Evidence behind the new testament.

[jaswa]

@Cheap Peach

I was just thinking about how the atheists here are saying "you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true".

Apart from the fact that pretty much every argument presented by Nicholas and Jaswa can't be found found from just reading the Bible, making that claim pointless, would using the Bible to prove the Bible always be fallcious?

We know the Bible wasn't done by just one author, it's a library of texts written over hundreds of years, and collaborated because they pointed towards a similar message.

It makes me wonder if the people before the Bible was collaborated used certain future-biblical texts to verify the accuracy of other future-biblical texts.

Josephus and Tacticus are non-biblical sources which verify the Bible, as such, they are deemed valid sources. If the Church decided to incoproate them into the Bible for future versions of the Bible, does that mean in 200 years people can then say "You can't use Josephus because it's a part of the Bible"?

Basically, a perfectly valid source becomes invalidated simply because it becomes accepted by the Church.

 

[_Keno_]

Being accepted by the church has quite literally nothing to do with it. Questionable origin has everything to do with it.

What Tacitus wrote does nothing more than say that Christians exist, and then he proceeds to explain what Christians are.
Josephus is a known forgery.

 

[Violence]

Hi guys, I'm a bit new to this thread, I've read through about the first 6 pages or so, and noticed that I think we're going around in circles.

Please allow me to try to summarize the arguments made in the thread so far, so that we can try and move along, rather than continuously arguing in circles about the same things.

Points For

God Exists.

This is because the New Testament is an accurate historical document and is consistent with the Old Testament, both of which were written significantly far apart from each other, and by multiple authors.

There is extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Therefore, the New Testament is accurate, Jesus existed, performed miracles, died on the cross, and resurrected.



Points Against

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is questionable.

The consistency of the New Testament to the Old Testament is irrelevant, because using parts of the Bible to prove the validity of subsequent parts of the Bible is circular reasoning.

The extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is invalid because it is known to be a forgery.

Therefore, the New Testament is inaccurate. Jesus may or may not have existed, but if he did, he did not perform miracles, nor did he resurrect himself.





Is this accurate? Is there anything I've missed?

 

[Phantom7]

There is something I've been thinking about recently dealing with the miracles performed by Jesus Christ - This is sort of a different approach to their feasibility that I thought you all should consider, since it seems the question of the possibility that these miracles could occur is a controversial part of this debate.

Many claim that the miracles performed by Jesus are much like magic - unexplainable, physically impossible, miraculous acts, but I have a different view of them (Yes, I am a believer, and I do believe Jesus performed these acts). Over the course of 2000 years since Jesus's life, humans have discovered and created a multitude of improvements in technology, mathematics, science, medicine, etc., that the majority of humans living at the time of Jesus's life would consider miracles. The advances in these fields of study have advanced to the point where we now have wireless communication, cures for once deadly diseases, flying machines, and so on. Over time's course, what we have obtained to make these seemingly impossible things true is knowledge. God, who is infinite in knowledge, has always had the knowledge we now have and knowledge we have yet to discover for possibly thousands to millions of years and possesses the power to create what exists in the world today. With these thoughts in mind, miracles performed by Jesus Christ are entirely possible. For example, turning water into wine is simply chemical phenomenon - humans can do it, but the difference is we must find our resources, whereas Jesus, the incarnation of God, could simply create the resources, and through knowledge without capacity, combine the atoms necessary to take water and make wine. Or think about walking on water - one who is infinitely informed in the works of universal physics could surely present a way for humans to stand, or walk, in a certain manner that would prevent sinking. And in addition, feeding 5000 people with two loaves of bread and two fish in equal amounts is a mathematical phenomenon that involves area calculation and division among three dimensions that probably wasn't even possible at the time, but since Jesus is infinitely knowledgeable, it is a simple task.

 

[abhishekh]

Skimmed through most of the thread. A lot of what I'll say probably was said before/refuted by other people.

I think it's likely that Jesus did exist, but unlikely that he did the things he did or that he was the Son of God.

I don't think you can in anyway prove that anyone at any time could walk on ordinary water without any kind of equipment or technology.

You can provide accounts of other people criticizing him and disciples writing about such things, but is that sufficient proof? Nah.

