Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Let's explore this statement. What about Jesus life, death, and resurrection?

Evidence for:
First, I know that definitively ascribing authorship of the Gospels to certain authors is difficult and not indisputable proof. I know there are two sides of this argument. I know they were written anonymously. I know Church tradition on authorship can't be proven as existing before in the second century, but, there is no external evidence either supporting or denying authorship. I know the gospels are the only source for information about Jesus aside from a few potential external sources that give almost no information.

That being said, we do know that church tradition for the NT authors named has always been the tradition of the church as far back as we can know. There is evidence that they were written prior to 70 AD, except John, which was probably before 100 AD, since none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem and Luke ends with Paul on house arrest). We also have fragments dating to 130 AD and a potential fragment of Mark dating to prior to 68 AD.

Ultimately, the arguments against aren't more concrete or compelling than the arguments for the authenticity of the New Testament. Now, I know I'm predisposed to believe church tradition, but in light of the fact that there is no indisputable, external evidence for the NT writings to be anything other than what they claim to be, I choose to believe they are, in fact, authentic.

People love to point out that the Bible was written by multiple authors. Yes, it was. That , means we actually have 4 independent lines of testimony about Jesus life. To me, we have the testimony of 4 contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses to at least parts of Jesus life. Luke admits to researching Jesus and writing his gospel 9no different than a biographical author today). The events they recount are very similar and very consistent. They are also different. But if 4 people recount the life of 1 man it only makes sense that they highlight what was important to them and their intended audience. These authors tell a consistent story that I can't prove happened like WWII footage, but there is evidence. Jesus is mentioned extra-biblically by Josephus (I know some of the Jesus writings attributed to him are potentially false, but not all of them). Obviously, someone existed and something happened. My goodness, He changed the world. The only real testimony we have are the Gospels and then tell an amazing story of God entering into His creation in order to save a particular people from destruction. Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

Now, is that irrefutable proof that God exists and has acted in this world? I would say no, I'll grant that. But, denial that is based on skepticism and internal critiques I don't find very compelling.

You said zero evidence. If the gospels are reliable and the author's telling the truth then Jesus did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That would be evidence. Not irrefutable proof, but evidence. Zero evidence is a hard claim to substantiate.

In light of what I said, I don't think belief in the NT is crazy. Is it?

I'm not saying you are crazy.  I once believed in it as well.  But, if you are a bible believer, you must believe in 100% of the bible, or else admit that some of it is just people's opinion and belief, rather than "Truth".

In my religious journey, I tried to believe the whole thing.  That lasted only a short time.  I read and studied the entire bible.  The god of the OT is not the same god as the NT - not even close.  I also realized that the story of Mankind's fall, and redemption made no sense, especially in light of archaeology, history, cosmology, and evolutionary theory.

I became a "mainstream" Christian, accepting that maybe Jesus provided some method by which we could connect better with God, but realizing the limitations of all biblical text.

Even that came crumbling down about 10 years ago, partly from debating with others in forums like this, and partly from realizing that no gods do anything, ever.  The claims of God answering prayer is a testable scientific claim.  It has never been shown to be true, despite an absolute promise that from the bible that it would occur.

The universe doesn't need a god to operate -- in fact one would simply mess things up.  Morality doesn't need to god in order to exist (in fact, god-imposed morality makes actual moral choice impossible).  I don't need to pretend to talk to a god to get through my day (though if I did, I'd choose a far nicer one that in the bible).

Actually you guys started asking questions right after I said that, which I appreciate.