what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The whole New Testament is made up?

The authors of the New Testament probably believed what they were writing, so in that sense I wouldn't say they were "making it up." Whenever someone brings up that "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, I always default to the fourth option: maybe they were just mistaken.

[Kaleb5000]

Translation: I've made up my mind, don't bother me with actual facts.

The simple truth is that it's physically impossible for the NT to be historically accurate because it's internally inconsistent.  Even the core of the New Testament, the Gospels, don't agree with each other on the events in Jeshua bar-Joseph's life (if he even existed in the first place) or on the order in which they happened.  Which makes them unreliable as historical documents.

And I don't want to be my own god.  Then I wouldn't exist.

What you religious types never seem to get is that evidence matters and that your word that the New Testament is valid is not evidence.  Evidence requires data that is outside of personal interpretation.  If I say to you that pi equals approximately 3.14159, you can demonstrate that for yourself without having to take my word for it just by inscribing a circle and dividing its measured perimeter by its measured diameter.  If I say to you that pi equals three, and then I demand that you take my word for it because an ancient book says so, you have every right to tell me to get stuffed.

And on that basis, I tell you to get stuffed.  Your book is not evidence.  Evidence is that which is independently verifiable.  Your book doesn't mean a thing, any more than the Harry Potter series proves there's a school for wizards in Scotland -- there's precisely as much independent evidence for both.

Thanks for your Input. Could you explain in what way the Gospels are inconsistent? Headed to work so it may be a bit before I get back to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

The authors of the New Testament probably believed what they were writing, so in that sense I wouldn't say they were "making it up." Whenever someone brings up that "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, I always default to the fourth option: maybe they were just mistaken.

If the writers were Disciples of Jesus (Gospels) then and if they believed what they saw there is no way they were mistaken. Jesus performed many miracles right in front of them. Things you would remember forever and certainly not mistake for something else.

    Things that would make them give up your Jewish religion and replace it for one (Christianity) that would most certainly lead to a lot of pain suffering and death in their life. But promise eternal life through Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Speaking as a writer, I prefer to think that I exist.  I might like to think that in a multiverse, there's somewhere that my multiple worlds exist, but alas, if they do, I don't have direct access to them beyond being able to open up a window in the back of my head and writing down everything I see, then ducking out of sight before anyone in there notices me.

This is what Elon Musk thinks too.  We are in an alien computer simulation, like The Sims ... and like Moriarty in the Star Trek Next Gen episode, he wants to break out out of the master control program and stop being someone else's sub-routine, he wants to be a real boy, like Pinochio.

If you exist as something other than "you" ... then "you" don't exist.  Human language doesn't have grammar for this situation.  So if every character in the story is crowd sourced, then who is the author?  We all are.  As incarnate, we are both writer and written.  Otherwise QM would be wrong ... you can't legitimately separate the observation from the observer ... classical physics is theist ... in that it posits a single omnipotent observer (see Bishop Berkeley 300 years ago) that is independent .. or in writing terms, the omnipotent narrator.  For atheists, they say ... no omnipotent narrator allowed, only first person narration allowed.  The idea of free will, is precisely that our position is somewhat independent of the rest of the universe ... but not completely, otherwise I could modify physics arbitrarily by free will (other than coming up with a better theory) aka miracles.  But we are limited ... demigods not gods.  Determinism is the idea that there are no first person narratives, only the omnipotent narrator.

[Baruch]

The authors of the New Testament probably believed what they were writing, so in that sense I wouldn't say they were "making it up." Whenever someone brings up that "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument, I always default to the fourth option: maybe they were just mistaken.

Like Shakespeare was mistaken?  All humans are lunatics, liars and lords.  It isn't either or.  And we ware very mistaken as well.

[Mike Cl]

If the writers were Disciples of Jesus (Gospels) then and if they believed what they saw there is no way they were mistaken. Jesus performed many miracles right in front of them. Things you would remember forever and certainly not mistake for something else.

