Evidence for God from Science

There were no witnesses to the "angel."

I bought a Hadith Collection and was fascinated to learn that Muhammad didn't know who he had encountered in that cave. He was when he relayed the story to his wife that she asked her uncle over to hear the story too. The uncle suggested that it was the angel Gabriel and that Muhammad was the prophet like Moses mentioned in the Old Testament.

Doesn't that sound odd to you to say the least? Why wouldn't Muhammad know? Why wouldn't the angel make it clear to him? According to the Hadith, this angel physically pressed down hard on Muhammad when trying to get him to recite. That does not sound like an angel to me.

I'd say that it takes a lot of faith to be a Muslim. They have to take the word of one man with no witnesses. They have all their eggs in one basket.

I find comfort in the fact that the Bible has many writers? With all these writers and prophets, there is a continuity of message between the Old and New Testaments. The continuity is broken with the Qur'an.

Hello Muhammad,

Mk12:28..."Which is the first of all the commandments?"
Mk12:29 Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!

Your quote is incorrect. This is correct:

Mark 12:29 (NKJV), 29Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

or:

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord (KJV)

Christians would not disagree that there is one God. The next question is "one what"? Answer: One God. Christians believe in one God. Muslims and Christians only disagree on the nature of the Oneness.

The Qur'an says: Don't say "three." Three what? Answer: Three Gods. Christians do not believe in three Gods. The Qur'an does not use the word "Trinity." The word "Trinity" is inserted in the text by the translators. The Qur'an only says: "Don't say three."

The second most important commandment from Jesus was this:

31And the second, like it, is this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

We might call this the "Golden Rule." This "rule" is expressed in many religions that I could quote for you.

Does the Qur'an have a comparable verse? I can't find one, which is odd since Jesus said these two are the most important. Can you help me out with this question.

Thanks.

atheist wrote:I'll try to keep an open mind. But I think that the guy who wrote your article also should have to agree to do so and don't tell plain lies like those that plague the whole text.

Well, let's take a look then, because I have no problem with the information presented. The earlier section I referred to is the meat of the support for authenticity.

The Integrity of the Manuscript Evidence
As with any ancient book transmitted through a number of handwritten manuscripts, the question naturally arises as to how confident can we be that we have anything resembling the autograph. Let us now look at what evidences we have for the integrity of the New Testament manuscripts.

Let us look at the number of manuscripts and how close they date to the autographs of the Bible as compared with other ancient writings of similar age.
- Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about A.D. 116. Only one manuscript of his work remains. It was copied about 850 A.D.
- Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote The Jewish War shortly after 70 A.D. There are nine manuscripts in Greek which date from 1000-1200 A.D. and one Latin translation from around 400 A.D.
- Homer's Iliad was written around 800 B.C. It was as important to ancient Greeks as the Bible was to the Hebrews. There are over 650 manuscripts remaining but they date from 200 to 300 A.D. which is over a thousand years after the Iliad was written.
- The Old Testament autographs were written 1450 - 400 B. C.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls date between 200 B.C. to 70 A. D and date within 300 years from when the last book of the Old Testament was written.
Two almost complete Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament date about 350 A. D.
- The oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament dates about 950 A. D.
Genesis-Deuteronomy were written over 1200 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- Codex Vaticanus is an almost complete Greek translation of the Old Testament dating around 350 A.D. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest complete Old Testament manuscript in Hebrew and was copied around 950 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date from within 200-300 years from the last book of the Old Testament. However since the five books of Moses were written about 1450- 1400 B.C. the Dead Sea Scrolls still come almost 1200 years after the first books of the Old Testament were written.

Ok, so this is some history on various historical texts and their dating. Do you disagree with any facts on the secular writings? What other facts do you disagree with, and do you have information that refutes these claims?

The New Testament autographs were written between 45-95 A. D.
There are 5,664 Greek manuscripts some dating as early as 125 A. D. and an complete New Testament that dates from 350 A. D.
8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts.
8,000 manuscripts in Ethiopic, Coptic, Slavic, Syriac, and Armenian.
In addition, the complete New Testament could be reproduced form the quotes that were made from it by the early church fathers in their letters and sermons.

