Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[drunkenshoe]

Forget about OT or NT, he doesn't even comprehend that Jesus Christ is -also Virgin Mary and others- was created by Nicea Councils for very political reasons trying to save Empire's ass. I am not following, I don't know if he 'discussed' the Nicae Councils.

Almost all Christians have the vision that Christianity is a religion that spread for the day first as what they know today. There is no historical perspective, understanding of religion or faith or myth. Their functions. Because they don't understand those concepts out of religion.

Have you ever met a believer of any Abrahamic religion who is aware that Apollo is a god that has been worshipped more fervently and lived longer than Christ and his cult ruled an unbelivable geography for a very long time? Or Osiris? If they could comprehend that they could get it is just a transformation of deities and there is no need for a real man. There was never a need for a real man.

Think about it. The whole Victorious God and Heavens the divine...is just a bunch of old men sitting around a table making basic plots, from old myths and stories, so they wouldn't be slaughtered by their own soldiers and slaves. Everything they believe and worship about Jesus Christ is a political solution to the biggest crisis in one of the greatest empires of human history. Would you be willing to accept that if you were a believer?

[Randy Carson]

Don't think I didn't notice you still haven't addressed my question, Randy. What's the matter, you can't think of some BS explanation? Afraid to have to admit you were wrong?

Which is more convenient, option 1 or option 2?

I have ignored it because it is an opinion-based v. fact-based question. But since this is important to you, let me address your dilemma:

"Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you."

OR

"Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend."

Isn't this a false dilemma, Blackleaf?

Whatever happened to Option 3: Stop sinning?

You're not the only person to struggle with sin. We all do. But God provides the grace for us to do so. And when we fall, we go to confession and ask God to forgive us. Then, renewed by the grace of the sacrament, we try again. And we may fall again. And God forgives us again. He is not surprised nor is He disappointed. And your sin is not greater than His mercy. You can't sin beyond His ability to forgive.

We only fail when we give up our struggle against sin and embrace it.

It sounds as if you gave in to despair about ever being free from the sins which entangled you, so rather than fight against them, you chose to fight against God or the idea of a God since you now claim that He does not exist.

I suspect that this is not very satisfying for you because while you tell yourself this (and hang out in forums like this to bolster your self-assurance), in your heart you know this is a lie you're telling yourself.

Why not return to your Father who sees the sins we commit in secret and ask for His forgiveness as well as for the grace to live as you know you should? God, who desires the good for you, knows what you need even before you ask Him, and He will answer.

Perhaps in unexpected ways, but He will answer.

[Randy Carson]

Odd that we have 2,000 years of contiguous fail then.

Or is it just that believers don't want to face reality...

Or maybe believers see things that you do not.

[SGOS]

Randy Carson:
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..

can't figure out why others laugh at him.

Trying to understand theists is a perplexing problem.  Of course, some of them don't have a clue.  They learned the stuff starting a birth, never questioned or thought about it and just regurgitate their specific sect's doctrine like a robot, while they reject all other gods outside their tribal border.

Others, are more intelligent.  I suspect the most intelligent, truly understand both the strength and weakness of faith, and they know enough not to waste their time debating the issue at all.  That's why atheists develop a perception of theists being intellectually challenged.  We only see the challenged ones.

Randy isn't totally intellectually challenged.  Unlike most theists we see here, he knows enough to ask for evidence, and I think he might even be familiar with some common logical fallacies.  It wouldn't be surprised if he pointed one out when we use one sometime.  But while he might demand logic and evidence from atheists, he completely excuses himself from the harsh encumbrance of those inconveniences himself.  Well, he does offer evidence, lots of it, but his evidential arguments lack internal logic, or depend on some flimsy overriding premise that is simply too ingrained to bother to question.

