participate at Atheist Forums

[cslewislover]

its not that long can't remember exact page count as I don't have it to hand, its not a scientific attack on the Bible but it attacks the fallacy (my opinion) of religion.

I could also recommend 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens

Yes I would gladly read something you reccomend, but we both know that you or I will hardly be persuaded to change by any work.

I recently saw a debate with Christopher Hitchens. He knows his bible. But he lost the debate. The reason? The only "proof" he gave that God doesn't exist is that the morality of Mr. Hitchens is better than God's supposed morality (supposed, since God doesn't exist). His arguments in this regard didn't make much sense, even. He ignored all philosophical arguments, as well, that provide at least a reasoning for the existence of God.

Why don't you read that last reference I gave, then, about the historicity of the NT. I was just about to reproduce a section of it here, and I still might.

[cslewislover]

This is from here (it's too bad about the table, but to see it correctly you can visit the link): http://www.bethinking.org.uk/bible-jesu ... tament.htm

General Tests for Historicity

Historiography is a branch of study which focuses on the logical, conceptual, and epistemological aspects of what historians do. Critical historiography studies, among other things, the different tests which should be applied to a document to determine whether or not it is historically reliable. [4] When many of these tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

For example, apologists have often appealed to three general tests for historicity: the bibliographical test, the internal test, and the external test. The internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses. More will be said about eyewitness testimony later. The external test asks whether material external to the document (in this case, archaeology or the writings of the early church fathers) confirms the reliability of the document. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to delve into the external test. But it should be pointed out that the New Testament has been remarkably confirmed time and again by external evidence. This is not to say there are no problems; but to the unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament. [5]

The bibliographical test seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals (see table 1).
Table 1
Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies
Caesar 100-44 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10
Livy 59 B.C.-A.D.

20
Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Tacitus (Annals) 100 A.D. 1,100 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 20
also minor works 100 A.D. 1,000 A.D. 900 yrs. 1
Pliny the Younger (History) 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D.. 750 yrs. 7
Thucydides
(History) 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Suetonius
(De Vita Caesarum) 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs. 8
Herodotus
(History) 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Horace

900 yrs.
Sophocles 430-406 B.C. 1,000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 100
Lucretius Died 55 or 53 B.C .
1,100 yrs. 2
Catullus 54 B.C. 1,550 A.D. 1,600 yrs. 3
Euripedes 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs. 9
Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 200*
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 5**
Aristophanes 450-385 B .C. 900 A. D. 1,200 yrs. 10
*All from one copy. **Of any one work.
From Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev ed. (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life,1979), p. 42.

A brief perusal of the table indicates that for a representative sample of ancient historical works, we possess only a handful of manuscripts which are, on the average, one thousand years removed from their originals.

In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. [6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).

Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.

In this regard, the following statement about the New Testament by R. Joseph Hoffmann is naive: "What we possess are copies of copies, so far removed from anything that might be called a 'primary' account that it is useless to speculate about what an original version of the gospel would have included.'' [7]

As I have shown, the copies of the New Testament are not far removed from the originals. Furthermore, Hoffmann is using the wrong sense of the term original as it is employed in historical investigation. As Louis Gottschalk points out, "[A primary source] does not, however, need to be original in the legal sense of the word original-that is, the very document (usually the first written draft) whose contents are the subject of discussion-for quite often a later copy or a printed edition will do just as well; and in the case of the Greek and Roman classics seldom are any but later copies available." [8]

Other tests for historicity have been formulated, some of which are these: a document has a high probability of reliability if it is a personal letter, is intended for small audiences, is written in unpolished style, [9] and contains trivia and lists of details. [10] The absence of these features does not necessarily mean the document is unreliable; but their presence makes the prima facie acceptance of the document stronger. Much of the New Testament, especially the apostolic letters and some of the sources behind the Gospels, is made up of personal letters originally intended for individuals and small groups. In addition, much of the New Testament is in unpolished style, and there are several examples of inconsequential detail in the Gospels (see Mark 14:51-52; John 21:2, 11). Further, in 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, Paul writes to a church which is questioning his apostolic authority. To defend himself, he reminds the believers that while he had been with them (approximately four years earlier) he had performed miracles and wonders. If this had not been the case, then Paul would have been a fool to use what everyone knew was a lie to defend himself.

These considerations show that when general tests for historicity are applied to the New Testament documents, they pass them quite well.

[munster]

I can sum up Hitchens for you.

Barrack Obama does not exist. I do not agree with his policies. I don't like the way he is running the country. Therefore he does not exist.

Hitchens junk all boils down to, "god doesn't exist because he doesn't agree with me."

