The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Esquilax]

Omnipotence means that God has infinite power and and is able to do anything that is logically possible. 

God cannot do something that is logically impossible, because such a task is meaningless. Making a square circle or a tall short person, like your two proposals, are examples of things that are not logically possible because they are in themselves contradictions.

God is perfection of all good things and able to do anything that is doable. A contradiction does not fall into that category of doable things.

So, do you have any justification for saying this, or is it just another argument of convenience?

[DeistPaladin]

A couple of points before I move on.

I haven't had a chance to respond yet to your second response as I need to get on the road...

[Randy Carson]

First, it is possible to prove a negative. Show me a four-sided triangle...or prove to me that you can't. You CAN do it...tt's a philosophical proof based on contradiction.  Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

I let this idiocy pass earlier, but I'll take a crack at it now.  You haven't proven that there are no four-sided triangles.  Triangles are by definition three sided two dimensional shapes.  Saying there aren't any four sided ones is merely an agreement as to the definition.  There are no married bachelors either, or virgins who've had sex, or three sided squares. 

But, and here's the kicker, the "proof" you offer that there aren't four sided triangles is:  "show me a four sided triangle."  To which I say exactly.  That's what having the burden of proof means.  It means being the person who must bring forward evidence.  No evidence of a lack of four sided triangles can be produced.  Therefore anyone claiming there are such things has the burden of proof to show a four sided triangle. 

I'll prove there is no god the same way you purport to prove there are no four sided triangles:  show me god or I'll assume there isn't one.  Which is by the way, exactly my position.  I do not accept claims for which there is inadequate evidence.  Nor do I take the time to investigate all claims.  I could spend my life trying to find out if there are unicorns, alien abductions, ghosts, esp, etc.  I don't have the time.  And I see no reason to make time for the god claim.

Ditto the resurrection:  show me convincing evidence of the resurrection and I'll believe it.  Otherwise not.

Besides, I have investigated the god claim before, which is to say I grew up in a very Christian household, have read the Bible, have read numerous theologians, philosophers, and historians concerning not only the Christian god but others as well.  I have seen no evidence of god sufficient to make a ten dollar bet let alone spend my life in worship.  You have produced nothing new in this thread, and haven't even reached the better arguments (weak as they are).

Jenny-

It's more than just "show me" a triangle or God.

To prove that God does not exist, show that the idea of God involves a logical contradiction.

Now, I've never studied philosophy, so this really isn't my field, but if you want to prove that God does not exist, this is how you have to do it. Attempts have been made, btw, so others have blazed the trail before you.

[Minimalist]

You have far more patience than I do, D-P.  I hope you have all this stuff canned somewhere because he isn't worth writing it out for.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/corinth2.html#top

It was not Paul's ethereal Lord Jesus who sourced the ethics or theology of the new revelation. Paul – or whoever wrote in that name – combined elements from Judaism, Gnosticism, and the Mystery religions to produce the winning formula. Paul's simple and beguiling idea regarding the Divine Will gave birth to a monstrous ideology that would guide the Church for a millennium. The worst of villains who "accepted Christ" and submitted to the sacraments of the church, might be raised to life eternal; whereas the noblest of humanitarians, who never "accepted Christ" but devoted his life to his fellow man, was condemned to eternal damnation, the fires of Hell and the vicious spite of Holy Mother Church.

[Pyrrho]

If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?  Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

And why hasn't Randy done due diligence in disproving them all, as well?

Not only is it madness, it is hypocritical as well.  If he affirms that Catholicism is the one true religion, he needs to disprove "all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of other types of Christians, Jews, and Muslims."  And where is his proof?

Additionally, if you merely claim that you don't believe in any of them, that is not the same as saying that they don't exist or that you believe that they don't exist.  A totally neutral stance requires no evidence of any kind.  Indeed, in the absence of any evidence, a totally neutral stance is the only reasonable position to take.  It is only after one has evidence of something that it becomes reasonable to believe something about it.


This neutral position is very different from his claim that Catholicism is true.  For Catholicism to be true, that means that all of the other religions must be false, and he should have the proof of their falsehood if he is claiming that they are false.


The reality is, he rejects all of those religions in an offhand way, just as some atheists reject Catholicism.  His complaint about this is hypocritical, because he does the same damn thing with every other religion.

Ah...the graveyard of the gods.

Just because some conceptions of god are fictional, does it necessarily follow that all of them are? Even Plato and Aristotle rejected the anthropomorphic deities like Zeus and Hercules in favor of a supreme being or god that created all of reality.

