reference to the written gospels is from The First Letter of Clement dated 90-100 CE, which refers to the Gospel of Mark and quotes passages from it. No other definate references to the written gospels appear until Marcion in AD 120, and no further references then appear until Iraneus in the late 2nd century (170 IIRC). Authorship for the Gospels are not always asserted in their references.
7) Does the document swear that it gives a true record? If it does, its probably lying - most ancient documents that give reliable testimony do so without protestations.
All of the Gospels protest their accuracy. None of them are signed. Two of them (Luke and John) list propaganda as their express purpose.
It is by these standards that scholars judge ancient documents, and by the answers to those questions I've listed above, you can perhaps begin to understand why the Gospel accounts and Acts are treated with suspicion by those in the know. The "convincing factor" of accurate place-names etc. is not a convincing factor, it can only be reasonably construed as supporting evidence for a claim that is otherwise well proven. In this case, the gospels claim to historical accuracy is not well established, so the supporting evidence does not mean a lot. This does not mean that no reasonable person can not believe them (I know many who do), but it does mean that a reasonable person is justified in doubting. Remember, even Thomas was blessed for demanding proof.
QUOTE
If they did not actually travel to these various places, then say 80 years later when word does reach these places the inhabitants would wonder why there are letters written to churches in their city that don’t exist, and thus would prove Christianity wrong. So I feel strongly that word did travel.
Although there are a few radicals that reject the historicity of Paul, most people (myself included) agree that Paul's ministry as recorded in his letters did happen and pretty much as he describes it (this is as opposed to his ministry in Acts, which tells a different story in a different order). Christianity did spread in the 50s, and churches sprang up in several cities in Asia Minor and Italy. However, Christianity remained a small fringe religion (a few tens of thousands to a million or two) out of tens of millions in the Roman Empire until Constantine made it the official creed.
QUOTE
Another factor to consider, this happened in the Jewish culture. This is not a culture happily accepting of fables of people rising from the dead. Anyone who knows anything about the Jewish will tell you they are extremely traditional
You obviously have a mental image of Hassidic Judaism garnered from contemporary conservative Jewish practices. Judaism has always been a highly syncretistic faith (for a good popular history of this syncretism check out "The Woman Who Laughed at God" by Jonathan Kirsch). 1st century Judaism was extremely Hellenized and had absorbed a lot of the surrounding pagan religions. For evidence, check out 1st and 2nd Enoch, Bel and the Dragon, or Susanna from your local apocrypha (in most Catholic and Orthodox bibles, these books are all 1st and 2nd century BCE Jewish literature and are heavily pagan in flavor. The books of Enoch are cited several times by NT writers, and the writer of Revelation borrowed heavily from them as well as from some of the other Jewish apocolypses of the Deutero-canonical period). The writings of Philo, a Jewish philosopher living in Alexandria at the time of Christ, will give you a flavor for the rationalistic branch of Hellenic Judaism. Thus, contrary to what you assert, the culture that the Gospels take place in were ripe for this sort of story, and in fact (according to Josephus) dozens of similar stories circulated at the same time, as did hundreds of others in the pagan mystery cults throughout the Roman empire (two of which, Mithraism and Bacchism, were practiced in Judea and Syria at the time of Christ).
QUOTE
The point was that the people who started the religion had nothing to gain. Christians today are another story.
Actually, they did. Noteriety, power, etc. But let's be charitable and assume they did it because they truly believed (BTW, there is only a record of two people engaging in any mission work - Peter and Paul - and Peter's mission work seems mainly to have been a struggle to subvert Paul's work, according to Paul's letters). Because they were sincere does not make them correct. Those that later established the Christian Church proper (Constantine et.al.) quite definately had much to gain, and all of the Christian creeds comes out of councils run by those with position and money to protect and power to consolidate.
Hopefully this gives you food for thought! Have a good weekend.
-Lokmer
Posted by: bob Dec 20 2003, 07:25 AM
Christ Lokmer...I'm glad I'm on your side.
