2-J

If it comes down to it, speaking personally I'm perfectly prepared to accept one of the horns of the dilemma - that we don't really know much about many figures of ancient history at all (e.g. Socrates) rather than accepting the other horn, that we must believe in the details of lives of some figures based on what are in some cases biased or unreliable sources.

Maybe the 'ancient history' of the Academy has had it wrong for too long (wrong in the sense that they've promoted conclusions that outstrip the evidence that they have).

Also there's another point. If Christianity is true, then that would have momentous implications for all our lives (if it isn't true, and we knew that, that would also have implications). So deciding whether it is true or not is a matter of great importance and surely it's more prudent to reserve judgement if we don't have enough evidence. Believing in whether Socrates existed and whether he was tried and drank the hemlock is really not a matter of great importance. Something you could say 'oh well, I decided to believe in that, it's not really that well evidenced but it's the best we've got, does it really matter anyway' to, unlike the basic facts of the Christian story (at least, let's say, those presented in the gospels).

arnoldo

I find that it is significant that the NT presesents the eary christians as real persons with all their flaws. For example we have "Saul" murdering christians, Judas betraying Jesus, Peter going into a rage and using a sword to defend Yeshua and later cursing his name. As far as the early church is concerned Paul writes condeming them at times for sacrificing to idols, being greedy, and ignoring taking care of the widows and orphans. If the NT is a fictional work wouldn't it be in the interest of the "authors" to try to portray christianity in a more positive light?

Toto

Fiction requires conflict and drama. The character of Jesus is built up by showing the flaws in the people around him. There may be other reasons for showing the disciples to be lacking in character.

And you don't need to put authors in quotes. Somebody wrote the gospels.

arnoldo

Right, the disciples are not lacking character , they are simply displaying real character as persons who respond to situations in much the same manner you or I would. Even Jesus is shown displaying real human emotions such as anger, when he overthrew the moneylenders table in the temple and also anxiety (?), when he prayed that this cup (the crucifiction), be taken away from him. However, since you claim the NT is fiction who do you suppose these "author" were and when did they write this clever little story?

Johnny Skeptic

No one knows, including you. More importantly, there is not sufficient evidence that a God inspired the Bible.

arnoldo

Yes, Doubting Thomas also did not have sufficient evidence until he saw the wounds on the risen Lord.

aa5874

But the Gospels have more than one version of this so-called last prayer of Jesus, and more than one version of where the last prayer took place. Either one or all are fiction.

The Synoptics and the Gospel of John have vastly different versions.

The authors of the Synoptics claimed Jesus left the feast and went with the disciples and prayed in Gethsemane, or somewhere at Mount Olives, and was sweating, as it were, drops of blood, and prayed and asked God that the crucifixion be taken away from him.

But the author of gJohn paints a different story, his Jesus told Judas to expedite his plans.

John 13.27 In other words, this Jesus of John is ready to be executed to complete the mission for which he was sent by God. Jesus, in the Gospel of John, is not recorded as sweating, he anticipates his moment of glory.

And in a 500 word prayer, at the place of the feast, not at Gethsemane or Mount Olives, Jesus of gJohn begins like this:

John 17 And on the cross, according to the authors of gMatthew and gMark, Jesus felt forsaken and cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

But the author of gJohn contradicts them and claimed his Jesus had accomplished his God given tasks when on the cross this Jesus said, It is finished.

John 19.30, Again, two completely different versions, all or one is fiction.

spamandham

If you start with the assumptions that:

a) The intent of the NT was to be a coherent singular work
b) The authors were all working together with the objective of portraying Christianity in a positive light
c) They were writing from whole cloth rather than simply modifying pre-existing traditions

...then you would be right. The real story is a lot more complex than that, involving a lot of bickering and posturing among the authors with attempts to discredit another group's leader, and revising the history.

arnoldo

That's an interesting theory which would probably mean the NT was written in the late 2nd century early 3rd century.

Johnny Skeptic

There is not any credible historical evidence that that happened. There is good evidence that the story is a lie. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

There is no way that Jesus would have criticized Thomas after he had provided many other people with tangible, firsthand evidence without criticizing them.

Those texts show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.

Possibly what fundamentalist Christians lack the most is reasonable motives regarding why God does what he does. In court trials, it is frequently difficult to convict a person of a crime unless a reasonable motive has been discovered for why he committed the crime. The Bible says that God is good and loving, and that he is not the author of confusion. Since those claims are lies, the odds that the God of the Bible does not exist are astronomical. If a God inspired the Bible, it is obvious that the Bible writers misrepresented what he is like.

I recently started a thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=240315 at the GRD forum that is titled 'Some questions for Christians'. The questions are about God's motives. I invite you to participate in dicsussions in that thread.