The real religion?

[SteveII]

Show me how any of my arguments for the NT could be applied to the gnostic or other "gospels".

I'm not a NT or other gospel scholar. Just saying, they were written around the same time, in the same manor (second hand) about the same subject(s). Other than the NT gospels being canonized years later, how do they differ in origin? Couldn't  all the arguments you've given for the NT gospels also be applied for the acceptance/belief for the other gospels?

Written around the same time? No, they were not. So, the authors were certainly not eyewitnesses nor knew any eyewitnesses. Also, the content of the gnostic and later "gospels" contain a different theme and message than the period canonical books and were refuted by contemporaries and people immediately following these much later authors.

[SteveII]

There's also a ton of appeals to tradition and popularity.

Again, corroborating evidence is required.  Something from outside the church and its doctrine.  Otherwise you're just relying on propaganda.

Well, it is your opinion it is required. The people for whom these documents were important preserved them. Almost all scholars believe that Jesus existed and the church started soon after his death. What would you expect an 'outside the church' source to add to that that we don't already believe to be true? Certainly not anything that would weigh in on the truthfulness of the claims. 

I found an interesting list of non-biblical references to Jesus of you are interested. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-...the-bible/

[LadyForCamus]

It means that I don't think you are justified in making these arguments against one thing, and then denying them when the same principles can be applied to science, that I rely on other's for knowledge of.

I'm not building an argument against anything, RR. That's not my responsibility. I am simply pointing out the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence to support your truth claims.

However if you haven't seen for yourself, then you are relying on the same faith and reason, as in other categories for knowledge.

Nope. Equivocating again. Faith is meaningless within the realm of science, RR. Faith is required for religious beliefs precisely because there IS no evidence to foster confidence in the truth of its claims. If you want to say skeptics have developed an..."earned trust" in the scientific method, I might be okay with that. But this is NOT the same thing as faith.

If you hold a pencil up above your head and let it go, what happens? Did you need "faith" to observe the effects of gravity on the pencil? Also, in 2016 there is a robust database of original scientific research on almost every subject imaginable available for you to read with your very own eyes. Tangible, graspable, observable evidence at your fingertips. No "faith" necessary.

[brewer]

I'm not a NT or other gospel scholar. Just saying, they were written around the same time, in the same manor (second hand) about the same subject(s). Other than the NT gospels being canonized years later, how do they differ in origin? Couldn't  all the arguments you've given for the NT gospels also be applied for the acceptance/belief for the other gospels?

Written around the same time? No, they were not. So, the authors were certainly not eyewitnesses nor knew any eyewitnesses. Also, the content of the gnostic and later "gospels" contain a different theme and message than the period canonical books.

From what I'm reading they don't even know who wrote some of the NT, they are just attributed to. According to wiki/new testament (According to many (if not most) critical scholars, none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or even explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses). John (not author) Matthew (copies of copies, no chance of original accuracy) Luke (written like a 3 part play) It sounds like that argument does not hold wine.

I don't care if they contain a different theme or message. You did not use that in any prior position.

Thomas didn't know jesus? Written as early as 40 AD? NT dates from 50 to 150. Peter didn't know jesus? James didn't know jesus?

I think the the early churches and people supported/believed them. Isn't that one of your supporting positions for the NT?

You have done nothing to support your position(s). Just another believe what I say theist. Stop wasting our time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

[SteveII]

Written around the same time? No, they were not. So, the authors were certainly not eyewitnesses nor knew any eyewitnesses. Also, the content of the gnostic and later "gospels" contain a different theme and message than the period canonical books.

From what I'm reading they don't even know who wrote some of the NT, they are just attributed to. According to wiki/new testament (According to many (if not most) critical scholars, none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or even explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses). John (not author) Matthew (copies of copies, no chance of original accuracy) Luke (written like a 3 part play) It sounds like that argument does not hold wine.

I don't care if they contain a different theme or message. You did not use that in any prior position.

Thomas didn't know jesus? Written as early as 40 AD? NT dates from 50 to 150. Peter didn't know jesus? James didn't know jesus?

I think the the early churches and people supported/believed them. Isn't that one of your supporting positions for the NT?

You have done nothing to support your position(s). Just another believe what I say theist. Stop wasting our time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

The Matthew, Mark and John editors compiled earlier docs and information from a particular group of people who followed the apostle for which it was named. The author of Luke/Acts was not an eyewitness either but set about to write and orderly account--including speaking to eyewitnesses. 

Most scholars do not think Thomas the aposle wrote the Gospel of Thomas. Additionally, the early church did not think was an accurate list of sayings because it has at least 31 sayings that do not have parallels in other writings. 

Peter, James and John are all eyewitnesses and all wrote books of the accepted NT canon. 

Which parts do you think is just me saying "believe what I say" :

1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two pieces of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus. 
2. From your link, we also have documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death. 
3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. More evidence for what people believed to be true. 

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events. 

These facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history.

[RoadRunner79]

It means that I don't think you are justified in making these arguments against one thing, and then denying them when the same principles can be applied to science, that I rely on other's for knowledge of.

I'm not building an argument against anything, RR.  That's not my responsibility.  I am simply pointing out the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence to support your truth claims.  

So then you are not taking a position of true or false then?

And I didn't make any truth claim here; I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

However if you haven't seen for yourself, then you are relying on the same faith and reason, as in other categories for knowledge.