Bible junk boils down to this 'believe in God and his son that saved your sins or you will burn for eternity in the fires of hell, or for that matter if you call your brother "a fool" you will also burn in the fires of hell'

I'd take my chances with Hitchens any day

[cslewislover]

It's amazing how atheists keep focusing on all the negative things, or negative when out of context. Christianity and Christians have done so much good in the world, yet all the good things are ignored. Hitchens, in his debate anyway, did not mention any good thing that I recall (he even put down Mother Theresa). Universities were started by Christians, hospitals were started by Christians, the mindset to discover the truth of things (science comes out of this) - that God is a God of order, and thus nature has order - comes from the Christian view. Do these things sound like they were created out of fear and immorality?

Many of the negative things brought up by atheists do not have to do with Christianity, or religion even, but have to do with human nature. Violence and such would happen whether there were religions or not.

[munster]

This is from here (it's too bad about the table, but to see it correctly you can visit the link): http://www.bethinking.org.uk/bible-jesu ... tament.htm

General Tests for Historicity

Historiography is a branch of study which focuses on the logical, conceptual, and epistemological aspects of what historians do. Critical historiography studies, among other things, the different tests which should be applied to a document to determine whether or not it is historically reliable. [4] When many of these tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

For example, apologists have often appealed to three general tests for historicity: the bibliographical test, the internal test, and the external test. The internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses. More will be said about eyewitness testimony later. The external test asks whether material external to the document (in this case, archaeology or the writings of the early church fathers) confirms the reliability of the document. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to delve into the external test. But it should be pointed out that the New Testament has been remarkably confirmed time and again by external evidence. This is not to say there are no problems; but to the unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament. [5]

The bibliographical test seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals (see table 1).
Table 1
Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies
Caesar 100-44 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10
Livy 59 B.C.-A.D.

20
Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Tacitus (Annals) 100 A.D. 1,100 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 20
also minor works 100 A.D. 1,000 A.D. 900 yrs. 1
Pliny the Younger (History) 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D.. 750 yrs. 7
Thucydides
(History) 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Suetonius
(De Vita Caesarum) 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs. 8
Herodotus
(History) 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Horace

900 yrs.
Sophocles 430-406 B.C. 1,000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 100
Lucretius Died 55 or 53 B.C .
1,100 yrs. 2
Catullus 54 B.C. 1,550 A.D. 1,600 yrs. 3
Euripedes 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs. 9
Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 200*
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 5**
Aristophanes 450-385 B .C. 900 A. D. 1,200 yrs. 10
*All from one copy. **Of any one work.
From Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev ed. (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life,1979), p. 42.

A brief perusal of the table indicates that for a representative sample of ancient historical works, we possess only a handful of manuscripts which are, on the average, one thousand years removed from their originals.

In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. [6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).

Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.

In this regard, the following statement about the New Testament by R. Joseph Hoffmann is naive: "What we possess are copies of copies, so far removed from anything that might be called a 'primary' account that it is useless to speculate about what an original version of the gospel would have included.'' [7]

As I have shown, the copies of the New Testament are not far removed from the originals. Furthermore, Hoffmann is using the wrong sense of the term original as it is employed in historical investigation. As Louis Gottschalk points out, "[A primary source] does not, however, need to be original in the legal sense of the word original-that is, the very document (usually the first written draft) whose contents are the subject of discussion-for quite often a later copy or a printed edition will do just as well; and in the case of the Greek and Roman classics seldom are any but later copies available." [8]

Other tests for historicity have been formulated, some of which are these: a document has a high probability of reliability if it is a personal letter, is intended for small audiences, is written in unpolished style, [9] and contains trivia and lists of details. [10] The absence of these features does not necessarily mean the document is unreliable; but their presence makes the prima facie acceptance of the document stronger. Much of the New Testament, especially the apostolic letters and some of the sources behind the Gospels, is made up of personal letters originally intended for individuals and small groups. In addition, much of the New Testament is in unpolished style, and there are several examples of inconsequential detail in the Gospels (see Mark 14:51-52; John 21:2, 11). Further, in 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, Paul writes to a church which is questioning his apostolic authority. To defend himself, he reminds the believers that while he had been with them (approximately four years earlier) he had performed miracles and wonders. If this had not been the case, then Paul would have been a fool to use what everyone knew was a lie to defend himself.

These considerations show that when general tests for historicity are applied to the New Testament documents, they pass them quite well.

First off one of the first rules of being a historian is that you cannot be unbiased, and if any historian claims they are, then they are the ones you have to be careful of. Not saying you didn't know that but I said I'd clear it up anyways, but it is one of the unwritten rules of being a historian.

Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.

Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.

Ancients works that you talk of do not claim to offer the outlandish mythical salvation of heaven and hell like the Bible does,

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).

Proves nothing, it is still hearsay, wrote many years after Jesus was around.

Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies
Caesar 100-44 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10
Livy 59 B.C.-A.D.

