[WilliamCraig]

I got the idea to write this from my discussion at the topic on the existence of God. There we talked about whether or not it is possible for the theistic God to exist, which made me want to discuss whether or not there is evidence for the Christian God to exist.

I feel that there is one major one, but don't want to jump right to it. Before getting to it, first there should be agreements as to whether or not the New Testament documents are historically reliable.

Also, I recognize that some people here didn't like the fact that I have a tendency at times to quote what an expert says on the subject and then explain it better in order to save me time. Hopefully, I have pleased them here... I love collecting quotes, so I couldn't help but share a couple.

This is going to be long, but I've summarized what is a book length subject up as best I can. I hope you enjoy the read.



Sections:

1 -- Documentary Evidence
2 -- Examining the Authors
3 -- Christian Origins



1 -- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The documentary evidence for the NT is something that has always amazed me. The documentary evidence is important, because they go to show whether or not the New Testament is historically reliable as a witness to God's self-revelation in Christ.

As most of you surely know, we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, with the most cherished going back to around AD 350. Add this in with the 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and the 8,000 Ethioopic, Slavic, and Armenian manuscripts, you get around 24,000 in total. This amount boggles the mind when compared with other ancient works. It has led Paul E. Little to write,

"The extraordinary number of copies of early NT material defies imagination. When we compare it with other documents of ancient writings from the same time, it fills us with admiration." [1]

Indeed, I can recall having a rather fun conversation with a skeptic at sntjohnny.com. I used his reasoning in disproving the existence of Alexander the Great!

To fully understand how far the NT is above the competition, here is a list of other ancient writings and how they stack up in terms of manuscript evidence...

1. Caesar's "Gallic War" was written between 58-50 BC with only 9 or 10 good manuscripts. Amazingly, the oldest is around 900 years later than Caesar's day.

2. Out of Tacitus' 14 books of the "Histories" (AD 100), only 4 1/2 survive. The 16 books of Tacitus' "Annals" now have only 10 that survived in full and two in some part. Those parts of his works still in existence rely on 2 manuscripts, one coming from the 9th century and one from the eleventh.

3. I don't have the details of Alexander the Great at hand, but you can trust me that the earliest documentary evidence for his existence comes hundreds of years after his existence.

These are just a few examples. In all, the NT contains more manuscript evidence than any other ancient writing. Not only that, but the evidence dates closer to the events recorded when compared to other great ancient works.

The point here should be painfully obvious: throw the historical reliability of the NT out and every ancient work follows directly behind it.


2 -- EXAMINING THE EARLY FOLLOWERS

Let us examine what the early followers went through during their lives.

According to Matthew 28:8-10, they claimed to have seen and touched a resurrected Christ. For this belief, John 15:19 reads that the world "hates" the disciples. 1Corinthians 4:11-13 reads that the disciples went "hungry and thirsty", were "in rags", "brutally treated", "homeless", "cursed" at, "persecuted", "slandered", and are considered "the scum of the earth".

History agrees that they did indeed go without food, slept outside like animals, got intense beatings, were tortured, and humiliated in the public eye. The majority of early Christians ultimately died for that which they claimed to have seen and touched.

Let me be careful with my words, though... Understand that I am not moving towards a "what the disciples went through is evidence for the existence of the Christian God", though I believe it is possible. I am far from that sort of reasoning. Rather, I am using a part of that argument to prove, no matter whether God exists or doesn't exist, the disciples had every reason to reliably preserve what was going on at the time.

But I will not stop at this point. Let's throw in another ingredient... people could easily cross-examine what the disciples were spreading.

1. Pauls first missionary journey occured from AD 46-48. This is merely 15 or so years after Christ's death.

2. 1Corinthians 15:3-5 is an early Christian saying which obviously was created in a summarized fashion for the sole purpose of easy memorization to help in spreading the Word. [2] We can get a pretty good origination date for this creed.