Nope.  Equivocating again.  Faith is meaningless within the realm of science, RR.  Faith is required for religious beliefs precisely because there IS no evidence to foster confidence in the truth of its claims.  If you want to say skeptics have developed an..."earned trust" in the scientific method, I might be okay with that.  But this is NOT the same thing as faith.  

If you hold a pencil up above your head and let it go, what happens?  Did you need "faith" to observe the effects of gravity on the pencil? Also, in 2016 there is a robust database of original scientific research on almost every subject imaginable available for you to read with your very own eyes.  Tangible, graspable, observable evidence at your fingertips.  No "faith" necessary.  

I think that what you are doing here is called illegitimate totalian transfer. Trust is one of the meanings of "faith" and there is a reason, that the qualifier "earned" or "blind" is affixed to the word.
Other fallacies that may be present here, include straw man, and begging the question.

For instance, where I came into the discussion, was the unqualified rejection of witness testimony as evidence. It was said, that what was testified about in a book, was not evidence. My assumption about our conversation so far, was that you where making this argument as well. And yet here, you give an example from science calling that which is written in a database.... evidence. Now if you are saying, that what the writers of scripture claimed to have seen is not evidence, but this database is; please explain why. What is the difference?

[LadyForCamus]

I didn't make any truth claim here; I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

First, Just to be clear: I am not making the claim, "there is no God." Theists make the claim, "i believe there is a god". (Thanks Crossless!) My position is, I withhold belief that this claim is true, or likely to be true, until sufficient evidence for the claim can be demonstrated.

To address your above point: You're saying that you aren't making the claim that the bible is accurate; that Jesus is the son of God, and that humans experience a personal relationship with him? Well, that's pretty dishonest of you. What would God think about you saying that here? Just because you didn't start this discussion doesn't mean you aren't making any truth claims about your religion, and frankly, it's pretty slippery of you to try and wriggle out of the burden of proof this way.

I think that what you are doing here is called illegitimate totalian transfer. Trust is one of the meanings of "faith" and there is a reason, that the qualifier "earned" or "blind" is affixed to the word.

That's why I specified, "might". [emoji6] The reason the qualifier was added was to distinguish the very real differences that exist between religious faith (if you want to talk semantics about word meanings, when I say "faith" as it pertains to religious beliefs I specifically mean belief in the absence of sufficient evidence), and confidence in the scientific method. You will not get around these fundamental differences without committing a logical fallacy.

Other fallacies that may be present here, include straw man, and begging the question.

Um...okay, lol. Care to elaborate?

For instance, where I came into the discussion, was the unqualified rejection of witness testimony as evidence.

Unqualified rejection? Eye-witness testimony has been shown to be unreliable over and over again. Here is just one recent article on the subject, if you're interested. There are many:

Http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/h...ists-weigh

I'm not saying eye-witness testimony is irrelevant; I'm saying that by itself, it's not sufficient. If it wouldn't be enough to sentence a person to life in prison, it certainly shouldn't be enough to convince you of any supernatural, magical claims coming from anywhere.

Also, as m.h.brewer and rhythm have been pointing out along the way, much of the NT is not even written by actual eye-witnesses, but by people who supposedly spoke with eye-witnesses.

This is called heresay.

Eye witness testimony is It was said, that what was testified about in a book, was not evidence. My assumption about our conversation so far, was that you where making this argument as well. And yet here, you give an example from science calling that which is written in a database.... evidence. Now if you are saying, that what the writers of scripture claimed to have seen is not evidence, but this database is; please explain why. What is the difference?

I feel like I am talking to a brick wall...

A book full of testimonies is not the same as a book containing data derived from tests. can you name ONE test that has corroborated a supernatural claim made by eye-witnesses in the bible? Look....if science text books around the world contained language like:

"We know the earth is round because 100,000 people spoke to this one guy who SWEARS he went to space and saw that the earth is actually a sphere," or -

"Scientists know that multiple sclerosis is caused by an autoimmune reaction in the body that attacks neurons, because they heard it from a couple of doctors in Canada who swear they know a surgeon who figured it out,"

...then those books would be as shitty and unreliable as the bible!!! Science works with testable data. The bible is just people saying that stuff supposedly happened. How can you NOT see how you are equivocating "faith", and conflating here?

[Crossless2.0]

I didn't make any truth claim here;  I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

First, Just to be clear:  I am not making the claim, "there is no God."  Theists make the claim, "there IS a god."  My position is I withhold belief that this claim is true, or likely to be true, until sufficient evidence for the claim can be demonstrated.  

A quibble: the theist affirms, "I believe there is a god." They can still be agnostic, i.e., not make a knowledge claim.

[LadyForCamus]

First, Just to be clear:  I am not making the claim, "there is no God."  Theists make the claim, "there IS a god."  My position is I withhold belief that this claim is true, or likely to be true, until sufficient evidence for the claim can be demonstrated.  

A quibble: the theist affirms, "I believe there is a god." They can still be agnostic, i.e., not make a knowledge claim.

Yes, you're right!  Thank you for the proof read.  ?

[Crossless2.0]

A quibble: the theist affirms, "I believe there is a god." They can still be agnostic, i.e., not make a knowledge claim.

Yes, you're right!  Thank you for the proof read.  ?

I may not be good for much, but I can do pedantic.