RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 2, 2015 at 9:56 pm
(This post was last modified: June 2, 2015 at 10:09 pm by Randy Carson.)
(June 1, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Randy......you wrote that.....not DP......did you not read your copy paste or do you not remember your own words? #548 buddy........It's -your opinion- that eyewitness testimony is critical.
I just reviewed post #548, and I don't see the word "critical" anywhere in the post. Would you be kind enough to quote exactly what I said that you are taking issue with?
Quote:You did manage to get it right, though, by the end - when it comes to eye witness testimony, it doesn't matter who's giving it - it's unreliable regardless.
Wrong. And this is something that DP hasn't considered, apparently. He DOESN'T have eye-witnesses standing in his bedroom trying to tell him about the resurrection...that's what he calls the "weakest form of evidence". Instead, he has TRANSCRIPTS of eye-witness testimony that cannot change or lie...they are locked forever thus enabling scholars to examine them from all sorts of angles...to determine if the story changed through the passage of centuries, etc. The gospels are, therefore, just the kind of cold-case evidence that Detective J. Warner Wallace prefers to work with when convicting murderers of crimes they committed long ago. It was his investigation of the gospels AS COLD-CASE EVIDENCE that led the street-wise cop to abandon atheism and become a Christian.
Quote:Are you looking to sue us?
Just looking to provide answers to those who are lurking in the forum and trying to decide if Christianity is true.
Who knows? Maybe I'll be in heaven one day and someone will walk up to me and say, "You don't know me, but I was a member of the Atheist Forums when you were posting there..."
That will be a joyful meeting.
(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: If I picked up the bible, and I knew absolute nothing about it, I'd assume it was a fictional story book, vaguely based around some historic events.
Which is why Jesus formed a Church before writing the book. An inerrant book without an infallible Church is not much use to anyone.
Quote:Why should I think differently? Why I should I even think the intention of the authors is to be taken as non-fiction? Just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean we can just decide for them why they wrote it. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Even Christians would be sceptical about the accuracy and intentions of the authors if it were any other book involving gods.
The book was written by the Church for the Church. It was never intended to be a brochure for perspective members. It's not even terribly complete in terms of theology (the word trinity never appears for example).
Quote:I wish I could somehow set it up so that Christians could, for one day, lose all memory of anything to do with Christianity, and then present them with the bible. What would they make of it? Would they come to the conclusions they hold now, or would they dismiss it as fiction, delusion or propaganda? I'd bet a weeks worth of slop on the latter being almost always the case.
Rob, you forget that the Christian is filled with and led by the Holy Spirit. If we lost all memory of the Bible, and God wanted us to get back into it, He would lead us back to it.
(June 2, 2015 at 8:26 am)Pyrrho Wrote:(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: If I picked up the bible, and I knew absolute nothing about it, I'd assume it was a fictional story book, vaguely based around some historic events.
Why should I think differently? Why I should I even think the intention of the authors is to be taken as non-fiction? Just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean we can just decide for them why they wrote it. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Even Christians would be sceptical about the accuracy and intentions of the authors if it were any other book involving gods.
It is hard to know what, exactly, the intentions are of writers, particularly ancient ones whose view of the world was radically different from ours. Early writers seem to have a very loose grasp on the concept of history, and have a hard time sticking to facts.
Are we could simply read what they said such as:
Luke 1:3-4
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theoph′ilus,[b] 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: I wish I could somehow set it up so that Christians could, for one day, lose all memory of anything to do with Christianity, and then present them with the bible. What would they make of it? Would they come to the conclusions they hold now, or would they dismiss it as fiction, delusion or propaganda? I'd bet a weeks worth of slop on the latter being almost always the case.
That is wishing for magic, so it isn't going to happen.
There is, though, this interesting lesson to learn from it. How do you know that your most basic beliefs are not equally nonsensical?[/quote]
He has a point, Rob. Everything you believe could be rubbish. It might pay to set aside a few preconceived ideas and think objectively.
The Gospel of Luke would be a great place to begin your quest.
(June 2, 2015 at 10:25 am)Jenny A Wrote: Now you are just being silly.
Eyewitness testimony is indeed a very weak form of evidence in comparison with physical or circumstantial evidence. But it is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers. That ought to be obvious. And that is what we have in the gospels.
I'm guessing you didn't read the OP very carefully - or my follow-up regarding the traditional authorship.