20
Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Tacitus (Annals) 100 A.D. 1,100 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 20
also minor works 100 A.D. 1,000 A.D. 900 yrs. 1
Pliny the Younger (History) 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D.. 750 yrs. 7
Thucydides
(History) 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Suetonius
(De Vita Caesarum) 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs. 8
Herodotus
(History) 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Horace

900 yrs.
Sophocles 430-406 B.C. 1,000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 100
Lucretius Died 55 or 53 B.C .
1,100 yrs. 2
Catullus 54 B.C. 1,550 A.D. 1,600 yrs. 3
Euripedes 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs. 9
Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 200*
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 5**
Aristophanes 450-385 B .C. 900 A. D. 1,200 yrs. 10

These were thinking individuals who were not offering everlasting life or talking of miracles etc, so their word is more reliable

Also Don't you find it odd, that out of the four Gospels that one of them only mentions the vigin birth? and what about the countless other books that have were discarded to suit christianity? did they include the virgin birth? its doubtful.

[ElShamah]

So forcing religion on a child from their birth, telling them if they do not believe in God they will go to hell, is choice! Don't kid yourself with that ignorance.

i heard the gospel the first time, when i was 17 years old ( yes, growing up as catholic, i never heard the gospel of the salvation through Christ before that age !! ) and converted , when i was 18. My parents are catholics, didn't understand my move, and fight it. My dad expulsed me frome home, and he told me, i would not be his son anymore, if i would continue with a false religion , and continue to be member of a dangerous sect ( and making the sect leader rich ) . So i paid a price for my choice, it wasn't easy.

[munster]

So forcing religion on a child from their birth, telling them if they do not believe in God they will go to hell, is choice! Don't kid yourself with that ignorance.

i heard the gospel the first time, when i was 17 years old ( yes, growing up as catholic, i never heard the gospel of the salvation through Christ before that age !! ) and converted , when i was 18. My parents are catholics, didn't understand my move, and fight it. My dad expulsed me frome home, and he told me, i would not be his son anymore, if i would continue with a false religion , and continue to be member of a dangerous sect ( and making the sect leader rich ) . So i paid a price for my choice, it wasn't easy.

They are a few like you Angelo, but it does not excuse the vast majority of children who have had Christianity forced upon them. And what about people that converted from Christianity to Hindu, Buddhism, at a similar age to you, are they following the wrong god?

[Byblos]

So forcing religion on a child from their birth, telling them if they do not believe in God they will go to hell, is choice! Don't kid yourself with that ignorance.

i heard the gospel the first time, when i was 17 years old ( yes, growing up as catholic, i never heard the gospel of the salvation through Christ before that age !! ) and converted , when i was 18. My parents are catholics, didn't understand my move, and fight it. My dad expulsed me frome home, and he told me, i would not be his son anymore, if i would continue with a false religion , and continue to be member of a dangerous sect ( and making the sect leader rich ) . So i paid a price for my choice, it wasn't easy.

For the record, it was munster who said that, not me. And if you didn't hear the Gospel until you were 17 I'd say for sure you didn't grow up Catholic.

[Gman]

Yes I do think they are brainwashed out of fear ie Heaven and Hell
The parents make the choice for them by forcing their religion upon them, so when it comes to children the vast majority have no choice in their religion. When do you ever hear a parent say 'what religion do you want to try out today, muslim, catholic, Hindu... no thought not

I was taught Christianity from my parents at an early age and chose not to follow it until my 20's. So you think I was brainwashed in Christianity? How so? My brother and sister were also raised Christian but chose not to follow it. Why are they not brainwashed? What happened?

By religion I mean 'A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order'.
Yes I would consider myself one, and I thought it would have been obvious at this stage.

So your religion (atheism) teaches that one becomes brainwashed under Christianity and that they make choices out of fear? What if your religion brainwashed others basing it's claim on pure logic?

[munster]

It's amazing how atheists keep focusing on all the negative things, or negative when out of context. Christianity and Christians have done so much good in the world, yet all the good things are ignored. Hitchens, in his debate anyway, did not mention any good thing that I recall (he even put down Mother Theresa). Universities were started by Christians, hospitals were started by Christians, the mindset to discover the truth of things (science comes out of this) - that God is a God of order, and thus nature has order - comes from the Christian view. Do these things sound like they were created out of fear and immorality?

Many of the negative things brought up by atheists do not have to do with Christianity, or religion even, but have to do with human nature. Violence and such would happen whether there were religions or not.