2.1. Christ was crucified around AD 30.
2.2. Paul became a Christian in AD 33.
2.3. 3 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem to stay with Peter. [3]

Paul must have received the creed from Christians in Damascus or from Peter and James during his stay in Jerusalem.

William Lane Craig (the real William Craig), research professor at Talbot School of Theology, writes,

"If Paul had not already received this saying from Christians in Damascus (which I think is probably, as he spent three years there), then he must have received it during this visit to Jerusalem. For Paul spent to weeks with Peter and spoke with James, both of whom claimed to have seen jesus alive from the dead; therefore, in the words of the great Cambridge New Testament scholar CH Dodd, "We may presume that they did not spend all their time talking about the weather." The facts about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection must have been the center of their discussion... It is interesting that the two individuals mentioned by Paul in his list of witnesses to the resurrection appearances (1Corinthians 15:5-8) are Peter and James." [9]

That leads me to date the creed incredibly early. As late as AD 36. A mere 6 years after Christ's resurrection!

There are a few other evidences adding to my arsenal, but these 2 are, I believe, indisputable. They prove that the message of Christ's life, death, and resurrection was being spread very early... immediately after Christ's death, pretty much.

So, I have two questions: (1) Why would the early followers want to lie about the history surrounding their belief, considering the events of their life? And (2) How can the early followers have gotten away with lying about the history surrounding their belief?

3 -- THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY

Let us assume the authors of the NT are lying. If they were lying, then they are horrible liars, because they lied about the wrong things:

(a) They preached the existence of a God who died the worst of deaths. They preached that this God was spat upon, humiliated, lost his ability to control his body, suffered greatly, and had an incredible loss of power. This completely contradicted what the populace expected in regards to the coming Christ.

Surely, the early followers of Christ would've recognized the whole population being turned off by such a God. Yet, they went through with their preachings anyway. They could've easily lied about Christ's crucifixion, if they were indeed these "great liars of history". Yet, they stuck to the truth. Why? The only answer is because they wanted to reliably preserve what had actually happened.

( A person telling a lie doesn't try to seriously convince people over and over again to check the truth for themselves. Here are some verses,

1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Acts 17:11 -- These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The disciples directly challenging people to verify claims and seek out the truth for themselves basically destroys the people's gullibility level and opens the disciples to getting embarassed and literally slammed if indeed they are lying.

Yet, the early followers didn't get slammed. Early Christianity didn't die out due to lies. Why? Because the early followers were telling the truth in regards to history. They knew they had no reason to lie.

3. The disciples using women as witnesses was a horrible thing to lie about, if indeed it were a lie.

During that period, Greek and Roman courts put women on the same level as slaves and children by not allowing them as witnesses in courts. The historian Josephus wrote that women were not accepted due to their "levity and temerity of their sex". Women were expected to speak to and through their husbands. They were not allowed to be witnesses to the rising of the moon as a sign of the beginning of festivals. According to the time, a woman's place was in the home.

Why would the disciples tell such an ignorant lie? Why say that women were witnesses to the Christ knowing that women weren't even trusted as witnesses in courts and other areas? The answer is no one would tell such a lie. It's worse than going to court with an inmate as your star witness. The fact that the disciples stayed true to this event is because they wanted to reliably preserve the history surrounding their belief.

4. Not only did the Christians welcome critique, they welcomed it in the type of environment where nothing would've escaped unnoticed. Neighbours would have to answer to other neighbours and members of the community if they became converts to the Christian faith. And seeing how radical the Christian message was, they of course would've not only checked up on it, but they would've been forced to.

The Pharisees examined Jesus in regards to little things like washing hands and picking grain. Jesus caused large crowds to gather. Just imagine how much skepticism would've surrounded the resurrection.


To sum up: I think it's more plausible that the early followers were being honest about the history at the time. If indeed they were lying, then those lies were horrible enough to have crushed Christianity before it even took its first step. Obviously, they used truth when writing the New Testament, rather than deceivement.


