RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 23, 2015 at 1:25 pm
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2015 at 1:44 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Consider your position, Randy.
In your example to me, we have 4 incredibly reliable witnesses in court. They are impeccable, as reliable as anyone has ever been. They then tell us some supernatural account of events.
Now, there are only two options. We either just believe them, or we are sceptical. And apparently, we need you to stand there and listen to the particular claim to tell us which it should be. What gives you this authority? If they talk about Jesus doing what you want Jesus to do, we should just believe them. If they say anything contrary to your story, we should be sceptical. Can you see how ridiculous this is?
In the example, our courts are not accustomed to dealing with such claims. After all, they don't come up very often, do they? (I have this picture of George Burns walking into the courtroom saying, "I'll take it from here" in the movie Oh, God!)
However, the Jews DID know how to test anyone who claimed to speak for God, and false prophets were stoned to death. So, how did God distinguish his real prophets from the false ones? By performing supernatural signs on their behalf. Moses got ten as evidence that Pharaoh should let Israel go. The Israelites got manna from heaven as evidence that Moses should be listened to. And the confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal is actually pretty hilarious. You can read about it in 1 Kings 18 (I'm not allowed to post links, yet. Sorry.)
So, if these four witnesses were to get my attention, they would need to demonstrate that they were true prophets. Otherwise...
Quote:I see you're using the tu quoque on my position. Yes, I'm an atheist because there isn't even a coherent definition of a god, let alone any proof.
Try this:
God is the supernatural creator of the universe, a being that is necessary (cannot fail to exist), eternal (not bound by time), immaterial (not bound by space), all-powerful, and all-knowing. Finally, most Western theologians and philosophers claim that God is all-good, or he is the perfect embodiment of the virtues of love, justice, and every other good we know. He is, as St. Anselm of Canterbury declared, the being “than which no greater can be thought.”
Quote:That's not the subject of this discussion. A book is not proof, it is the claim: as shown by the fact that you reject every other holy book but your own. If God wants to come talk to me, he's quite welcome. I don't believe anyone has had an experience with God, I think it's far more likely it's all in people's heads.
At the risk of all kinds of mockery, have you ever gone to talk to Him?
Quote:You are also making a false dichotomy. Either the gospels are 100% true, or they are all false. So if we can show part of them to be true, they are all true. No. Parts of it could be true, parts of it false. And each part needs its own verification.
I'm not sure that's how life really works, is it?
Quote:If general reliability is established, the assumption is that the whole is factual unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is a way for a document to earn our trust. If that happens, then a historically favorable presumption prevails. Once established as a generally reliable document, a historically favorable presumption prevails at that point, and the burden of proof falls on the deniers. - Scott M. Sullivan, PhD
