Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

Why do you think it was added later? There are many that think that he simply included an earlier narrative in with his writing. There, all fixed. Good editor again.   

Yeah, adding to documents in ancient times was almost always good editing and not revisionism....

Perhaps I didn't write clearly enough. Many think that while the author of Mark was writing, he simply cut and pasted an earlier description of the passion week that was already well known. Heck, why not. It would be more surprising that if he had such a document, that he would not use it.

[Mister Agenda]

If it was something derived from another work, no fragment of the original remaining, it is mere hearsay.

[SteveII]

If it was something derived from another work, no fragment of the original remaining, it is mere hearsay.

Sure, but is that surprising? Anyway, it is only a problem if you prove it was added later instead of it being original or from a pre-mark source. Since you cannot do that, nothing changes and Mark suffers no undermining.

[Mister Agenda]

If it was something derived from another work, no fragment of the original remaining, it is mere hearsay.

Sure, but is that surprising? Anyway, it is only a problem if you prove it was added later instead of it being original or from a pre-mark source. Since you cannot do that, nothing changes and Mark suffers no undermining.

That Mark meant to put it there and left it out accidentally, which a later transcriber honestly corrected, is at least somewhat speculative. Which doesn't undermine the earliest Mark manuscript we have, but at least slightly undermines that portion of every subsequent Mark manuscript, and anything based on that part of the manuscript.

But you're right, the whole thing is hearsay in any case since it's a second-hand account by an unknown author that can't be adequately substantiated, which makes the subsequent writings based on it even less reliable.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I will agree that the NT passes on the claim, but you are missing my point. People already believed that claim (as stated above) prior to any of the 27 books writing it down (beginning around 50AD). So, if there were never any books/letters written, there would have still been a claim. Why do I believe this, because there were already churches outside of Palestine for Paul to write to and established doctrine to discuss 20 years from Christ's death.

Pretty much all religions already existed by the time somebody decided to write something down about them. The claim already existing when somebody recorded it is not evidence that the claim in circulation was true. Why would you even think that?

This moves the 27 books from the claim column to the evidence column.

No, Steve. It does not. Those 27 books are a catalog of claims. They are only evidence of ancient scribes writing a book and what those scribes believed. The claims made in the book must be proven by something other than the book itself. It does not matter that the claims were already in circulation when the book was written; the book is merely documenting the claims, and therefore is effectively the claim.

 There seems to be two possibilities that this was not true:
1. The NT books misrepresented the claim
2. The NT books were all fabrications in pursuit of some other goal

Or maybe those people just believed wrong things...

I think the gospels and letters are not fiction because they were written within the lifetime of those who would have witnessed the actual events (and in some cases witnessed the actual events: John, Peter, James).

Why would that matter? Jumanji was written within lifetime of the characters in the story (the movie is set in the '90s, and it was written and released in the '90s). Does that mean Jumanji is true?

The authors and early church believed what they preached even if that meant adversity.

You mean like just about every religious person, ever? Sincerity of belief is not a measure of truth, my friend. If it were, suicide bombings would be evidence that the Muslim god is real.

The church grew between the time of Christ and the first appearances of the epistles. Alternatively, there was every reason to let things die down after Jesus' death if the events were not other than what was related.

Christianity is not the only nor the first religion to grow and thrive in the face of persecution. Is that evidence of those religions, too, or just yours?

If the events of the NT were not true, I do not think there is ground for positing an "honest mistake".

Why?

I think the only logical alternative is a conspiracy. No one has yet to give me good reasons why this might be the case.

Sooo...a false religion has to be a conspiracy? It can't be a mistake? Why? You think Buddhism and Islam are false, do you not? Are those conspiracies? If not, why would a false Christianity have to be?

[robvalue]

So...

If 27 people all wrote similar accounts that they saw things that proves Islam is true and not Christianity, would that be sufficient evidence?

I'm sure I can find a lot more than 27. And I'm betting the standards would change right away.

Why are people so taken with accounts made a long time ago? It seems to be like an admission that it was the only time God has ever been around. If that's the case, who cares? It's done with now.

[SteveII]

I will agree that the NT passes on the claim, but you are missing my point. People already believed that claim (as stated above) prior to any of the 27 books writing it down (beginning around 50AD). So, if there were never any books/letters written, there would have still been a claim. Why do I believe this, because there were already churches outside of Palestine for Paul to write to and established doctrine to discuss 20 years from Christ's death.

Pretty much all religions already existed by the time somebody decided to write something down about them. The claim already existing when somebody recorded it is not evidence that the claim in circulation was true. Why would you even think that?

We are not talking about all religions. We are talking about a specific set of facts.  In all cases, the authors believed the "claim in circulation" was true--not simply reporting it (an important distinction). Under all your supposed rationale for denying the events is simply a belief that they did not happen. This faulty reasoning does nothing to undermine the NT books.

This moves the 27 books from the claim column to the evidence column.

No, Steve. It does not. Those 27 books are a catalog of claims. They are only evidence of ancient scribes writing a book and what those scribes believed. The claims made in the book must be proven by something other than the book itself. It does not matter that the claims were already in circulation when the book was written; the book is merely documenting the claims, and therefore is effectively the claim.

That is not a defensible position.  How are all historical events known? The writing down always follows the event. Then you say that the claims in a book must be proven by something other than the book. How about 26 more books? How about the fact that churches existed outside of Palestine 20 years and all the way to Rome in less than 30 years after Jesus? How about the fact there is literally an unbroken chain of people who believed these events to be true with surviving writings from almost every generation since. 

Regarding why should we expect to see other contemporary sources to Jesus refer to him, three things: 1) 99.99% of documents are lost to history, 2) why would anyone write outside of Palestine about Jesus until it became obvious that the church was growing a generation later? and 3) why wouldn't your standard above apply to this "missing proof"? By your own rationale, this "missing proof" would not be reliable either because it is simply another claim for which there would be no proof. The regression has to stop someplace.

I have asked this before and have yet to get an answer from anyone. What ancient series of events has more background information than the life of Christ? I don't expect you to believe the content. However, you knowingly or unknowingly are using bad excuses to justify your disbelief.

[SteveII]

 There seems to be two possibilities that this was not true:
1. The NT books misrepresented the claim
2. The NT books were all fabrications in pursuit of some other goal

Or maybe those people just believed wrong things...

What reason do I have to think those people believed wrong things (especially the witnesses)?

[SteveII]

The authors and early church believed what they preached even if that meant adversity.

You mean like just about every religious person, ever? Sincerity of belief is not a measure of truth, my friend. If it were, suicide bombings would be evidence that the Muslim god is real.

You are conflating a belief in an idea with the belief as a result of either 1) an event directly observed or 2) facts easily checked with those thousands (or more) that observed them. To make your analogy better, the suicide bomber would have had been taught by Mohammad, thought his message compelling, observed many miraculous signs, watched him die, and met him alive again.

[SteveII]

I think the only logical alternative is a conspiracy. No one has yet to give me good reasons why this might be the case.

Sooo...a false religion has to be a conspiracy? It can't be a mistake? Why? You think Buddhism and Islam are false, do you not? Are those conspiracies? If not, why would a false Christianity have to be?

Again, why would you confuse one set of facts with another set that literally has no similarities? I am saying that with so many documents and the church expansion in the first 50 years since Christ's death, you are left with the two conclusions: 1) the authors really believed what they wrote, or 2) there was a really involved conspiracy.