    Things that would make them give up your Jewish religion and replace it for one (Christianity) that would most certainly lead to a lot of pain suffering and death in their life. But promise eternal life through Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If so, then why did they wait 30/100 years after witnessing those wondrous things to write about it?  And why in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew????

[Kaleb5000]

If so, then why did they wait 30/100 years after witnessing those wondrous things to write about it?  And why in Greek and not Aramaic or Hebrew????

The first half of your question I don't have a answer for with out doing a little bit of looking. However I would say that they were busy establishing Churches and having it in writing was not as important as it would be later in life when many of the disciples and eye witnesses would be dying off.

   Veterans still today write about the Vietnam war and their experiences. Does that mean their accounts are made up and false?

Why Greek? I believe this is a good explanation. 

"Greek was the leading written and spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean world when Rome ruled the world during the New Testament period. Indeed, it remained the dominant language, especially in the large cities of Alexandria, Antioch, etc., until after the Arab Muslim conquest, long after the time the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D."

By the way I have not forgot you last question. I hope to answer that later tonight. If time allows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'll test your faith in me..its simple.. What is 2+2? 4 you say? WRONG! 2 isn't really 2 because I just rounded up to the nearest decimal of 1 9999999999/1000000000 so it's really 3.999999998.. Fuckers.. You failed and all going straight to hell!  Hahaha!

[Mike Cl]

Kaleb--The first half of your question I don't have a answer for with out doing a little bit of looking. However I would say that they were busy establishing Churches and having it in writing was not as important as it would be later in life when many of the disciples and eye witnesses would be dying off.
Me--Churches??? If it was important to build churches you would need people to put into them.  You would need to compete with Temples.  Writing about jesus and his unique accomplishments would be the easiest and quickest way to build those.  Even today you cannot build a church in secret; you need to advertise to get one started.  That argument seems more wishful hoping than anything else.

  Kaleb-- Veterans still today write about the Vietnam war and their experiences. Does that mean their accounts are made up and false?
Me--The Vietnam War to Jesus; not a very good comparison.  But in any case, it would be difficult to find anybody who was in Nam who did not write about it until the year 2000 or record their reaction in some fashion.  Look at the number of letters that that war generated from those that were in it.  Come on Kaleb, can you imagine you being taught by THE expert in anything you can think of, and not telling people of it, writing about it from the very beginning????  And I don't remember reading in the bible that jesus was a stealth wonder worker. 

Kaleb--"Greek was the leading written and spoken language of the eastern Mediterranean world when Rome ruled the world during the New Testament period. Indeed, it remained the dominant language, especially in the large cities of Alexandria, Antioch, etc., until after the Arab Muslim conquest, long after the time the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D."
Me--I don't think where jesus is supposed to come from was in a Greek speaking area.  He is supposed to have spoken Aramaic, not Greek.  His disciples supposedly were common workers, and they did not speak Greek, but Aramaic.  It is not plausible that suddenly they all spoke and wrote Greek; and not one of the NT writings discovered so far has been in Aramaic--all are Greek.  The scholars all wrote and spoke Greek and it is odd that the NT original material dates to long after the fictional jesus is supposed to have died.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Simon Moon]

If the writers were Disciples of Jesus (Gospels) then and if they believed what they saw there is no way they were mistaken. Jesus performed many miracles right in front of them. Things you would remember forever and certainly not mistake for something else.

    Things that would make them give up your Jewish religion and replace it for one (Christianity) that would most certainly lead to a lot of pain suffering and death in their life. But promise eternal life through Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. But even if they were, people misinterpret things they witness, or think they witnessed, all the time.

You can interview 1000's of people today, that have sincere beliefs that they were abducted by aliens.

Do you believe them?

[Kaleb5000]

First of all, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. But even if they were, people misinterpret things they witness, or think they witnessed, all the time.

You can interview 1000's of people today, that have sincere beliefs that they were abducted by aliens.

Do you believe them?

Matthew? John?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

Like I said I did not have a great answer for that one. However how do we know they did not right something just because we have not found it doesn't mean it was never written. Much like the atheist claims " just give science time"

The whole Greek Aramaic Hebrew thing is not really that important. How do you know the were not speaking while a scribe was translating into Greek? Also the New Testament was written closer to the time of the actual event then many other ancient documents and no one disputes them.