The theist believes that a god exists. Then, through reason or revelation or both, he narrows the scope of his investigation and chooses to believe in the God that most probably exists.

If you wish to prove that Christianity or theism belongs in the graveyard along with all of the failed gods and goddesses of the past, then provide some evidence as to why you believe that the God of classical theism has suffered the same fate as his mythological competitors.

Here again we see that you simply beg the question, and do not bother with anything to disprove the existence of all of these gods, yet you expect others to disprove the one you are prejudiced in favor of.

The argument is not at all as you describe it.  None of those posts you quoted argue that because some gods are not real, that they all must be unreal.  (Your fallacy on this is straw man.)

You are taking a hypocritical position, in that you expect us to disprove the existence of a particular god, when you reject countless gods and provide no disproof of any of them.


Also, "revelation" is not evidence.  Pretty much every religion claims revelation, and since they cannot all be true, we know absolutely that revelation proves nothing whatsoever.

[Randy Carson]

Wow. You truly are prescient. Or is it simply that the arguments in favor of Christianity are stock because they have no need of change? Let's go with that.

Third possibility: These arguments have no ability to change because there isn't any new evidence or discoveries that have been unearthed since their formulation and already the greatest Christian minds have spent 2,000 years and all the resources at their disposal so this is the best they can come up with.

Such as it is, this is all you can offer. 

I'm sure if Paul's handkerchief ever did turn up, Christian apologists everywhere would dump these arguments in favor of the hard evidence they now possess. 

Actually, something very much like that has turned up. It's called the Shroud of Turin, and despite the fact that it cannot tell us with certainty that the man on the shroud was Jesus, forensic studies suggest that this man died in a somewhat unusual manner (given that he was crucified) and that these unique details are correspond directly to the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus.

(And for the high schoolers thinking of jumping in at this point: go and read WHY the carbon-14 dating test performed in 1988 was due to flawed sampling.)

Prove that God is a contradiction and you will have proved that God does not exist.

It depends on which god. The abstract notion of "God" as a creator of the cosmos is too much of an undefined being to disprove. Your god is another matter, precisely because of the paradoxes of its defined nature. If you wish to discuss the resurrection, which is the topic of our discussion, it is impossible to prove that it did NOT happen. That is not my job. You need to prove that it did happen.

Actually, in this thread, I'm arguing for the HRotNT. However, you folks are so eager to prove me wrong that you're falling all over yourselves trying to get to the part where I can't prove God. So, the discussion of burden of proof keeps coming up. I've already said I have it.

But if you REALLY want to accomplish something that will immortalize you forever, prove that God does not exist. A few have tried in this thread and others recently, so it's not like nobody WANTS to do it. It's just that no one has.

The filling in part is the crux of your arguments from incredulity. You ascribed "swoon theory" to skeptics, for example. You seem to think I'm responsible for explaining to you how Christianity began or how people might have been convinced that Jesus rose from the dead. I am not. Real skeptics don't get as far as discussing "swoon theory" or any other straw skeptic argument that theists like to bat with their wooden swords. We hear you tell a story and await evidence to believe it to be true. 

No, you don't.

As soon as I write a post, I've barely hit the "Post Reply" button before someone is already responding about why I'm wrong.

And by the way, that's when the Burden of Proof shifts. When evidence is presented, it is on the other party to prove it wrong.

You may not like my evidence. I might be the worst apologist who ever joined this forum. But I have presented evidence. So...

because miracles don't happen ...presupposition much?

And once again, you confuse "skepticism" with "denial". 
I've never seen any reason to believe miracles happen. From the moment I wake to the moment I sleep, the natural universe is all I have ever experienced. All claims of the existence of the supernatural have either been proven not to be true or not proven to be true. Things once explained by the supernatural have since been replaced with natural explanations. Never has a natural explanation been replaced with a proven supernatural one. 
It is therefore within the bounds of rational skepticism to assume we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws and best understood with science and reason. When you present evidence for miracles, I will consider them. 

Me, too, most days. I think God is like that. But every now and then, God shows up. I'm sorry if you have not had that experience. Maybe you should give him permission to do so. He's generally very conscious of overwhelming your free will by His awesome presence.

And by the way, concerning miracles, if I did have it, would you accept it? No. You have the gospels, and you reject them out of hand. My miracles would get the same treatment. So, don't put yourself forward as some noble, open-minded soul who is just waiting for God. You're not.