***CREDITS AND EXTRA COMMENTS***

[1] Know Why You Believe, p. 69
[2] Reasons to see it as a creed:
(a) Paul said he "received" the message
( The existence of the grammatically unnecessary "and" before each line
( c ) Chronological succession of one event after another summarized.
(d) All New Testamentscholars agree it is
[3] Galatians 1:18
[4] The Son Rises - The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, William Craig, p. 48


William Craig

This post has been edited by WilliamCraig: 29 October 2007 - 12:14 AM

[russ1]

I have absolutely no intention of debating the finer points of this, however using the NT to prove that a bloke called Jesus was around 2000 years ago has some validity and that he spawned a lot of followers again seems about right. To then extrapolate this to showing the existence of a particular christian God, a supreme all seeing all powerful being is akin to using the writings of Bram Stoker to prove the existence of vampires. Book exists, many of the events and characters existed in history ergo vampires exist. It's bloody rubbish I'm afraid and the use of the NT to prove the existence of God is no better.

Why anyone can think that their God is any more viable than anyone else's is beyond me, but it is an incontrovertable fact that this belief is the reason for much of the wars pain and suffering of the world and the world in my opinion would be a better place without the whole God thing. If I had to choose a religion - which fortunately I don't I'd probably go for Buddism which at least lets you take it a seriously as you wish to and doesn't seem to seek to blow up or otherwise annililate anyone who believes in a different God.

[roland13]

without commenting on your NT authenticity and interpretation, as its far from my area of expertise, all i can say WG is that there is a hell of a lot of supposition and argument from personal incredulity in there (specifically most of your bold comment in part3),

[DaveP]

Is there anything in the NT about the Christian fella that jumped out the plane and his parachute didn't work. He pulled the emergency cord and that didn't work. He prayed the normal Christian way, crossig himself etc etc but still nothing happened. Then he had an idea! He prayed to Allah, then a big black hand came down and caught him and gently placed him on the ground. He said, "Thank Christ for that!", then a big black foot came down and crushed him!

[Tim13]

Since someone has declared himself the winner in the 'is there a god debate" and has deemed this god to be the Hebrew or christian god even though there are many religions and cultures who recognize entirely different gods and has now moved on to proving that the new testament is true word of god which will then prove that Jesus is the son of this god, I'm going to guess this debate will end up with everybody being proven to be a christian at some point.

Let's remove all the dissertations, circular logic, psuedoscience and other hyperbole for a minute and ask ourselves "just what is christianity"?

Stripped to its most basic form couldn't christianity be best described as the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept his as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman who was created from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

I'm thinking perhaps fiction can be written on scrolls too.

This post has been edited by Tim13: 29 October 2007 - 05:22 PM

[WilliamCraig]

I was sort of holding my breath while reading some of these responses. Sometimes I meet people (like nomis) who likes discussing issues at a respectable, non-ad hominem level, though usually I meet people like those at the Infidels website. It's nice to see that I've found a forum not only where I can relate with the other posters, but also where there exists particularly nice, truth seeking individuals.

Well, Tim13, I see you liked my post. Let me note a few things:

1. I don't consider myself a winner in the "Is there a God debate". I enjoy debating in order to progress my (and others) ideas and thoughts. That being said, everyone's a winner. I do believe the theistic hypothesis came out on top, however that is just my ultimately irrelevant opinion.

2. I'm not a Christian and am also not a religious person. At best, I'm a skeptic who believes that the Christians are much closer to the truth than the other major religions. This however doesn't mean that I have a personal relationship with Christ or anything close to that.

Back on topic, I am not going through a "Bible is historically true, therefore Jesus is the son of God". That is logically fallacious reasoning that I don't enjoy. You'll have to wait to see the surprise.