@Phantom7

You could probably argue that all of our ideas about God actually come from Aliens who came to earth and created Humans from apes or whatever, and the images of their vastly superior technology looked like magic to us primitive humans back then, and we thought they were Gods and worshiped them and created the religions we have today.

But then you wouldn't be arguing for the existence of an actual God that created the universe and has existed forever and is omniscient and benevolent and omnipotent or whatever. Same deal, anyway.

Let's not bring Chariots of the Gods into this though, because it doesn't work.

 

[Phantom7]

The miracles performed by Jesus required absolutely complete understanding of universal laws plus the ability to create the mandatory resources. Performing the miracles does not equate to technological abilities and never will, because no being other than God possesses the ability to create. Therefore, alien technology as the truth of the origin of common religion is not the same argument. Aliens would face the same limitations as humans - the lack of the ability to create resources and the need to find them.

No ordinary human can walk on water, of course not, but Jesus, being an incarnation of God, possessed the knowledge and ability to do it. He created the laws of physics, so it is definite that He can take advantage of them to create the illusion of performing an impossible task. The purpose of doing this was to explain faith and that though some things seem impossible or ridiculous, they may actually be true.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure that miracles were supposed to encourage us to have faith in the unlikely, it was to provide reason to believe this particularly unlikely case.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Skimmed through most of the thread. A lot of what I'll say probably was said before/refuted by other people.

I think it's likely that Jesus did exist, but unlikely that he did the things he did or that he was the Son of God.

I don't think you can in anyway prove that anyone at any time could walk on ordinary water without any kind of equipment or technology.

You can provide accounts of other people criticizing him and disciples writing about such things, but is that sufficient proof? Nah.

@Phantom7

You could probably argue that all of our ideas about God actually come from Aliens who came to earth and created Humans from apes or whatever, and the images of their vastly superior technology looked like magic to us primitive humans back then, and we thought they were Gods and worshiped them and created the religions we have today.

But then you wouldn't be arguing for the existence of an actual God that created the universe and has existed forever and is omniscient and benevolent and omnipotent or whatever. Same deal, anyway.

Let's not bring Chariots of the Gods into this though, because it doesn't work.

What WOULD you consider sufficient evidence? Because the new testament actually has the best grounding among any ancient text by far. And actually, I believe the fact that thousands of first century Christians died for their beliefs makes a pretty strong argument.

@Cheap Peach
http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.html

The sources are listed right at the beginning on this one.

 

[Phantom7]

I'm not sure that miracles were supposed to encourage us to have faith in the unlikely, it was to provide reason to believe this particularly unlikely case.

Jesus's miracles were a demonstration of the power of faith, not an attempt at persuasion for nonbelievers.

 

[_Keno_]

What WOULD you consider sufficient evidence? Because the new testament actually has the best grounding among any ancient text by far. And actually, I believe the fact that thousands of first century Christians died for their beliefs makes a pretty strong argument.

@Cheap Peach
http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.html

The sources are listed right at the beginning on this one.

So where do these people, who were born over 150 years after the supposed deaths of the jesus and the disciples, get the information that they wrote?

 

[Nicholas1024]

So where do these people, who were born over 150 years after the supposed deaths of the jesus and the disciples, get the information that they wrote?

You can apply that to anything in history. Alexander the great's exploits were only recorded 400 years after his death. I'll admit that the records here aren't as stellar as most of the NT backing, but it's still good by ancient standards.

 

[_Keno_]

You can apply that to anything in history. Alexander the great's exploits were only recorded 400 years after his death. I'll admit that the records here aren't as stellar as most of the NT backing, but it's still good by ancient standards.

Ancient standards are quite horrible.

I honestly wouldn't put a large truth value on what we know about Alexander the Great's reign either. All we really know of Alexander the Great are stories, just like all we know of Jesus. The only difference is that Alexander's stories were talked about and written about in many different places around the world, while Jesus was written about by a handful of people (almost all of whom were his followers).

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ancient standards are quite horrible.

I honestly wouldn't put a large truth value on what we know about Alexander the Great's reign either. All we really know of Alexander the Great are stories, just like all we know of Jesus. The only difference is that Alexander's stories were talked about and written about in many different places around the world, while Jesus was written about by a handful of people (almost all of whom were his followers).

