participate at Atheist Forums

[munster]

Elshamah Said:

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.

Christianity does not even make up 40% of the worlds population, so to say that the other 60% plus is wrong, is a very arrogant stance to have, in fact nearly as arrogant as an atheist!!!

[Jac3510]

Just came here to post in a thread with munster before he is b&

[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.

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.

So tell me how the above work is so biased. He presents facts - the number of other historical documents for comparison, say - how is that a bias? I posted here a portion of his article. If you want to criticize in the manner from your post in which I quoted this from, you should read the entire article first.

[cslewislover]

Just came here to post in a thread with munster before he is b&

Were you trying to write banned? Is that a bad word, lol?

[munster]

cslewislover said:

So tell me how the above work is so biased. He presents facts - the number of other historical documents for comparison, say - how is that a bias? I posted here a portion of his article. If you want to criticize in the manner from your post in which I quoted this from, you should read the entire article first.

You just said it for me, the historian that claims to be unbiased is the one that you have to be weary of, since you have an MA in History which I do not doubt, you should know that.

It is also interesting that it is this part that you chose to quote me on from my reply, I mean no disrepect, as I think you are a very sincere person, and I am not trying to be patronising in saying that.

[jlay]

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

Must I remind you that those questions have been asked and answered ad-naseaum??

My point is how can you be positive about such teachings of heaven and hell,

Plenty of threads here discussing all that.

Kind of ironic given that you just started asking me questions

There is sincere questioning, and then there is antagonism. Which one are you?

[cslewislover]

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.

Munster is not making sense. There are people who do good outside of religion, and people who do bad inside religion. It's just like with Hitchens. You can have a changed life and give yourself to doing good, like Mother Theresa did, and it still doesn't matter. LOL. Religion is just BAD. The paradigm is set. Their model of what the world and universe should be like is ruined because of people of faith; of course, their faith is in themselves and their ideas about morality. One of the first things that Hitchens said in his debate was that, since the universe is going to come crashing in one day and destroy everyone and everything, that the maker of it was cruel. Nevermind that he claims that there is no maker. And that everything decays in time . . . My only conclusion about that is that Hitchens would have made even that differently. No time, no decay . . .

[cslewislover]

cslewislover said:

So tell me how the above work is so biased. He presents facts - the number of other historical documents for comparison, say - how is that a bias? I posted here a portion of his article. If you want to criticize in the manner from your post in which I quoted this from, you should read the entire article first.

You just said it for me, the historian that claims to be unbiased is the one that you have to be weary of, since you have an MA in History which I do not doubt, you should know that.

It is also interesting that it is this part that you chose to quote me on from my reply, I mean no disrepect, as I think you are a very sincere person, and I am not trying to be patronising in saying that.

Right, so show me how it is biased.

[munster]

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

Must I remind you that those questions have been asked and answered ad-naseaum??

My point is how can you be positive about such teachings of heaven and hell,

Plenty of threads here discussing all that.

Kind of ironic given that you just started asking me questions

There is sincere questioning, and then there is antagonism. Which one are you?

Answers in order

1-I haven't been answered on why they were ommited
2-I was answering to a claim that atheists always focus on the negative, to which i pointed out the negativity of christianity
3-Sincere, definitely...

[cslewislover]

2-I was answering to a claim that atheists always focus on the negative, to which i pointed out the negativity of christianity

If you go to the NT, how much of it would you say is negative? When Jesus speaks of love, loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, how much of that is negative? You are so focused on the negative that people do, that you're not seeing the positive. People have a natural tendency to be selfish. People also have used the bible and preyed on people's faith to gain power, money, etc. That is not Christianity. But you act like it is. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[munster]

Right, so show me how it is biased.

For the love of 'God',

ok here it is, as I have already stated it in my original reply, he does not weigh up the arguments of the philosophers with the arguments of the Bible.

The works of the philosophers were based on reason, even though many of them got things wrong, such as Aristotle's model of the universe, but with the resources he was using it made sense.

The Bibles outlandish stories do not make any sense in any age, no matter what the resources available...water into wine....I wish

[munster]

cslewislover said:

If you go to the NT, how much of it would you say is negative? When Jesus speaks of love, loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, how much of that is negative? You are so focused on the negative that people do, that you're not seeing the positive. People have a natural tendency to be selfish. People also have used the bible and preyed on people's faith to gain power, money, etc. That is not Christianity. But you act like it is. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water

Whe you are christian you are taught that if you do bad things in life you will go to eternal hell, it is an abhorrent thing to say to a person and is hardly a positive outlook on life.

[cslewislover]

Right, so show me how it is biased.

For the love of 'God',

ok here it is, as I have already stated it in my original reply, he does not weigh up the arguments of the philosophers with the arguments of the Bible.

The works of the philosophers were based on reason, even though many of them got things wrong, such as Aristotle's model of the universe, but with the resources he was using it made sense.

The Bibles outlandish stories do not make any sense in any age, no matter what the resources available...water into wine....I wish

Well I wasn't ignoring you on that, it just wasn't the subject of what I asked about. The part of that article quoted is just on one aspect of historical method - regarding documents - not on assessing what the documents claim. It's about assessing their validity as historical documents, not their contents. That's partly why the whole article needs to be read.

As far as making judgments about whether miracles occur, that's different. If you're totally closed to thinking that God would interfere in what we see as the natural order, then I don't know what would make you think otherwise. Unless you experienced something yourself, which even many Christians wish to experience.

[cslewislover]

cslewislover said:

If you go to the NT, how much of it would you say is negative? When Jesus speaks of love, loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, how much of that is negative? You are so focused on the negative that people do, that you're not seeing the positive. People have a natural tendency to be selfish. People also have used the bible and preyed on people's faith to gain power, money, etc. That is not Christianity. But you act like it is. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water

Whe you are christian you are taught that if you do bad things in life you will go to eternal hell, it is an abhorrent thing to say to a person and is hardly a positive outlook on life.

But we all do bad things, and what you say is not my belief. It's our relationship with God that counts, but I don't think that will help you out very much here, since to me discussing this would entail a long time, I'd think (with you). A murderer can accept the Lord before he dies, repent of his sins, and be accepted by God. We don't get to heaven by works, but through grace. If someone ends up in hell, which I don't like the idea of either, it's because they do not accept God's grace. They don't want to be with God, and so God grants them their wish.

[munster]

cslewislover said

The part of that article quoted is just on one aspect of historical method - regarding documents - not on assessing what the documents claim. It's about assessing their validity as historical documents, not their contents. That's partly why the whole article needs to be read.

Every historical document has some relevance to history, including the Bible, it's just the ones who wrote the Bible were relying on word of mouth, and were grossly exaggerating what happened, and he does not take that into account, and that is why he is biased.

As far as making judgments about whether miracles occur, that's different. If you're totally closed to thinking that God would interfere in what we see as the natural order, then I don't know what would make you think otherwise. Unless you experienced something yourself, which even many Christians wish to experience.

If one were to believe in the Gospel then you would have to believe in miracles eg virgin birth, water into wine, loaves and fishes.