Quote

Stripped to its most basic form couldn't christianity be best described as the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept his as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman who was created from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

Though funny, this is a strawman assessment of Christianity. Christianity is basically the religion in which believers believe that God manifested his spirit in Jesus, who rose from the dead in fulfillment of OT prophecy. Not only do Christians believe this, but they believe they can enter into a personal relationship with the Christ.

You don't have to be a Christian in order to believe the New Testament is historically reliable. I know atheists who believe it is historically reliable. I wouldn't consider myself a Christian and I believe it is historically reliable.


Russ1, as I told Tim, I'm not using this to prove God. I am just wanting to establish that the New Testament is historically reliable. Nothing less, nothing more, thus far.

Hey, Roland13. You said I have some argumentum ad ignorantium reasoning in my post, but I don't see where. Someone commits argumentum ad ignorantium when they believe something is false or true due to a lack of evidence. I'm far from that.

You say that I suppose a lot in my 3rd section, but isn't it obvious that the disciples were preaching that their God died by crucifixion, used women as witnesses, and welcomed critique? That is my 3. What exactly do you disagree with out of those 3?

This post has been edited by WilliamCraig: 29 October 2007 - 10:37 PM

[Tim13]

"Well, Tim13, I see you liked my post. Let me note a few things:"

While I'll admit to reading your posts, I can't say they were enjoyable. In fact, I find internet debates where several people state and restate the same arguments over and over in slightly different terminology until someone either gets sick of typing or goes away mad annoying. My preference is to say my piece and go away.

What is my opinion of the historical accuracy of the New Testament?
Since the two go hand in hand, I'll start with the Old Testament.
I view the O.T. as the myths, legends and folklore of the Hebrew people. The N.T. is the handbook of an attempt (a very successful one) to build a new religion by capitalizing on the legends and "propecies" mentioned in the O.T. and Jewish scriptures. While it does contain some historic accuracy in that there is evidence that some of the places and people really existed, the events portrayed are either totally fictional or their interpretations are slanted toward the formation of the new religion we know today as Christianity.

The New testament is basically a novel with a historical setting.

This will be my last statement on this topic and a thousand word essay will do nothing to change my opinion but I'm sure someone else will be along to debate you shortly.

This post has been edited by Tim13: 30 October 2007 - 12:58 PM

[rkzenrage]

The only two documented sources of documentation that back the very existence for Jesus are severely contested, one is not accepted by any credible academic source and has been shown to be a forgery.

What does this have to do with being disabled?

[WilliamCraig]

rkzenrage, the description for this section reads, "A meeting place for everyone to chat about anything which doesn't fit into any of the categories below. Life, Food, TV, anything goes in here. Any topics related to Spinal Injuries posted in here will be moved to the appropriate forum". I think I'm keeping in line with the section description.

Two? What two are you talking about? I listed about 5,000 particulars that are in existence. The majority of NT scholars (most of them non-Christian) recognize that the NT contains more manuscript evidence than any other historical work. Not only that, but, as I've shown, the NT manuscript evidence dates closer to the events recorded than any other historical work as I showed in my opening post.

Tim13,

Seeing that you part with the view I hold, I am not surprised that you don't find my posts enjoyable. If I were you, I wouldn't either. I have debated issues ranging from various subjects since I was very young and have learned A LOT from the debates. That is why debates at TheologyWeb and Infidels are held... not to argue, but for both sides to learn. You are speaking of "debate" as if it is arguing, though, which is a million miles away from anything I've posted, thus far.

Though, my posting style may ring argumentative to a select few, I am not an argumentative person at all. If you could read my history of discussions, you would see that I'm very open-minded and hold beliefs that are constantly evolving. The biggest example comes in the fact that I actually used to be a conservative Christian who held young earth beliefs. This was before I began my journey for truth. Because of debates with experts and lay opponents, I am now no longer a young earther and shouldn't even be considered an actual Christian.