But such is the nature of theistic belief.  I've seen it over and over.  While reasoning is possible, and demanded in others, there seems to be blind spot over certain concepts that are sanctified.  It's like those rare disorders where people can function, but are totally incapable of identifying someone's face, even a loved one.  It's like my occasional ocular migraines where certain areas of my vision temporarily disappear.  It's not like there's a little black spot covering part of my vision.  The vision is simply not there; No black spot, no empty space, there's just nothing there.

This is kind of the way I imagine reasoning must be like for theists.  Certain areas of reason just aren't there in the throes of their ecstasy.  It's not like they stop, and think, "Oh, my.  I've lost my reason."  Instead, there's an untouchable blank spot that's temporarily out of reach, and like my ocular blank spot, there's just nothing there.

Debating theists is really a waste of time.  The skeptic and the theist try to discuss, each using a separate set of rules or protocols, and the net effect is to cancel out real communication.  It's like talking to Martians.

[Randy Carson]

There was no attack on New York City.  Irregular demolition team hired by the government ... maybe.  Kind of like the unavoidable collateral damage when the Avengers fought Loki.

Either way, how would you explain silence concerning the destruction of the Towers in a history of New York City?

[Randy Carson]

Because they didn't want apologists to have to make up weird hypothetical situations to try to make a point?

That's one.

What other reasons can you come up with?

[Baruch]

Some people are just argumentative ;-)

Randy is shadow boxing with the Holy Ghost ... but the Holy Ghost will win.  Casuistry isn't real debate or real logic, just as the present Coca-Cola isn't real Coke.

[Baruch]

Either way, how would you explain silence concerning the destruction of the Towers in a history of New York City?

Facts are rapidly converted to PR.  PR is rapidly converted to legend.  Legend is rapidly converted to myth.  Already, the NYC tragedy, and it was a tragedy, has been converted into myth ... of course for political purposes.  Political propaganda, no more than saint's hagiographies, are not histories.  They are leaflets to draw in the tourists.  Like the old joke of Washington Slept Here.

[Randy Carson]

What a Christian finds compelling, even undeniable, has little to do with the arguments, but more to do with their own predispositions and desires, rather than the logical aspects of the arguments themselves.

And how does this apply to the person who was raised as an atheist and picks up a Bible in order to find things to poke fun at only to find himself impressed by the gospels to the point that he becomes a Christian?

Was it merely his "predispositions and desires" that led him to believe?

And what of the "predispositions and desires" of the atheist who deconverts? Should that be discounted, also, because it was not "logical"?

[Jason78]

Okay, you don't know. That's an honest admission, and I thank you for it.

Would you like to venture a guess? This may help:

There are five minimal facts that do not depend upon the inspiration of scripture and five theories about why the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They are:

Five facts:

1.  Jesus died.
2.  Disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.
3.  James the skeptical brother believed.
4.  Paul the persecutor believed.
5.  Empty tomb.

Five theories:

1.  Jesus rose.
2.  Jesus resuscitated.
3.  Disciples lied.
4.  Disciples hallucinated.
5.  Church legend.

If you have another theory to explain the five facts, add it to the list.

Otherwise, which theory do you find most compelling in light of the first list of events?

Woah there!  Aren't those five facts part of the "Historical Reliability" you're attempting to show as true in your opening post?   We can't assume those to be true if you're trying to show the New Testament as accurate.   You'll need to provide another reliable source that corroborates the bible story of what happened regarding that tomb.

(The four gospels don't agree on what happened at the tomb, but we'll get to that later.)

[Randy Carson]

Prove any of them said you claim they said. Real proof, not apologetics.

You imply a dichotomy where none exists.

[Randy Carson]

Randy Carson:
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..

can't figure out why others laugh at him.

I have you on ignore, but I saw what you wrote when someone else quoted you. I have decided to correct your error.

I have not proclaimed that the OT is "widely and mostly metaphorical". If you disagree, show me the post. Parts of the OT fit that description, but only tiny bits. Like Gen 1-3.