If there is a coherent thought in there, I can't find it. An editing problem, perhaps? Try again.

I meant in that one unintelligible sentence. Read what you typed again and see if you can figure it out.

---

A couple of points before I move on.

I haven't had a chance to respond yet to your second response as I need to get on the road...

No worries. We all have more going on than this. Take your time.

[Minimalist]

Actually, something very much like that has turned up. It's called the Shroud of Turin,

Thanks.  You have now confirmed that you are as big a fucking idiot as I initially pegged you for.  Like all catholics, you are easily conned by bullshit stories!

[Mudhammam]

We did both agree that there are ignorant and un-serious claims attached to the character...the character -is- mythical and legendary, I thought we both agreed to that.  What we are discussing is a possible non mythical, non legendary "core" to that character, aren't we?  You are proposing that there is something in the pauline epistles that is not the usual mythological and legendary fluff we find elsewhere.    Aren't you?  I am of the opinion that the epistles -are- legendary/mythological fluff.  But my opinion doesn't matter so much, because with regards to your contention that Paul was a real boy, the contention that I joined into this discussion to pick up since you seemed unsatisfied with Min...is simply that I find the case made to be unconvincing, and I don't see how your appeals to shift that burden are going to convince me?

I was saying that the claim Paul was a mythological character is ignorant and un-serious. I think your attempts to make an argument for that claim---wait are you? because it seems like you kind of are but then I'm not seeing much of anything except for "I don't accept the abundance of testimonial evidence from the person himself or anyone else! Just 'cause!"---are thoroughly demonstrating that.

Ah, I see, so I would also have to prove that The Mad Arab from the Necronomicon  is a fictional character?  Might as well just assume he lived?  Yes, I'm sorry, the burden -is- on you on that count, because I've accepted Paul only for what I can demonstrate him to have been, a character in a book.  Any more than that will take evidence and reason, -not- the repeated claims of the narrative and the constant shifting of burden.   This is real simple, show me the evidence, and not the claim Nestor.  You can end this whole disagreement that simply....and yet you haven't.

First, I don't know who the Mad Arab is so you'll have to explain the relevancy of the reference. If he's nothing more than "a character in a book," I assume there aren't numerous letters written by the Mad Arab to his friends across Europe and Asia about issues dealing with life in same world that other historical people lived in, references to his self and others that only make sense in the context of real persons, an entire corpus of pseudographical material written under his name, and then mentions by others regarding his actual existence without any dispute to the contrary...? If that's the case, I'm interested to pursue that comparison further. If not, I repeat: ignorant and un-serious.

The all or nothing gambit, I'm unimpressed - and it still doesn't establish that there was a Paul.  Look, if you're happy to simply accept a claim and call it history be my guest.  Who's looking to discredit anything, and how would one go about that?  The narrative works regardless of whether or not there's any Paul, I'm actually rather impressed with the NT narrative, personally - and while your average christer may feel that the bible or their religion is somehow discredited by any criticism along these lines -I do not-...so you can save your breath on that angle. .That said, yeah, it just so happens that often legendary and mythological writings purporting to be historical documents from "back in the day" are not the best sources for history one might wish for - regardless of the source or subject.  The teutons couldn't -actually- turn into bears or fight with both arms hacked off for a fortnight.....and yet we are told by "historians" that they did.  I assume you approach these other claims with a grain of salt, and that this statement doesn;t surprise you with any information of which you were previously unaware. /shrugs

You can't establish anyone was a real person if you just simply dismiss their writings or all references to them as works of fiction motivated by hidden powers operating in the dark, although I have to say that sounds a bit paranoid and extremely irrational. You're basically saying that you do not accept any ancient document as evidence for the existence of real people because writers sometimes voluntarily or involuntarily contributed to fictional narratives and devices, could possibly get and pass along false information, and were oftentimes generally superstitious. That's not a very good reason to reject all writings older than 1,000 years, to me or to any historian now or in the past, but to each his own I suppose.

I didn't realize that we were discussing any "Paul" as a literary convention, but rather "Paul" as an actual human being, about whom we can draw conclusions?   If I use your method, I must also accept that there was an Odin (and a whole host of other characters who identify themselves in a vast number of narratives purportedly written by the individuals in question...some of which are known to be fiction - which is an absurd suggestion on it's very face).......you realize?