I admittedly don't know much of the Old Testament and so can't speak on it. The NT is definitely my speciality. I like how you summed up what the NT is. For some reason, though, you say that the events portrayed are either totally fictional or their interpretations are slanted. Now, some books in the NT do contain fictional material, for example the Book of Revelations, but this doesn't shine the light away from the NT being historically true. Indeed, it is possible for the NT to contain a handful of fictional references, yet still be historically true.

What interpretations are you speaking about? I agree that it is possible for Paul to place some of his opinions in his writings, however the majority of his writings are in regards to Christian behavior and rules... nothing close to mentioning historical events like the crucifixion.


Later, guys.

William Craig

[john S.]

WilliamCraig, on Oct 30 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

rkzenrage, the description for this section reads, "A meeting place for everyone to chat about anything which doesn't fit into any of the categories below. Life, Food, TV, anything goes in here. Any topics related to Spinal Injuries posted in here will be moved to the appropriate forum". I think I'm keeping in line with the section description.

Two? What two are you talking about? I listed about 5,000 particulars that are in existence. The majority of NT scholars (most of them non-Christian) recognize that the NT contains more manuscript evidence than any other historical work. Not only that, but, as I've shown, the NT manuscript evidence dates closer to the events recorded than any other historical work as I showed in my opening post.

Tim13,

Seeing that you part with the view I hold, I am not surprised that you don't find my posts enjoyable. If I were you, I wouldn't either. I have debated issues ranging from various subjects since I was very young and have learned A LOT from the debates. That is why debates at TheologyWeb and Infidels are held... not to argue, but for both sides to learn. You are speaking of "debate" as if it is arguing, though, which is a million miles away from anything I've posted, thus far.

Though, my posting style may ring argumentative to a select few, I am not an argumentative person at all. If you could read my history of discussions, you would see that I'm very open-minded and hold beliefs that are constantly evolving. The biggest example comes in the fact that I actually used to be a conservative Christian who held young earth beliefs. This was before I began my journey for truth. Because of debates with experts and lay opponents, I am now no longer a young earther and shouldn't even be considered an actual Christian.

I admittedly don't know much of the Old Testament and so can't speak on it. The NT is definitely my speciality. I like how you summed up what the NT is. For some reason, though, you say that the events portrayed are either totally fictional or their interpretations are slanted. Now, some books in the NT do contain fictional material, for example the Book of Revelations, but this doesn't shine the light away from the NT being historically true. Indeed, it is possible for the NT to contain a handful of fictional references, yet still be historically true.

What interpretations are you speaking about? I agree that it is possible for Paul to place some of his opinions in his writings, however the majority of his writings are in regards to Christian behavior and rules... nothing close to mentioning historical events like the crucifixion.


Later, guys.

William Craig

Aren't all of you writing in to claim victory for your personal beliefs?
I find no written proof of Christianity and I'm always taken aback by those that insist that they can prove Jesus did this and that. Many Christians are so obsessed with proving the biblical writings that the message is lost. The process of arguing the supremacy of Jesus and the NT is a task best taken up by people who have a devout love of money and no real love for there fellow man. If you have accepted Jesus as Christ and your savior then there is no argument to be made. It is a process of faith and nothing more. If you need proof, you are in the wrong of your own belief. I call these the Christmas Christians. Will you believe in God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost if you get the right present? I can tell you all a story about my savior and the message of love he shares with me. I'll listen to your obscure and innocuous rants about the Gods you worship, but I promise you peace and love in your life if you simply accept the gift that God holds for you. all you need to do is believe in his message and share it with those around you. If you need more proof then I cannot assist you. The path to heaven is narrow with many stones to stumble on and many lost souls begging you to follow them away from the path. When you fall, pray. Return to the path and join us on our journey to heaven.
I cannot judge you but I can judge myself. Without proof of a single word that Christ said, I will tell you that you have left the path if you tell me about some proof you have for Christians to rally around. If you talk of martyrdom and attempt to arouse hatred in my soul, you have strayed my brother. You are lost and you are wrong. The true Christ gave no message with a date on it. Christ was devine and the only proof of his words are in your soul and in mine.
Often I'm taken aback by the beauty and simplicity of his message to us. How do you pray and forget to love thy brother? How do you eat while watching children starve? Believing in the word of Christ without proof is easy! Showing the love of Christ is not an easy path. It doesn't matter when in time you performed this journey toward heaven. It is not any easier today than it was when Christ walked the Earth.