I have said that the NT is historically accurate. If you disagree, show me some compelling evidence to the contrary. Simply barking at the back door all night doesn't convince me to let you in the house.

Since the OT contains history and prophecy, there are aspects of it that apply to the NT, of course. For example, it may be argued that accounts in the NT show that Jesus fulfilled many OT prophecies.

I have not claimed victory (that happens when folks become believers), but I haven't had a "Well, he got me there" moment. Yet. (It does happen occasionally.)

[Randy Carson]

Randy isn't totally intellectually challenged.  Unlike most theists we see here, he knows enough to ask for evidence, and I think he might even be familiar with some common logical fallacies.  It wouldn't be surprised if he pointed one out when we use one sometime.  But while he might demand logic and evidence from atheists, he completely excuses himself from the harsh encumbrance of those inconveniences himself.  Well, he does offer evidence, lots of it, but his evidential arguments lack internal logic, or depend on some flimsy overriding premise that is simply too ingrained to bother to question.

Thanks for this. I think. Being only partially intellectually challenged is something, I suppose.

I'm pleased to see that you picked up on the "evidential" nature of my arguments. What? You're used to believers who just come in here, quote a few verses and tell you to "just have faith"? No, I know you need more than that to convince you.

My only objection to this portion of your post is your statement that the arguments "lack internal logic, etc.". Could you provide an example of this so that I can understand what you're saying better?

This is kind of the way I imagine reasoning must be like for theists.  Certain areas of reason just aren't there in the throes of their ecstasy.  It's not like they stop, and think, "Oh, my.  I've lost my reason."  Instead, there's an untouchable blank spot that's temporarily out of reach, and like my ocular blank spot, there's just nothing there.

So, I have a blind spot and cannot see what you can see? Interesting. But couldn't that be the other way around, also? I can't see things from your perspective, but you can't see things from my perspective. But what if we both "see" the same evidence and simply draw different conclusions about it?

Debating theists is really a waste of time.  The skeptic and the theist try to discuss, each using a separate set of rules or protocols, and the net effect is to cancel out real communication.  It's like talking to Martians.

I dunno about this. It seems like it might be worth the effort to bridge that gap. Otherwise, the animosity and distrust between the two sides just continues.

[SGOS]

And how does this apply to the person who was raised as an atheist and picks up a Bible in order to find things to poke fun at only to find himself impressed by the gospels to the point that he becomes a Christian?

I can't give a simple answer for this question, such as, "He saw the light."  The human psyche is more complex than that.

Was it merely his "predispositions and desires" that led him to believe?

I believe so, some people need religion, but the explanation for why is beyond me.

And what of the "predispositions and desires" of the atheist who deconverts? Should that be discounted, also, because it was not "logical"?

I assume you mean "atheist that deconverts from Christianity?"  From a logical perspective, yes.  It should be discounted.  From an illogical perspective, no.  Logic is independent of predispositions and desires.  Things are either logical or they are not.  We don't get to choose what is logical.  Logic is unsympathetic and outside of our control.  It's only a guide we can apply, but not our master.  Theists can become atheists for illogical reasons too.

But the process of logic remains, whether it is utilized or not.  The test for the logic has nothing to do with what we believe.  We either believe something or we don't.  It can be logical or illogical.

[Randy Carson]

Woah there!  Aren't those five facts part of the "Historical Reliability" you're attempting to show as true in your opening post?   We can't assume those to be true if you're trying to show the New Testament as accurate.   You'll need to provide another reliable source that corroborates the bible story of what happened regarding that tomb.

They are. Is this a problem?

There are non-canonical reasons to believe these five facts, and even if we simply view the NT books as historical rather than inspired, the five facts are not challenged.

The point is that we can accept these minimal facts without appealing to scripture as inspired. In fact, they represent the consensus view of modern scholars.

(The four gospels don't agree on what happened at the tomb, but we'll get to that later.)

Cool.