Posted by: Redshift Dec 20 2003, 08:01 AM
QUOTE
Although there are a few radicals that reject the historicity of Paul, most people (myself included) agree that Paul's ministry as recorded in his letters did happen and pretty much as he describes it (this is as opposed to his ministry in Acts, which tells a different story in a different order). Christianity did spread in the 50s, and churches sprang up in several cities in Asia Minor and Italy. However, Christianity remained a small fringe religion (a few tens of thousands to a million or two) out of tens of millions in the Roman Empire until Constantine made it the official creed.
Of course, it is widely acknowledged that more that half of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were not in fact written by him, but by followers who used his name for reasons of credibility.
Posted by: Lokmer Dec 20 2003, 08:52 AM
QUOTE
Bob said:
Christ Lokmer...I'm glad I'm on your side.
Thanks I actually just read over all of that and am thinking "Damn - I had no idea my memory was that good." Thanks very much for the compliment.
QUOTE
Redshift said:
Of course, it is widely acknowledged that more that half of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were not in fact written by him, but by followers who used his name for reasons of credibility.
True. IIRC, the Pastorals (1&2 Timothy, Jude, Philemon) are generally recognized as quasi Pauline, as is 2 Thess. Phillipians and Ephesians are debated more strongly than is Collossians, but all three are uncertain with good scholars falling on both sides of the debate. Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, 1 Thess. are believed by everyone to be genuine Paul. I have a feeling I missed one or two in the list....
-Lokmer
Posted by: PriorWorrier Dec 20 2003, 11:44 AM
QUOTE (Keith @ Dec 19 2003, 04:45 PM)
About this discussion…
It’s pointless to point out that I may be wrong. Just ask me and I’ll tell you, I very well could be wrong. I have a hard time believing that with as many religions and ideas there are that beyond a shadow of a doubt I am right. My point, to have a discussion and get your feedback on my thoughts. I’m not an experienced apologeticist and don’t claim to be.
Keith,
I may be mistaken, but I always thought that a xtian had to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt in their belief. That's the defining characteristic of xtian faith and what brings on that "blessed assurance". To entertain that seed of doubt will only start you on that downward spiral that will land you in this camp of the belief-deprived.
I may also have been mistaken to think that xtians are duty bound to be prepared to offer convincing evidence for their "blessed assurance". Most xtians don't seem to take that mandate seriously. It's really too much work when all you're buying into is an insurance policy against hellfire.
Posted by: likeafish Dec 20 2003, 02:51 PM
Lokmer does yet another ass-whoopin' bit of historical, hermeneutical bling-blang-a-nizzle on biz-ible thiz-umpers!!!
Posted by: Matthew Dec 20 2003, 11:42 PM
I noticed that in this thread Keith uses a familiar apologetic arguement, I call for the lack of a better term the "hostile witness" argument. It's the idea that if the gospel or resurrection was false..hostile witnesses would either produce the body of Jesus or call the apostle's bluff and expose the whole movement as a fake (i.e. "there was no massive tounge-speaking thing..you bozos had too much wine that one Pentecostal morning!").
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew Dec 20 2003, 11:46 PM
QUOTE
Thanks I actually just read over all of that and am thinking "Damn - I had no idea my memory was that good." Thanks very much for the compliment
I'll say that much! I could learn a lot from you! And I envied Zach and Consummate Deist! You'd make one hell of a scholar!
Matthew
Posted by: ~Josalo~ Dec 22 2003, 06:48 PM
You have already made a mistake believing in any religion, ESPECIALLY christianity.
Posted by: Keith Dec 23 2003, 10:20 AM
Sorry I'm running late with my response, I'll send it out late tonight. Good job Lokmer, you gave me some interesting stuff to talk about. It'll probably take me awhile to respond to everything you said but I'll definately have some comments for you.