No, I did not realize that. Odin claimed to be an individual writing letters to his contemporaries, offering us details about his life, such as his nationality, his attitudes and interactions with others, and was purported to be a human being by others who lived concurrent or shortly (read: 20-60 years) after his death? And nobody ever disputed it? Wow. That's remarkable, I'll grant you that. I can't wait to see your evidence for the claim.

Again you refer to the claim as evidence of the accuracy of the claim...right after conceding that psuedography is a factor.  Staggering irony, man......

Huh? No, I refer to the evidence, which mostly consist of letters, over half a dozen considered authentic by all of his scholarship, as being written by the individual who put a (his) name (Paul) to them, as well as to others who reference that person as having written letters, and to multiple others who wrote using that person's identity. This doesn't even take into consideration the mythological narrative that later came along describing some of those same events that the person in the original letters mentioned and more. My claim is that all of this is supportive of my view that the person in question was an actual human being who lived in the first century. It seems to me that all you have in favor of your proposition are appeals to ignorance. In logic that's called an informal fallacy.

You've been giving me wonderful reasons in your posts.....haven't you?  Yes yes, Paul suffered for his labor, he had his own passion...you might say.................a prototype for christian martrydom........and a wonderful example of the idea of apostolic succession......those may be details, but I doubt that they are the details of any guy named Pauls actual life.  This is the story the author wanted to tell (and that would be true regardless of whether or not the author was writing about an actual person or not....huh?).

I see we've both made assertions but only one of us has given reasons why they are credible. I've enlisted historiography and higher criticism, which overwhelmingly agrees with me---that the existence of letters written under the name of Paul by a single individual in the first century, followed by multiple other writers referencing him and describing his life or his letters, point towards Paul having once been a human being who lived under the Roman empire---and thus far you've offered nothing except that "this is the story the author wanted to tell... just believe me because." That's not how you change a person's mind.

That you still haven't demonstrated that Paul existed.  You'll need to stop assuming what I am asking you to establish as evidence of what I am asking you to establish, and you might want to stop pretending that it's silly to ask the question..or we'll get nowhere, eh?  I thought we both agreed that studying Paul, as a man, would be relevant to a study of christainity's history..here we are.....

I've repeated myself too many times to comment more on the evidence. Try coming up with something new or interesting if you want me to continue this discussion.

-and London is a real city that was never beset by vampires or werewolves despite what you may read in Dracula.  None of those things you offered rescue acts from a classification as fiction (nor would they even be -capable- of rescuing the epistles).  I haven't asked you to prove anything, amigo, I'm simply seeking the evidence upon which you've hung your conclusion, that Paul was a real boy..lol.  Here again, you assume the item under dispute.  I also find it amusing that you feel that anything which shows that legend and myth are attached to the notion of Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Paul........yes, lets remove all the myth and legend and then say "It';s silly to suggest this, you've given no reason".................clearly...you understand that I have.

*face palm*

Seems to me, from your posts, that we do have reason to take my suggestion seriously.  I guess that's a simple difference of opinion though? I'm simply saying no one has any reason to take your suggestion seriously.

Once again, I suppose that's why your view is represented in secular academia by... hmm... precisely no one.

I find your ability to compartmentalize impressive.

I find your simple-minded inability to think of myth as anything other than "fiction," and your overall lack of nuance when approaching the Bible shockingly unimpressive, but unfortunately all too common amongst the general populace of atheists that contribute here. 

Except that those letters -do- show "signs" of narrative devices(lol?), as already covered.  Who said anything about an elaborate scam?  Are you going to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole again?  I like the touch at the end, about needing "more faith", unfortunately it doesn't actually have anything to do with our discussion, and you've yet to move the chains an inch. This is really simple, do you have some evidence that is not contained within the claim..that leads you to believe that the narrative is factual?  If you do, lets just see -that- and skip the rest of this posturing eh?  This right here: "I call him Paul cause that's what he calls himself." -does not work for me for obvious and well established reasons.   If there isn't any more to this than that....I don't think that you and I have anything further to discuss, we simply aren't approaching the issue from reconcilable foundations.  I'll need someone who is prepared to take on more than this, in order to determine what the life of Paul may have been to any standard acceptable -by me-.

"Signs" of narrative devices? In Paul's letters? Wait, is this another assertion you've made without providing any reason or evidence for, again?! C'mon man, try harder. "I don't believe Paul or anyone else who claims to have written on or about Paul because I don't believe it" is not working for me either. If you have some reason why we should just dismiss all of the evidence I've repeatedly outlined, I'll be glad to come back to this. In the meanwhile it doesn't seem worth anyone's time to keep arguing in circles.

