Jayhawker Soule

And I am interested to know what if any information you believe contradicts The Vedas. Please do not rely on a priori conclusions discounting miracles or supernatural events.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Good point! Poor A_F is galloping away from the Torah faster than guy sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. I wonder what he feels so uncomfortably about?

Theli

HelenSL...
Not a chance. It's even LESS likely. It's not even your own testimony.

That might prove to be difficult. The only way it would be recorded and kept excacly like the original info, it would have to be writen down at the moment and never be translated.
However info is not like wine. It will NOT become truth just because it's old. If it was a lie thousands of years ago, then it's still a lie today.

Amos

The bible was written by inspired men and must be read as literally true from the same inspired perspective.

Man is infallible and only humans are fallible because our humanity is our fallible nature.

The paradox is not in the bible but in our own understanding of ourself.

Skeptical

You've got it exactly backwards. If a document or set of documents makes claims that: (1) It is the one and only inspired word of God and (2) Tells of events occuring that refute all obvserved behavior of reality, the onus of proof is on the document and its supporters, not on the doubter. If I tell you a fantastical story about traveling to the center of the Earth on top of a Griffon, I had better have pretty good evidence to back it up. Even if you have personally known me all my life and I have never lied to you, I could be delusional now. I could be under the influence of a hypnotist or drugs. You would not simply suspend all reason and say, "why yes, I believe you have been to the center of the earth on a Griffon" (well, perhaps _you_ would but most people certainly would not).

Saying "what information contradicts the NT" is like my saying "what information contradicts that I have been to the earth on the back of a Griffon". And don't appeal to the fact that no living person has seen a Griffon and that there's no logical way to explain how I would have gotten to the center of the earth and lived. That would be an a priori assumption that Griffons don't exist and that I cannot magically shrink myself and the Griffon to microscopic size at will and that I don't have a cloak of invicibility.

By your criteria that one cannot use science to determine the truth of a claim (no a priori assumptions about the miraculous), _anything_ could be true and we just live in a world of magic. The evidenciary value of Saturday morning cartoons would be no different from documentaries. Who are we to say that talking rabbits don't exist, just because there's no scientific evidence. Who are we to say that the science of physics is more accurate than WilECoyote's chalk board drawings involving an ACME rocket and a can of bird seed. If this is the view that you wish to take, so be it. However, it does little to expand or explain the human condition. I can make up any story whatsoever I want about the world and the universe. If there is no appeal that can be made to a known, objective understanding of the world, who's to say what is true or false, right or wrong.

But OK, I'll play along and not assume the miraculous cannot be true. So, what is the evidence for the divine inspiration of the NT? To date, no one has shown anything in the stories of the NT that come close to demonstrating that it could not have been written entirely by human minds. What evidence could there have been? Any information which could not have been available to humans writing around the 2nd Century. An exact, non-ambiguous prophecy of future events would be nice. Pick any world event such as a war or large earthquake. Not the Nostradmous style vague prophecies which can be twisted to fit any interpretation, but something simple and straight-forward like "in the year 1939, the ruler of Germany, Adolf Hitler, will invade Poland and begin the second world war".

Surely God would have known about this event and could have ensured that a prophecy of this event or any other would appear in what is supposed to be the _only_ set of documents inspired by a divine creator. If you don't like that event pick another, _any_ other significant, future event that God could have included a non-ambigous definitive statement about. None occur. (please don't say, "he predicts the second coming" as, obviously, such an event has not ocurred and as such a dubious prediction)

Or, how about a particular prayer that, when uttered, allowed you to communicate directly to God. I'm not talking in the figurative sense, I mean literally have a conversation. This would be fairly convincing evidence of divinity, yet nothing like this is found. (if you have such a prayer, please post it, there are several questions I have that I'd like to get answered from God)

There are also substantial internal and external reasons for doubting the veracity of the NT. If one assumes that God was at work, these questions pose substantial problems:

1) There is a substantial amount of early Christian writings not included in the NT. Some of these writings are very consistent with NT writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas, yet they were not included and indeed only fairly recent archeology found that these docs even existed. Why would God allow these documents to go unseen for so long? Why couldn't God have made sure the NT was complete in its original form? Don't appeal to human fallibility, if God can raise the dead he can certainly ensure his book is complete.