The author's point here is that the sheer volume of discovered New Testaments manuscripts lends them credibility. That is an opinion, based on the facts presented. I happen to agree with his conclusion... But either way, where is the lie? Can you find other credible sources that refute this information?

ISSUES CONCERNING THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by from second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."

Ok, so skeptics try to date the books as 2nd century. I don't see any lie being told here. Obviously Christians seek to date them earlier, and in the author's opinion they can be dated earlier, the evidence for which is found below.

A. Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.
Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.

So John had information about the buildings in Jerusalem that were later destroyed. Further, we see from other letters that the churches had authenticated the letters as Paul's. Do you dispute these facts? Again, you can differ on opinion of the conclusion to be made, but there is no lie presented here.

B. The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.
Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire the burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.

Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to.

Ok, so do you dispute any facts here (that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 and that Acts does not speak of its destruction)?

THE CHURCH FATHERS BEAR WITNESS TO EVEN EARLIER NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

The earliest manuscripts we have of major portions of the New Testament are p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date from 175-250 A. D. The early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the New Testament books. They are also in the position to authenticate those books, written by the apostles or their close associates, from later books such as the gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written by the apostles, but were not.
Clement (30-100 A.D.) wrote an epistle to the Corinthian Church around 97 A.D. He reminded them to heed the epistle that Paul had written to them years before. Recall that Clement had labored with Paul (Philippians 4:3). He quoted from the following New Testament books: Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
The apostolic fathers Ignatius (30-107 A.D.), Polycarp (65-155 A.D.), and Papias (70-155 A.D.) cite verses from every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John. They thereby authenticated nearly the entire New Testament. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John.
Justin Martyr, (110-165 A.D.), cited verses from the following 13 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation.
Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.), wrote a five volume work Against Heresies in which,
He quoted from every book of the New Testament but 3 John.
He quoted from the New Testament books over 1,200 times.

Again, can you show that the facts presented here are NOT beyond reproach? Show me the lies and we can discuss them.

It seems to me that you are just completely unwilling to agree with the conclusions that can be drawn from the presentation of this information... Which is fine (though not much of an open mind as I requested). But again, you claim "plain lies plague the whole text" and now the burden is upon you to show where those lies occur.

Christian2 wrote: I'd say that it takes a lot of faith to be a Muslim. They have to take the word of one man with no witnesses. They have all their eggs in one basket.

I find comfort in the fact that the Bible has many writers? With all these writers and prophets, there is a continuity of message between the Old and New Testaments. The continuity is broken with the Qur'an.

This is the very point I was gently trying to build up when I asked our Muslim friend to clarify his beliefs regarding the validity of the Bible vs. the Quran.

felgar,

Jesus is Lord. without him there is no salvation. but, of course many Jews will be saved. there are messianic jews. also, some which cannot be faulted for their beliefs...only God truly knows what's in everyone's hearts.

it might be cool to start a thread just for this discussion!

christian2,

ditto!

colors wrote:felgar,

Jesus is Lord. without him there is no salvation. but, of course many Jews will be saved. there are messianic jews. also, some which cannot be faulted for their beliefs...only God truly knows what's in everyone's hearts.

it might be cool to start a thread just for this discussion!

Done, see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7539#7539

Oh, great, Felgar, so maybe you can help me get some things I didn't quite understand. I'm not particularly interested in something like denying the existence of a guy named Jesus who did this and that. But for me there is a reasonable doubt and especially when I'm confronted with a text like the one you present, totally one sided, where he exposes reasons for credibility but hides completely the reasons for discrediting. It is so one-sided that the author shamelessly affirms

Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings.

On the other hand, maybe I went too far speaking about "plain lies", because a plain lie means false data when my intention was more towards "false argument". Sorry, then, noblesse obligue. I do spot some inaccuracies in the text, but I cannot check the whole amount of data at this very moment. I will, anyway, because I'm always interested in different sources.

Well, let's take a look then, because I have no problem with the information presented. The earlier section I referred to is the meat of the support for authenticity.