[Angrboda]

If I say that I don't believe any god claims that I've heard, am I responsible for disproving all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?  Surely this is madness to presume that I have inherited such a burden of proof simply because I don't believe.

---

And why hasn't Randy done due diligence in disproving them all, as well?

Not only is it madness, it is hypocritical as well.  If he affirms that Catholicism is the one true religion, he needs to disprove "all gods of the Hindu pantheon, of the Norse pantheon, of the Greek pantheon, of all pantheons everywhere, including the claims of other types of Christians, Jews, and Muslims."  And where is his proof?

Additionally, if you merely claim that you don't believe in any of them, that is not the same as saying that they don't exist or that you believe that they don't exist.  A totally neutral stance requires no evidence of any kind.  Indeed, in the absence of any evidence, a totally neutral stance is the only reasonable position to take.  It is only after one has evidence of something that it becomes reasonable to believe something about it.


This neutral position is very different from his claim that Catholicism is true.  For Catholicism to be true, that means that all of the other religions must be false, and he should have the proof of their falsehood if he is claiming that they are false.


The reality is, he rejects all of those religions in an offhand way, just as some atheists reject Catholicism.  His complaint about this is hypocritical, because he does the same damn thing with every other religion.

---

Ah...the graveyard of the gods.

Just because some conceptions of god are fictional, does it necessarily follow that all of them are? Even Plato and Aristotle rejected the anthropomorphic deities like Zeus and Hercules in favor of a supreme being or god that created all of reality.

This is irrelevant.  The question was, if you don't believe these other gods in the same way that the atheist doesn't believe in your god, if you are arguing that the atheist has a burden of proof for their disbelief in your god, you have a burden of proof in relation to these other gods.  That you do not apportion the same type of burden of proof for the same type of disbelief is inconsistent.  Either the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof, or you have one which you don't acknowledge.

The theist believes that a god exists. Then, through reason or revelation or both, he narrows the scope of his investigation and chooses to believe in the God that most probably exists.

This is contrary to the majority of cases.  The fact that most conversions happen in childhood, and the greatest predictor of the content of their belief is geography and the majority beliefs of parents and culture is strong evidence that the choice of which god or religion one follows is not such an open and rational choice.  The more likely story is that the god of one's belief is chosen first, and reasons come later.  Otherwise one is left explaining the correlations of geography and culture.

If you wish to prove that Christianity or theism belongs in the graveyard along with all of the failed gods and goddesses of the past, then provide some evidence as to why you believe that the God of classical theism has suffered the same fate as his mythological competitors.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof illicitly.  We are not responsible for disproving your claim in advance of your having met the burden of proof for your claim.  Do you not apply the same skepticism to these other gods as we apply to your god?  You won't believe them until someone provides evidence of their existence.  We won't believe you until you provide appropriate evidence.  This is how the burden of proof is properly apportioned in relation to disbelief in your god, just as in disbelief in other gods.  Your explicit dismissal of a burden of proof in denying these other gods is implicit acceptance that the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof in denying the existence of your god.  The question is not who is making the 'positive' claim, whatever that means.  The burden of proof falls on him who is making an existential claim, a claim that something exists or is.  In denying the claims of a god whose burden of proof hasn't been met, any reciprocal burden is easily met by noting that the claim has not been adequately proved.

[Randy Carson]

It's Never Too Soon For Urban Legends
Urban legends can spring up in no time and persist despite their outrageous claims and evidence to the contrary. 

"But the early believers saw Jesus days after he died on the cross", you object.

One word: Elvis.

Well, I have to admit something...I didn't see this the first time around. I got so caught up in the whole "David Koresh proves the apostles were nuts" thing, that I complete missed this even GREATER stupidity.

Elvis?

Just out of curiosity, did Priscilla claim to see him? Or his manager? How about any of the boys in the band? No?

Jesus was seen by the Eleven he had chosen along with his own mother, Mary Magdalene and others who had traveled with him, eaten with him, listened to him...for THREE YEARS. Did I mention his mother?

So, you actually want to compare the credibility of these witnesses of Jesus with those who claim to have seen Elvis, eh?

<looooooong slow whistle>

Well, I'll say this: the King was sighted after his death alright, and there's a lotta grace in His promised land, but He sure as heck ain't Elvis.

(Man, this kinda stuff gives atheists a bad name.)

See you next time.

Thankya, ma'am...thankya vera much. LOL!