  I'll answer your other claim from last night about how none of these New Testament writers even existed. Because if they did not then this whole discussion is pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaleb5000]

We know that Paul existed.  The other authors of the NT are unknown.  Mark, for example, is attributed to Mark, but there is no evidence he wrote it.  And even if a person by the name of Mark wrote it, we have no evidence of who he is nor when he wrote it.  Paul is the first author of the NT--but he offers no autobiographical data for jesus.  For him, the christ is an ethereal character and not flesh and blood type person.  So, basically, we don't know the disciples even existed.

The NT made up?  No, it exists.  But it was crafted from among a very large number of writings to select from.  And this was a process that lasted hundreds of years.  And still, the NT is not a fully agreed upon compilation;  and the same is true of the bible as a whole.  Go into any christian book store and you can find hundreds of different versions of the bible.  The NT was crafted by various people over the course of time.  We know that the letters of Paul, for example, had text removed and added many times.  The gospel of john is a collection of several authors.  So, let's say the NT was engineered according to the wishes of various people over the course of a long time.  The bible did not drop from the sky a finished product of god.

You admit Paul existed. So what is your take on him? Do you think he experienced what he experienced or he made up his portion?

As for the other disciples there is not a lot of evidence outside the Bible. But if these were ordinary men from no where, anyone of influence wouldn't care about them why would they write about them. The Jews were trying to shut them up along with everyone else.

   James was real. He thought Jesus was crazy then he saw the resurrected Christ and became a follower. He was executed for his belief. Why would he die for a known lie?

  I agree the Bible did not drop out of the sky a finished product. It is a collection of books put into one book. All the New Testament books speak the same message so if we had 100 more books in their would it matter. We know what the Gospel is and the basic things God expects of us as followers of Christ.

   You said Paul's writings had stuff added and removed several times. Where did you receive this info? I'm not saying there isn't any I am legitimately curious.

   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Paul smoked ganja ... got sunstroke, was masochistic (hence the multiple un-excommunications).  He was also a Kabbalist (travelled to the third heaven ... do you even know what that means).  He failed utterly in his own lifetime .... but his followers did start something that grew.  Some of his inauthentic letters were written by those folks ... such as the Epistle to the Ephesians.  One of the most successful failures of all time.  The Jewish authorities were right to try to kill him, and the Romans were correct to execute him (Nero is a god, not some Jewish urchin).

[Blackleaf]

bethinking.org says



"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament."


So by your logic many historical writings would be false such as these.

Click on picture





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Talmud's supposed references to Jesus are a matter of debate, and are not universally accepted. From Wikipedia:

"Bart Ehrman, and separately Mark Allan Powell, state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and give no historically reliable information about the teachings or actions of Jesus during his life."

"Scholars debate whether the Talmud provides any evidence of Jesus as a historical individual. Van Voorst (2000) describes this as a spectrum of opinion:

"On one side stand Johann Maier (1978) and those broadly sympathetic to his conclusions such as John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner. Maier discounts accounts with no mention of the name Jesus, and further discounts those that do mention Jesus by name, such as Sanh. 43a and 107b, as later medieval changes.[48] Arguments against the current form of Talmudic references to Jesus being evidence of a historical individual include contextual evidence, such as chronological inconsistencies, for example the original contexts of accounts in the Tosefta and Talmud take place in different historical periods. Maier also views that the tradition first seen in the writings of Celsus can not be regarded as a reliable reference to the historical Jesus."

Furthermore, if Jesus were a real historical figure, who was attracting followers from all over, who had a reputation for performing miracles such as healing the sick and raising the dead, there would have been many people writing about it. Instead, we have people who weren't even alive in Jesus' lifetime writing about him, who were Christians themselves and hardly unbiased. And we have the Babylonian Talmud, which was put together at around the year 500 AD. Even the evidence that does exist is incredibly weak.