2) Paul, writing as close to the supposed events as any writings we currently have, makes almost no mention of an earthly Jesus. Details of his life, works and message are painfully absent. This seems very hard to understand since the events of Jesus life and death should have been so fresh in his mind. (you can check out Earl Doherty for much more detailed arguments on this topic) God must have known that there would be questions about the NT, surely he could have ensured that Paul, the author of the writings closest to the actual events in question, would corroborate the story in some unambiguous fashion.

3) The only non-Christian source that is even close to being contemporaneous with Jesus is Josephus (and Josephus was born about the time of Jesus reported death in 36CE). Philo, a contemporary Historian of Jesus, makes no mention of him. One can argue that in his time Jesus was not well known, but this is exactly the point. Why would God not make sure that contemporary Historians of Jesus recorded at least something about his life, miracles and message? Yes, there is a brief mention in Josephus, part of which it is hard to argue is not an interpolation, but that's it. Nothing else. A pretty scant record of divinity. Why isn't there more? After all, God had to know that the information would have to survive thousands of years and answer the questions of numerous skeptics in order to be taken seriously.

4) There is substantial evidence that many of the aspects of the story of Jesus are taken from older religious legends and traditions.

Bottom line, taken at face value I can see no reason whatever to believe the NT is literally true.

The only way I can see that one _could_ believe the NT is "true" in any sense of the word is if one automatically assumes a stance of credulity and belief. If one already believes that something is true without evidence, then all you are expressing is an opinion which is, obviously, of no evidenciary value whatsoever.

As pointed out be others, many, many religious documents have been written over the thousands of years we have popluated this planet. By your criteria, one could not show that any of them are "false" since one cannot appeal to our understanding of how the world works. If a document purports things that no one living has ever seen, such as raising someone from the dead, by what criteria are we to judge it if we do not apply our knowledge of science? Without this basis, there is no objective judgement to be made, its all simply a matter of belief. (some religious proponents actually do make the argument that it's just a matter of belief, which at least has the merit of being consistent)

In such a case, all one is arguing is how one "feels" about something, which is like arguing whether Chocolate ice cream is better than Vanilla.

I am curious though, what would you accept as definitive evidence contradicting the NT? (something that could not simply be explained away by an appeal to magic or the supernatural) If your answer is "nothing, because I know its true", I think nothing more need be said.

John Page

As Zarathustra might have said: I am inspired. What I write is literally true and is also inspired. I am fallible. The paradox is not in what I write but in your understanding of the bible.

Atticus_Finch

An understanding of the concept of the trinity would show you that it was not internally inconsistent for Jesus to be God and to cry out to the Father on the cross.

The link you gave to the "biblical errors on science" is laughable in its simplisity. For example, it takes issue with the account of the devil taking Christ up to the top of a mountain to "see the kingdoms of the earth" by arguing that there is no mountain on earth where you could see all the kingdoms. First, maybe christ and the devil were capable of visualizing the whole earth at once. Second, this is a passage which would allow for some interpretation as to whether they could literally see the whole earth. Have you ever been on a mountain and said "Man I can see for ever from up here!" Did anybody think that you really meant that or was just saying, "Man I can see a long ways".

I recurring them in the responses is to distinguish between testimony (i.e. the NT writings) and evidence. Testimony is evidence. If a writing or a person says something is true their testimony is evidence of that fact. You may then weigh the credibility to determine if you believe them but it is evidence of the fact at issue.

Many responses refer to scholarship which puts in question the dating and authorship of the books of the NT. I am generally familar with the scholarship. Let me ask this question: If the NT was written in the second century, why absolutely no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. That would seem to be an important event for the early church which was largely Jewish.

One person in response discounted the gospels because they were obviously written by believers and therefore were biased. Isn't that a convenient principle. Therefore, any person who states they saw the risen Christ automatically is not believable. That conveniently rules out all the evidence in favor of the resurrection. Congradulations.

Regards,

Finch

Atticus_Finch

I am completely comfortable with the OT. I have said nothing to the contrary.

Regards,

Finch

99Percent

Atticus_Finch: My review of the available evidence has led me to the conclusion that the Christian God, as described in the Bible, exists.

Then you know he exists, you don't have to believe he exists. By admitting that you believe in him, you accept the fact that you don't really know he exists.

I know my cat Tiki exists because I have real solid evidence to support the fact of her existence. I don't have to believe in her existence, I just know.

Goliath

Atticus_Finch,

I still await your answer to my question.

You said:

To which I replied:

....well? What is wrong with the proof? You don't believe the "Theorem," do you?

Sincerely,

Goliath