The Authencity of the Bible.

[Kurieuo]

I don't mind people jeer at me for my stupidity; but it seems that the questions haven't yet been answered.

I am not sure why you say this. Are you jeering at us in asking your questions?

i were editting when you were replying on my old version.

Still, I don't really see any mocking. Just conversation. Many of my other responses I see still apply.

[Ashley]

What if the twelve apostles and Jesus were all real guys in history, but they never met?

Then I would expect the recorded history to be quite different.

Remember: in ancient time there were no internet, no journalism and no TV and radio and no camera... People believed of something simply based on hearsay. and ...

I always admire the low opinion of people in the past many moderns appear to take.

Remember: the people might be using the "religion" to give rebels an excuse to subvert the Roman governance.. and

Yeah, need they more excuse than the fact Rome attempted to keep control of other nations these people once consisted of by the sword?

Remember: in history, making use of religions for rebellious to turn over the rulers were not uncommon.

Examples?

Unbelieving historians recorded only the concrete facts like: group of people revolted, and uprising led to turmoil out of a religion from Jews

I beg to differ. In the Talmud we have Jesus' healings and miracles attributed to sorcery rather than divine power. Why not just deny Jesus ever existed, or that He really performed such acts, if in fact he was not really known or did not perform such things?

Furthermore, if Rome wanted to squelch any religious Christian uprising, all they needed to do was produce Jesus' body. In addition, the Apostles died for their belief that Jesus was risen. I find it hard to fathom they would die witnessing that Jesus was alive and risen if He were not, let alone if they did not know him.

Of course, one can choose to ignore such things found in historical writings to believe whatever they like. After all it is history and we can not directly see what happened can we? Such a decision is up to each individual person.

It is suspicious that the recorded history is virtually fiction, especially the miracle parts. the historians simply reiterated the hearsay among the people.

Example of religious uprising to topple a rule is enthronement for Ming Dynasty in China. Ming's were initially a religion; believers worshipped moons and suns. Please check with Chinese history. From Christian perspective, it was definitely heresy.

Concerning the Talmud, even though i ain't as well-versed as you about Talmud, what if there was simply a game of debate? If someone in those days tried to refute the the miracles, even though they did not eye-witness the happenings, based on the social value and culture that the Jews were living then, the most convincing ammunition were to ascribe the miracles to sorceries. [a very clever tactics: they did not offend the accusers, nor were they by their sides; they remained their neutral position, leaving accusers rooms to think things out of it, and avoiding confrontation]They could not deny the happenings right away, probably because of the simple reason that they themselves DID NOT EYE-WITNESS the miracles. The defendants for the miracles could use the faked happenings as a weapon against those who charged them as sorcercies. No body could be caring about the factual evidence. .. ?

Roman could possibly be unable to find Jesus's body which could have been stolen or destroyed by the rebels.

What I suggested weren't impossible!

.

[Ashley]

One of the interesting things is the logics over a paradox: we don't deny something that doesn't mean that this "something" has ever happened. It simply indicates two possibilities:

It did happen, or it did not happen. Both possibilities are less than 1. Under both possibilities, we do not deny. Thats it.

.

[Kurieuo]

Well, anything is possible; however, I think we should test all hypothesis. Some criteria often used is:

i) explanatory power
ii) explanatory scope
iii) plausibility
iv) ad hoc-ness
v) accord with accepted beliefs
vi) superiority to rival hypotheses

So firstly, I would think that plausibility of the scenarios you present, while possible, have little explanatory power at explaining what went on. It seems quite general, and treats people like dumb cavemen. Not enough explanation is provides with details to make what you offer really satisfying in explanatory power.

Second, the scope offered in your scenarios are quite limited to explaining away Jesus' miracles. In fact they appear specifically targeted towards discrediting any theistic or religious connotations without paying attention to many other issues such as who Jesus was, how he became known, why the Apostles believed in Him so strongly as to die, why we have in other historical writings such a Josephus which at least affirm such a person died but yet many believed in Him despite his being crucified as a false prophet which is a sign of judgment from God for Jews (and one reason why Muslims reject that Christ was indeed crucified). Instead, the explanatory scope of an explanation such as it was used to topple Roman rule, well this is quite general in scope and does nothing to deal with the details or writings we have in hand.

Third, the plausibility of such an explanation seems quite implausible to me. Why wouldn't the rebels not use one of the more ingrained religions of the time? It seems quite silly to use someone who was crucified as a criminal and who was cursed by God. There are much more easier religious avenues to pursue if this is what some "mastermind" rebels were desiring.