Well, as long as we don't loose sight of the main question here... Authority is given to the bible "as far as Jesus is concerned simply because it was written by men who knew him". For starters, a claim that the historicity of the occurrences in the NT are true due to the fact that there are multiple texts of it to bear the same record, is not a serious one. Since we don't have any autographs and suspicion of fabrication and forgery is heavy on the first three centuries after the alleged death of Jesus, it's not the quantity but the quality what matters. The information you present says "There are 5,664 Greek manuscripts some dating as early as 125 A. D." Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia that the older papyrus we have is Oxyrhyncus Pap. 657, from the third-fourth century and it preserves to us about a third of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Far from complete.

Doesn't matter, in the end. The traditional Church has portrayed the authors of the Gospels as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Then of course, many many scholars admit they have no reason to doubt about some Epistles (not all) from St. Paul, but again, this should be hearsay comments, as Paul neither actually knew Jesus nor he witnessed his deeds.

So John had information about the buildings in Jerusalem that were later destroyed.

This is a non sequitur, I'm afraid, and the writer knows. Imagine that I claim the historic existence of Gito (from Petronius' Satyricon) because archaeologists suddenly found a mansion in Mount Aventinus. Although the New Testament mentions various cities, geological sites, kings and people that existed or lived during the alleged life of Jesus, these descriptions cannot serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus anymore than works of fiction that include recognizable locations, and make mention of actual people. Or, to invert the argument, Herod the Great was a real king, but he did not massacre any babies, do this only proves that the Gospel of Matthew is a fake?

The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire the burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.

These are facts to be disputed, yes. But the argument is what I just don't get. If the terrible persecution of Christians or Paul's martyrdom are not mentioned, it could either be deducted that both events never happened. Do the author suggests that the Acts were written in between 62 and 64?

The earliest manuscripts we have of major portions of the New Testament are p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date from 175-250 A. D. The early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the New Testament books.

Isn't this a contradiction? He had said before that the earlier one was from 125. Anyway, what does he mean with "p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75", which collection, which codex? Is by his standards the one non credited book of the NT false? Which one is it? Apart from this, I don't know why should we trust the early church fathers, since -as Jim Walker puts it- "Since the fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves".

What about the contradictions within the four Gospels, he doesn't mention that at all. The four accounts of the Resurrection differ heavily among them, shouldn't this be taken as negative proof of witnessing?

atheist wrote:But for me there is a reasonable doubt and especially when I'm confronted with a text like the one you present, totally one sided, where he exposes reasons for credibility but hides completely the reasons for discrediting. It is so one-sided that the author shamelessly affirms

That is the nature of establishing a viewpoint. Go find someone else one-sided the other way and then check both their facts, and make a decision. You'll probably find that the other side presents many incorrect facts; but if you're really interested as you claim, then the owness is on you to do the investigation.

atheist wrote:For starters, a claim that the historicity of the occurrences in the NT are true due to the fact that there are multiple texts of it to bear the same record, is not a serious one.

I disagree. If 5 people testify as eye-witnesses in a trial, and they all agree, does that not lend them credibility? Sure, maybe they all met and fabricated the story - nothing is impossible. But to say that it's not a serious concept is not being rational in my opinion.

atheist wrote:Doesn't matter, in the end. The traditional Church has portrayed the authors of the Gospels as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories.

I don't think the author of that page made a single factual claim of this magnitude without at least providing some support for it. Who's the one making false claims here?

atheist wrote:These are facts to be disputed, yes. But the argument is what I just don't get. If the terrible persecution of Christians or Paul's martyrdom are not mentioned, it could either be deducted that both events never happened.

Dispute the facts then, with some credible sources and we'll talk. Also look for some historical evidence whether Christians were persecuted.

atheist wrote:

The earliest manuscripts we have of major portions of the New Testament are p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date from 175-250 A. D. The early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the New Testament books.

Isn't this a contradiction? He had said before that the earlier one was from 125. Anyway, what does he mean with "p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75", which collection, which codex?

So there are lesser portions that date from 125 and more complete manuscripts from 175. This is not rocket-science. I don't actually know what is meant by p 45, p46... either.

atheist wrote:What about the contradictions within the four Gospels, he doesn't mention that at all. The four accounts of the Resurrection differ heavily among them, shouldn't this be taken as negative proof of witnessing?

