Q about arguments for God's existence.

[ThomM]

Agree with the support for Bart Ehrman- probably my favourite non-christian writer.

Now can I invite those who respond to read what I'm saying carefully; as tends to happen, people are dealing with an argument I'm not making, but other Xians often do.

Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership.

Please also reread my comments on 'miracle' as keeping natural laws rather than breaking them.

Historians studying C1 Mediterranean history use the NT as a secular source very comfortably. The question of what Jesus actually did isn't the point I'm making. It's simply that Jesus' contemporaries believed he did 'signs' to point them to reality. For that modest claim, the NT will more than do.

These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).

Throw in basic historical tools such as multiple attestation and very short distance between event and account, and my rather modest claim, perfectly compatible with atheism, looks really very strong.

It is, of course, open to you to wave a hand and ignore the NT entirely. But ignoring such a massive source of data about the beliefs of the Early Church really isn't doing proper history.

I must say, this was a very interesting post. Hope to hear more from you, Vicki.

Sorry - when claiming proper history - you are ignoring the claims of a multitude of religions - with over 10,000 named gods. There is NOTHING that you have said that cannot apply to the Koran - for instance. They all have things in them that are true - but - they also have things in them that are NOT true as well. And the fact that Kansas exists - and that is accepted by the majority of historians of today - does nothing to prove that the wizard of oz is real.

The question I would use to YOU - would be this -
If it could be proven that Allah was the correct and Only god - and Islam was the correct and only true religion - what would it take in Proof for you to accept that.?

You see - in that case either (Note I said if it COULD be proven) - there would have to be a level of proof that would allow you to leave your current faith - and accept another one. And the fact that the bible has things in it that are historically accurate - fails to show that so do James Bond Books - Sherlock Holmes books - and lots of other fictions.

But -when you look for further proof of the existence of the christ - or even a human upon which the MYTH of the christ is based - there is NOT a single record in the Historical record of that time (THe NT is not from the time of the christ - and that CAN be proven) that even mentions his name. And the name cannot be "jesus" either.

We do not reject that the bible does have historical accuracies -because we can check those things against OTHER documents - and actual physical objects of the time. But that does not mean the christ is real - because we cannot check THAT to anything - because nothing exists to verify it.