Your point? In terms of evidence, the new testament & related stuff >>>>> any other ancient text. The evidence behind the disciples dying isn't quite as good as most of the new testament, but it's still good by ancient standards.

Also, why would anyone who WASN'T one of Jesus's followers write about him? Said person would either

a) Not believe Jesus did all the miracles and stuff, or
b) Be against Christianity.

Neither group is at all likely to write anything about him.

But anyway, my point is that if you won't accept the New testament as legitimate, you toss out 99% of what we know about history.

 

[_Keno_]

Your point? In terms of evidence, the new testament & related stuff >>>>> any other ancient text. The evidence behind the disciples dying isn't quite as good as most of the new testament, but it's still good by ancient standards.

Also, why would anyone who WASN'T one of Jesus's followers write about him? Said person would either

a) Not believe Jesus did all the miracles and stuff, or
b) Be against Christianity.

Neither group is at all likely to write anything about him.

But anyway, my point is that if you won't accept the New testament as legitimate, you toss out 99% of what we know about history.

First of all, can you give me an ancient text considered to be history that you consider to be is less accurate than the new testament?

And any person who may have heard about Christ, or heard from the disciples may have written down what they heard, even if they didnt believe it or agree with it. I would think at least one historian in or around the Mediterranean would.

Your last statement is quite bold.

 

[jaswa]

...That puts the grand total of Greek manuscripts at 5,664.
In addition to the Greek documents, he said, there are thousands of other ancient New Testament manuscripts in otherlanguages. There are 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus a total of 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. In all, there are about 24,000 manuscripts in existence.

Show me any other histrocial source that even comes close to rivalling that.

In regard to Jesus' miracles, they serve two purposes;
1. They confirm his identity as the son of God - anyone can claim that, but he backs it up with supernatural ability that is attributed to God
2. It shows what his kingdom will be like - Jesus rids the demon possessed and heals the sick. His miracles proclaim the kingdom he is to bring in, which is one without evil or suffering.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Jaswa
Nice to see you finally got around to reading that.

@CP
First off, a couple of historians (Tacitus, and there's another quote by Josephus that isn't disputed) DID mention Jesus. Secondly, that was an oral culture back then. Making books and etc. was extremely rare. 90% of teaching was word of mouth. (For example, some Jewish Rabbis were famous for having the entire old testament memorized!)More to the point, nobody wrote about history at length unless there was something to learn from it. Therefore, a nonbeliever would have no reason to write about Jesus. Fourth of all, you can still apply that exact same logic to any event... why didn't someone in persia at the time of Alexander the great write a quick diary about the empire falling?

 

[Dre89]

Jaswa I have a question for you-

If a conflicting text, such as the Koran, had more manuscripts than the NT, would that invalidate the NT as the word of God?

 

[jaswa]

No. I never said that the religion with the most manuscripts wins, what I mean is that the vast number of manuscripts validates the authenticity of the religion. Islam is an authentic religion, however I don't hold to their beliefs because of what the Koran teaches. Muhammad was just a prophet, whereas Jesus claimed to be God and backed that claim up with miracles.

As a side note, I like Muslims - they fulfill Old Testament scripture

 

[Dre89]

So what's the difference between an authentic and inauthentic religion?

 

[Photos]

an authentic religion:
is one that doesn't contradict itself.
agrees with history
makes some logical sense
is well documented.

 

[Ballistics]

What about new religions? Are they not authentic?

 

[GwJ]

We're still spawning new semi-legitimate religions?

 

[Photos]

of course, atheism is a new religion. the definition (jic) of religion is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

 

[Violence]

Well if that's the case, I'd say Atheism is the oldest religion.

 

[GwJ]

No, it's not the oldest, but it's one of the oldest.

Atheism requires theism because it is someone who rejects the notion of a deity. Therefore, you must know about it before you willing reject it. But yea, atheism isn't a new religion.


My mom says there's no such things as atheists, it makes me sad.......T_T

 

[Dre89]

Except that the earliest documented civilisation was religious, and had notion of a sky God which was superior to all other Gods.