And a fear of goint to hell is a positive thing, and don't try and cover your tracks by saying 'violence and such' would happen anyway. The facts are they religion has caused a lot of wars on this planet. And yes Universities and hospitals 'were' started by chrisitians, but mainly from a time when it Atheism and Agnosticism was not that common. But who built the hospitals and universities in Japan for example, where the main religions are Buddhism and Shintoism, who don't believe in a God but a Higher Plane of existence when they die, was it the christians? no, it wasn't

[munster]

Yes I do think they are brainwashed out of fear ie Heaven and Hell
The parents make the choice for them by forcing their religion upon them, so when it comes to children the vast majority have no choice in their religion. When do you ever hear a parent say 'what religion do you want to try out today, muslim, catholic, Hindu... no thought not

I was taught Christianity from my parents at an early age and chose not to follow it until my 20's. So you think I was brainwashed in Christianity? How so? My brother and sister were also raised Christian but chose not to follow it. Why are they not brainwashed? What happened?

By religion I mean 'A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order'.
Yes I would consider myself one, and I thought it would have been obvious at this stage.

So your religion (atheism) teaches that one becomes brainwashed under Christianity and that they make choices out of fear? What if your religion brainwashed others basing it's claim on pure logic?

If your parents had taught you hinduism, and you did not follow it at a young age, but were then free to choose a religion in your 20s then I am 99.9% sure you would pick Hinduism. The same could go for any other religion. The Fact is you were exposed to it at a young age which left an impression on you. If you were born in India, as stated, you would more than likely be a Hindu. I you were born in ancient Rome you would be praying to numerous Gods, like Mars etc.

[jlay]

I was raised in a home of secular humanism. I spent more time in a secular school and secular events than I ever did at a church. So what?

Also Don't you find it odd, that out of the four Gospels that one of them only mentions the vigin birth? and what about the countless other books that have were discarded to suit christianity? did they include the virgin birth?

what other books do you refer to? We can address them one by one.

Munster. This is not a site for atheist to come and argue, "my dad is bigger than your dad."
There are plenty of places for that.

And a fear of goint to hell is a positive thing, and don't try and cover your tracks by saying 'violence and such' would happen anyway.

Positive? What is your point?
Religion causes wars? The USA won its independence over a war on taxes. Do taxes cause wars?

Christians starting hospitals no more proves there is a God, than wars over religion proves there isn't one. CSlewislover is not trying to prove Christianity by saying Christians do good, but simply balancing the fact that you are trying to prove there is no God, because religion starts wars. No one here will argue that all people are capable of moral decisions, or doing good deeds. People are capable of doing good and doing evil.

Bad relgion is bad.

How a parent raises a child does not prove or disprove the validity of their beliefs.

[ElShamah]

They are a few like you Angelo, but it does not excuse the vast majority of children who have had Christianity forced upon them.

We have the gospels today as a heritage of inumerous brave martyrers, which gave their life, specially in the first few centuries, during the roman empire, for defending their faith. It was not easy for them, to confess their faith during persecution of christians, because they oposed the roman pagan religion, which obligated their sudits to worship the Ceasar's as God's. They were a threat and many paid their faith with horrendous tortures, and with their life. Why do you think they did not give up ? People do convert, despite what you think, at all ages, freely , and not out of fear, but because they understood how much God loved them. What you say, are baseless assertions.

And what about people that converted from Christianity to Hindu, Buddhism, at a similar age to you, are they following the wrong god?

You might have to make first a distinction between true Christians, and the ones, that call themself Christians, but are not.
The truth is only one. There is only one answer to who is God, and therefore only one answer can be true.
There exist many religions, and each one asserts to tell the truth. But most are just a attempt of humans to find God.
I believe however, the bible is the oposit, its God first, revealing himself to humanity through a successive revelation during a long period of time, up to the culmination of the appearance of Christ.

3:16 Every scripture23 is inspired by God24 and useful for teaching, for reproof,25 for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God26 may be capable27 and equipped for every good work.

[ElShamah]

For the record, it was munster who said that, not me. And if you didn't hear the Gospel until you were 17 I'd say for sure you didn't grow up Catholic.

i heard the gospel in my childhood , but through a lense of tradition, and the doctrine that men had to do good works, to be saved ( and to be catholic ). The first time, i heard salvation was only through grace and faith, was , when i was 17.

[munster]

what other books do you refer to? We can address them one by one.

Must I remind you of the New Testament apocrypha? I'm sure you're familiar with them.

Munster. This is not a site for atheist to come and argue, "my dad is bigger than your dad."
There are plenty of places for that.

Kind of ironic given that you just started asking me questions

Positive? What is your point?
Religion causes wars? The USA won its independence over a war on taxes. Do taxes cause wars?

My point is how can you be positive about such teachings of heaven and hell, and Don't take me out of context, I never said religion caused every war I said it caused a lot of them.

Christians starting hospitals no more proves there is a God, than wars over religion proves there isn't one. CSlewislover is not trying to prove Christianity by saying Christians do good, but simply balancing the fact that you are trying to prove there is no God, because religion starts wars. No one here will argue that all people are capable of moral decisions, or doing good deeds. People are capable of doing good and doing evil.

I am not trying to prove there is no God by saying religion causes SOME wars.

Bad religion is bad

I agree