(March 16, 2017 at 10:21 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:Nonpareil Wrote:Because it has not been established to be true.
This is not complicated.
And the reason that it would have to be established as true is that it is the claim, not the evidence for the claim. All kinds of ancient documents claim miraculous events, if such things are claimed for any other religion they are not taken at face value in the West. If we treated the NT like we would a non-Abrahamic religious document making similar claims (those silly Hindus believing all that stuff Krishna was supposed to have done), it would already be classified as legendary literature. Unless, of course, there was convincing evidence outside the writings of the faithful that the miraculous parts were true. I don't see Christians telling skeptics that they should take stories about Krishna at face value unless there's a special reason not to.
If the Romans had noticed and recorded half the supernatural stuff that was supposed to be happening under their noses, even I would have to agree that there's something different about the NT compared to the supernatural claims of other cultures.
Two points on the New Testament not being the claim:
1. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
2. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). How can you describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as "the claim" as if it were one thing?
No, the claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God. Evidence for this claim is that people wrote about it. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or, in the case of Luke, by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it.
In addition, the NT points out several pieces of additional evidence:
- There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters.
- Paul quotes several creeds in his letters that appear to have been used among the early church prior to his letters.
- Many historians think that there existed another document Q that predates the gospels and we can reconstruct parts of it from the gospels.
To compare to other religious writings, the NT was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and people who would have known eyewitnesses AND within the lifetime of any possible rebuttal witnesses. In other religions (including your Hindu example) there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged.
Regarding the Romans, why would Rome have noticed another religion among hundreds until it grew and began to affect them (which it did and they did notice it)? Early second century Jewish literature mentioned Jesus as a sorcerer--preferring to discredit him rather than to deny he existed.
Quote:SteveII Wrote:LOL. You mean that your unsupported assertions against Christianity aren't just accepted as true?! I can imagine the frustration. TIP: In a discussion forum, you might want to use some facts in the normal back-and-forth and not just go with the same assertions over an over and wonder why I won't accept them.
Yeah, you've run off another atheist through the power of being impenetrable. Crow like a rooster about it, like Jesus would have.
I don't like being told over and over that I deny "reason, evidence, and logic" for my beliefs when he couldn't even be bothered to offer one reason. That is condescending.