Ad hoc-ness, well it seems pulled almost from nowhere, although you do cite a religious uprising to topple the rule of the Ming Dynasty in China (although I must admit my ignorance on this). However, conspiracy theories often seem quite ad hoc to me and yours seems to same. Who were the rebel masterminds who were able to persuade people to be Christians in order to try topple the Romans?

Furthermore, you would have us believe the Apostles did not know each other or Christ and yet died for their beliefs in Christ, that someone stole Jesus' body and his followers died for a lie (it seems to me rare for someone to even die for truth), that those who witnessed Christ post-crucifixion were mistaken, and so on and so forth. It does little to explain these facts variously accepted by historical scholars.

Finally, for all these reasons and others, I fail to see your views as superior to a general Christian understanding.

Now the criteria I mentioned I have seen used by scholars. For example, Craig uses them in his debate on Christ's resurrection against Gerd Lüdemann. (which I would recommend to you for reading)

While many things are possible, we ought to sift through and sort which best satisfies what we know.

[Ashley]

Thanks for your information and reply. Before going through your linkage in details, I agreed that the analysis in support of the truth of the religion is more convincing than the analysis attempting to refute them. Facts interweaving together can't be so perfectly related to lead us to a religion like this, especially over a time span of more than a few hundred years. Sometimes things are frustrating in this real world. I am quite unhappy at times people spread rumours, TV commercials are exaggerating, lies sound like a game more than a sin, and the world is running in such a way so deviant from what it should biblically look like. Its life that we drift shiftlessly on the sea; we know that something is wrong, but we can't do anything and, are discouraged to do anything for righteousness, simply looking at on the sidelines, shunning the vicious happenings.

Among some people who never believe, to convince them about the biblical truth result only in being talked of as eccentric. It is tiresome to preach and share with people about the good news some time.

It doesn't mean that I lost my faith. I reacted to this thread because the world that I know is beginning to be discouraged about the truth. It is simply being drowned out by "noises". Got it?

To me, it is even ok if the bible is a fiction. Even though it is not factually convincing, it is spiritually convincing. Jesus's teachings, St Pauls' laws of spiritual struggle, pharisees' yeast ... all spiritually reflect what is happening now a day. We pray, and we can see how prayers are fulfilled. No we can't put it in laboratory for demonstration, but we know that it is true in our heart. Even if the bible is a fiction, so what? it only indicates that God inspires some one to write such a fiction that inspire people in the past, present and future. They are still God's words, simply in the form of a fiction.

.

[jenna]

Forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that god lies to us, Ashley? That is my impression when you say that the bible is God's word in the form of fiction.

[Ashley]

My stance may be wrong, but I am not attempting to charge God of telling lies as a simple conviction of doing such act.. God used some people in old testaments and these people were not necessarily righteous. He used prostittutes to do something [can't remember the details of fact].

I buy an "intentional" ethics, not "behavioral" ethics. Lies with good intention is not an evil conviction that offends God. At least God is not a child. If God is telling lies that we can't accept, God let people die that we may charge as cruelty. I was only saying to express my idea figuratively.

[jenna]

Yes, God may use unrighteous people to get His ends met, but that doesn't mean that God Himself lies. White lies or outright. God CANNOT lie, and He says so in the bible. A lie is a sin, and He is incapable of sin.

[Ashley]

but Jesus perfected Old Testaments by teaching us that goodness is contrued as what our heart intends us to, not our behavior. Who can be sure that when God said that lying is evil, He was speaking about the "intention" underneath the behavior, not the behavior "itself"?

.

[jenna]

but Jesus perfected Old Testaments by teaching us that goodness is contrued as what our heart intends us to, not our behavior.

.

Yes, agreed. But that is OUR behavior, not God's.

[Ashley]

God does not have behavior. He is spirit.

[jenna]

How can you say He doesn't have behavior? He is known as being jealous, loving, forgiving, vengeful, and several other BEHAVIORAL traits.

[Ashley]

all these you said are charactors. It links with intention, not behavior.

[Ashley]

How can you say He doesn't have behavior? He is known as being jealous, loving, forgiving, vengeful, and several other BEHAVIORAL traits.

do you SEE with your bare eyes: jealous, loving, forgiving, vengeful, and ....?

[jenna]

all these you said are charactors. It links with intention, not behavior.

Not necessarily. I guess it depends on how you view it. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord". In this passage, vengeance would be a behavior, since it something He does. Being a Spirit doesn't mean He can't have behavioral traits. That's a human way of thinking.