 

[Photos]

well, atheism may not be new, but it hasn't had a very large following (so far as i know) for very long. at least, it seems that Darwin was the one to really kick it off.

 

[Violence]

well, atheism may not be new, but it hasn't had a very large following (so far as i know) for very long. at least, it seems that Darwin was the one to really kick it off.

Darwin had nothing to do with atheism, that's a very common misconception. Darwin was just a scientist who proposed a theory on the Origin of Species. The church is the entity that took offense to that.

Otherwise, you could say that Galileo and Copernicus were the first to start it when they came up with the idea of a heliocentric model for the solar system.



Darwin's own religious views(which I would call agnostic at the end of his life), are completely irrelevant, just as Newton's, Tesla's, Brahe's, Kepler's, and Einstein's were as well.

He did not start an atheist movement, all he did was make a scientific discovery.

 

[Deleted member]

Darwin had nothing to do with atheism, that's a very common misconception.

Not to nitpick, and not to be mean, but I would hardly call that a "common misconception". It's closer to a "fundamental misunderstanding" which isn't really that common.

 

[_Keno_]

of course, atheism is a new religion. the definition (jic) of religion is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Except that atheism has nothing to do with that. The only thing in common with all atheists is that they believe that no deities exist.

Atheism has only one belief, which does not concern the cause/purpose of the universe. It doesnt fall under your definition.

 

[Mike]

Atheism falls into two categories: weak and strong. Weak atheists DO NOT BELIEVE gods exist. Strong atheists BELIEVE gods do not exist. Neither is a religion. Atheists do not necessarily believe in a "purpose of the universe".

 

[Skadorski]

Atheism falls into two categories: weak and strong. Weak atheists DO NOT BELIEVE gods exist. Strong atheists BELIEVE gods do not exist.

What are you trying to say? The only differences your sentences is that in the first one has "do not" capitalized and has the words in different order. If anything, the first sentence means more than the second one, and in the first sentence you were talking about weak aethiests.

Neither is a religion. Atheists do not necessarily believe in a "purpose of the universe".

I disagree with both of these sentences. Just because they don't necessarily believe in a purpose of the universe doesn't mean they can't.

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Atheists can believe in the cause, nature, and purpose in the universe.

 

[Violence]

What he means(I think), Holowolf, is that weak atheists simply have a lack of a belief in a deity, whereas strong atheists have a belief that there is no deity.

"I don't believe in magic," vs "I believe there is no such thing as magic!" One is more definitive and assertive.

At least, that's what I think you meant.

 

[Dre89]

That's still just word games.

A more distinct clarification would be to say that weak atheists believe there is no reason to believe in a deity, whereas strong atheists believe a deity could not possibly exist.

 

[Mike]

@Dre.: It's not a "word game". There is a very important distinction between "does not believe" and "believe". Simply that one is a belief and the other is not...

@Holowolf: While atheists CAN practice a religion, atheism is NOT a religion.

 

[Dre89]

But what difference does that make? Neither believe in God's existence.

Can you explain to me the practical implications? Such as the specific differences this distinction makes?

 

[Mike]

But what difference does that make? Neither believe in God's existence.

This is where you misunderstand it. While both do not believe in deities, one of them goes a step further into making a claim about their existence. The other is simply a disbelief. For example, everyone was born a weak atheist, but becoming a strong atheist requires cognitive development.

 

[Dre89]

But again, you still haven't shown the specific differences, the practical implications.

Saying one is a disbelief and another isn't has no significance if there is no practical distinction.

 

[ballin4life]

What is there to be practical about? It's just a difference of belief.

In terms of arguments though, a weak atheist would only have to show why there is no reason to believe deities exist, whereas a strong atheist would have to show why there is a reason to believe deities don't exist.

So a weak atheist might say "Well, there isn't any evidence for God. It's like Russell's teapot - I have no reason to believe that the teapot exists."

Meanwhile a strong atheist has to argue more like this "Well, God cannot exist because it would be a contradiction. The idea of am omnipotent being creates the paradox "Can God create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it". Therefore God doesn't exist."

 

[_Keno_]

Atheists can believe in the cause, nature, and purpose in the universe

I dont think anyone said that they couldnt. I just said that those other beliefs have nothing to do with atheism.