Posted by: Consummate Deist Dec 23 2003, 11:12 AM
QUOTE
). It doesn’t make sense that someone trying to make a false religion would take such risks. Proof? Hardly. Convincing factor? I think so. No other religion I know of opens itself up to risks like this, they are all some guy get's this great revalation and we should believe him because he says so
I don't know about that, we have to look no further than the 1800's and Joseph Smith of LDS fame. He took risks and it eventually claimed his life too. As for the great revelations in the Christ Cult, I hand you the Head of Moses, Isiah, Paul (a.k.a. Saul of Taurus) and many many others.
QUOTE
When I speak of evidence, I'm more refering to evidence beyond "because they said so". I haven't heard other religions speaking of evidence beyond the "because he said so" response.
You Cultists come on this forum constantly touting your evidence, but when you are asked for it, all you hand us is warmed over scriptures....That is hardly evidence to us. You can not use a document as the sole source to prove the validity of that document, much less the belief system it is supposedly supporting. Now if you have any TRUE evidence, we would very much like to hear it, otherwise don't waste your breath.
QUOTE
Never the less the bible speaks of many towns and places, specifically mentioning churches in many of these cities.
Peter Pan actually mentions London and churches that exist in that town, does that mean that there really is a Never Never Land with Lost Boys, Indians, Pirates, and Pixies, where the Boys never age? Sorry, but that proves nothing
QUOTE
So I feel strongly that word did travel.
Well, Duh! Otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Does this mean that Buddhism, Islam, Tao, Shintoism are also true since their word also did travel?
QUOTE
Thus the culture this took place was not one in which this story would have propagated well.
This is partially true with the more hardline Jews, which is why the Jerusalem Church pretty well died and Paul took the message to the Gentiles.
QUOTE
The point was that the people who started the religion had nothing to gain.
The point was and still is, people had everything to gain.....Remember the Husband and Wife "killed by God" for holding out part of the money from the sale of THEIR property. As was the Cult founded, so did it grow, through avarice, lies, and dishonesty.
Lokmer has made many good points and I would like to update one of his points....evidence of a 1st century BCE farmstead that continued up to at least 65 CE and a Necropolis are all that can be shown to have existed at the site of Nazareth. However the town of Japhia was only 1 mile to the southwest (the Necropolis at Nazareth was it's "graveyard") and was destroyed by the Romans in 67 CE.
Posted by: Lokmer Dec 23 2003, 01:13 PM
wrong thread...oops.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Keith Dec 24 2003, 01:46 AM
Some of you are attacking me personally saying things “I'll just bet the only thing that you know about other religions is what they told you in church.”. I think such attacks are fruitless and only take away from the real topic at hand so I’m not going to respond to them. If you really want a response to attacks like that e-mail me at online@otatop.com I’m not afraid to respond, I just think it’s a waste of time.
I want to stress again that evidence and proof are two different things. Evidence suggests something while proof asserts something. I think anyone who thinks they have a proof of their belief or religion is a fool (Christian or Evolutionist or whatever). The struggle between which theory or religion is correct has been going on for thousands of years and to think that someone suddenly solved it is insanely unlikely. For those of you who were wondering why I a Christian would say such a thing, here’s part of why.
Heb 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
We take evidence and make the best decision we can. From there we trust, or have “faith”.
“Did Moses exist?, probably...maybe. Did he lead a massive Hebrew nation to freedom through the dessert for 40 years?, I think the evidence says no.”(bob)
What evidence?
Bob, the comment on Merchants with camels etc. I found interesting. However, using the same logic, since Egyptians didn’t have the technology we have today it is impossible they could have built the pyramids, and therefore the pyramids do not exist. Obviously the pyramids do exist but they are labeled one of the 7 wonders because we don’t know how they did it. Never the less, they exist. Archeology can provide some great evidence when they find things. I don’t think it’s an exact science enough to say that since they didn’t find something it doesn’t exist. Finding a painting of a man riding a horse 1,000 years ago would be good evidence that men tamed and rode horses, however not finding a painting 1,000 years old of a man riding a horse could mean men didn’t ride horses then, or it could mean it was common so no one bothered drawing a picture of it, or it could mean that they drew pictures of it but they decomposed in time, or many other things. Archeological evidence is of value when things are found, however lack of archeological evidence is not really suggestive unless there is good reason to believe the evidence should have been found. I don’t see why we should expect to find evidence of these camels and thus don’t see why a lack of archeological evidence of camels disproves the bible.