Ok, then maybe that yields some doubt on the texts... It's about weighing evidence for and against. But right now you're not even close to having a reasonable picture of actual evidence for both sides.

The author has a right to blame skeptics and liberal Christians. When one uses the same standard for testing the bible's origins on it as they do on other works, the conservatives are right. But skeptics and liberals put the bible to unreasonable "tests" just to prove their point. They think that unless we have the original manuscripts, we're wrong. nobody EVER does that with ancient writings. The oldest writings of Homer that we have are 800 years after he died, yet nobody doubts that he wrote them. Why can't you people do the same with the bible? It stinks of pushing a liberal/atheist agenda all the way. If people used the same ridiculous standards of verification, we'd assume all the ancient writings are forgeries and shove history down the toilet.

I disagree. If 5 people testify as eye-witnesses in a trial, and they all agree, does that not lend them credibility? Sure, maybe they all met and fabricated the story - nothing is impossible. But to say that it's not a serious concept is not being rational in my opinion.

It's not a matter of irrationality, it's how philologists work.

I don't think the author of that page made a single factual claim of this magnitude without at least providing some support for it.

He claims credibility, I didn't find the support for this specific area.

Dispute the facts then, with some credible sources and we'll talk. Also look for some historical evidence whether Christians were persecuted.

I think I wrote elsewhere in the forum that Gibbon counted about two thousand Christian victims under the Roman Empire in a lapse of 300 years, but the point here is Nero's garden illuminated by a "vast multitude" of torched Christians, a small text which appears in Suetonius. There are many objections concerning this passage. Something doesn't fit. How could Nero blame Christians for arsoning Rome since they didn't call themselves Christians. Even St Paul... Does him make references to 'Christians' in any of his writings? I just thought that only in the last third of the 1st century Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. That's what I read, at least. Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners' (approx. 90 a.c.). Anyway, Suetonius's isolated sentence appears in a section on Nero's 'good points' and curiously the text does not associate punishment of the Christians with the fire that swept Rome. Suspicion of Christian forgery is heavy in this particular point, some even spotted 5th century forger Sulpicius Severus, as responsible.

Isn't this a contradiction? He had said before that the earlier one was from 125. Anyway, what does he mean with "p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75", which collection, which codex?

So there are lesser portions that date from 125 and more complete manuscripts from 175. This is not rocket-science. I don't actually know what is meant by p 45, p46... either.

Hmm... I have to differ. Philology is quite a serious discipline. If there are portinos that dat from 125, not even the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions them.

Ok, then maybe that yields some doubt on the texts... It's about weighing evidence for and against. But right now you're not even close to having a reasonable picture of actual evidence for both sides.

Oh, no, I just only tried to make a point here. If you rely on texts to prove historical facts, the evidence in the affirmation should be properly backed up. I guess the inner contradictions of the Gospels are sufficient to raise suspicion on the events portrayed, no matter the textual problems. But represents an interesting exercise anyway, don't you think?

This is all I am saying. I fully agree with this statement as well as the entire rest of your post. What did you think I was implying?

I wanted to make it absolutely clear that it does not matter who they claim to be worshipping. What really matters is who they acturally are worshipping.

Looks like we are on the same page.

atheist wrote:I guess the inner contradictions of the Gospels are sufficient to raise suspicion on the events portrayed, no matter the textual problems. But represents an interesting exercise anyway, don't you think?

Yes I do think it makes a very interesting exercise, and one that I encourage you to continue. The truth will set you free. (A great place to start would be to contact the author of that page and attain his specific references for some of those statistics, then investigate those to determine their validity. Some of the books listed in the bibliography look to be right on-topic)

Keep in mind there are a lot of scholars who set out to definitively disprove the gospels and once they gained the understanding that would be required to do so, they became Christians!

What about the contradictions within the four Gospels, he doesn't mention that at all. The four accounts of the Resurrection differ heavily among them, shouldn't this be taken as negative proof of witnessing?

Some have taken the time to harmonize the Resurrection accounts. You can find there work here:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/easter.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Res ... rmony.html

Christian2 wrote:Some have taken the time to harmonize the Resurrection accounts. You can find there work here:

Wow, that second link is really good. I have no time to read it fully, but hopefully I can squeeze it in later. Thanks for posting it.