On to Lokmer…
“For example, have you ever read Homer? "The Golden Ass"? The Vedas and Upanishads? "The Epic of Gilgamesh"?”
Obviously I haven’t. My question is for these books, where did they originate respective to where the religious events supposedly took place and how long after the events supposedly took place where they written and how old is the oldest existing copy of these books?
You guys are completely missing my point. The fact that the book is old, and that the towns existed is not proof by any means. Even so, it does show the author took unnecessary risks. This is a piece of evidence that suggests that the author was not lieing, however not a proof by any means. Weather it’s a strong or weak piece of evidence is for you to decide.
Second thing, if you look at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, they are all intolerant of other religions. If you look at Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age they are inclusive of all religions. It is my belief that the nations around the Jews practiced inclusive religions, and therefore had a lot of folklore. That does not mean that the Jews would do the same. There is a big difference between an intolerant and an inclusive religion. A person in the Jewish culture making such claims is putting themselves at risk. Making a claim that you are God in an Jewish culture would be much more risky then claiming you are God in a Hinduist culture.
1) What is the evidence for its date of composition?... By these standards, their reliability is questionable.
I’m sorry to disagree, but I read what you wrote and think the gospels are fairly reliable. They are a summary of what happened and should be expected to be written at a later date. Never the less, they are very old and near to the event. Here’s an honest question for you, what about the other books/letters from the new testament? When were they written? (I really have no idea)
2) Do other primary sources that would be expected to comment on the stated events refer to them at all? Is there any outside corroboration?
Obviously in this category Josephus writings are of interest. It does look like someone messed with his stuff. It’s noteworthy because the general consensus seems to be that it mentions that Jesus was a real person.
Additionally, there is… (check out http://www.carm.org/evidence/extrabiblical_accounts.htm for more info)
-Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus
-Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun.
-Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
-The Talmud
-Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus.
Well, time for bed. I think that's good enough for discussion for the moment. I'll try to respond to the rest of Lokmer's comments later.
Posted by: russbuster Dec 24 2003, 03:06 AM
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Lokmer, thank you for putting all of this out on the table. I think this is a starting point we can all work from. I want to respond as well after the holiday.
I would like to redirect the argument. I know there was talk earlier about "proving Christianity." Perhaps it would be a more practical goal here to try to prove that it is reasonable to believe in Christianity. It should be noted that coming to such a conclusion would not require everyone involved to suddenly burst into Christians. This would also mean that someone's personal conclusion of the evidence could be scholarly respected either way.
This would require three things:
1) There is no evidence that can disprove Christianity beyond a shaddow of a doubt.
2) There is no evidence that can prove God's existence or the fact that Christianity is his creed. (I'll concede, go ahead and cross this one off your list.)
3) There is at least a certain minimum of evidence that seem to support the events leading up to (but not necessarily including) the Christian creed.
So first, let's decide if this is what we want or if some modifications are in order. Actually, some of us may already agree on this as Lokmer said in his opinion:
QUOTE
In this case, the gospels claim to historical accuracy is not well established, so the supporting evidence does not mean a lot. This does not mean that no reasonable person can not believe them (I know many who do),
However, if Consummate Deist or anyone else would like to propose an alternative direction, let's define that now. Comments?
Posted by: russbuster Dec 24 2003, 03:11 AM
I just came across this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-10-21-jesus-inscription_x.htm
Does anyone know anything else about this? This is the first I've heard about it. The article is dated 10/21/02 so it's fairly recent news...don't know if any books have been written about it yet.
-Russ
Posted by: chefranden Dec 24 2003, 04:57 AM