john

[WilliamCraig]

John S,

Quote

Aren't all of you writing in to claim victory for your personal beliefs?

Not at all. In fact, I wouldn't even consider myself as a Christian. Indeed, you don't have to be a Christian in order to regard the New Testament as historically reliable... the majority of New Testament critics (by no means "Christians") would agree that a large portion of it is historically reliable.

After studying some of the major religions out there, I admit that Christianity is indeed the closest one to the truth. It also is the most attractive. I haven't yet jumped to belief, though.

Quote

If you have accepted Jesus as Christ and your savior then there is no argument to be made. It is a process of faith and nothing more.

I don't understand why people have a bad misunderstanding of faith. Faith is placing hope in that which you reason to be true.

Therefore, scientists have faith, philosophers have faith, and so do you.

Quote

I find no written proof of Christianity

This thread isn't about bringing "written proof of Christianity" to the table. Nor is this thread aiming to prove the existence of God. Rather, it's more of a study-related thread in order to evaluate whether or not the New Testament is historically reliable. Nothing less, nothing more.

Quote

if you tell me about some proof you have for Christians to rally around

If you have that serious of a lack of knowledge in regards to the current debate over Christian proof, then you need to do some more open-minded study.

Not much was in your post, though... a lot of personal attacks and emotional rants.

William Craig

[Cheshire]

"...that christianity is the closest to the truth."

Why just compare them in competition? Have you ever looked at the number of parallels between the different mythologies?

[john S.]

WilliamCraig, on Nov 23 2007, 09:05 PM, said:

John S,

Quote

Aren't all of you writing in to claim victory for your personal beliefs?

Not at all. In fact, I wouldn't even consider myself as a Christian. Indeed, you don't have to be a Christian in order to regard the New Testament as historically reliable... the majority of New Testament critics (by no means "Christians") would agree that a large portion of it is historically reliable.

After studying some of the major religions out there, I admit that Christianity is indeed the closest one to the truth. It also is the most attractive. I haven't yet jumped to belief, though.

Quote

If you have accepted Jesus as Christ and your savior then there is no argument to be made. It is a process of faith and nothing more.

I don't understand why people have a bad misunderstanding of faith. Faith is placing hope in that which you reason to be true.

Therefore, scientists have faith, philosophers have faith, and so do you.

Quote

I find no written proof of Christianity

Iuytre`.0

This thread isn't about bringing "written proof of Christianity" to the table. Nor is this thread aiming to prove the existence of God. Rather, it's more of a study-related thread in order to evaluate whether or not the New Testament is historically reliable. Nothing less, nothing more.

Quote

if you tell me about some proof you have for Christians to rally around

If you have that serious of a lack of knowledge in regards to the current debate over Christian proof, then you need to do some more open-minded study.

Not much was in your post, though... a lot of personal attacks and emotional rants.

William Craig

It is easier to rule out the existence of Alexander the great when a part of your argument is based on volume of written work and , if you do know history, then you know the library at Alexandria was destroyed just before Christ was born. much of your historical points are based on the premise that "it was written more often, equals truthfulness"
I find your reasoning to be wanting. By your own reasoning, the New Testament may have been a simple writing exercise for scribes to pass in order to work. You did no research into any other possibilities.
The fact that the early Christians burned almost all texts that weren't approved by the church is left out of your historical reasoning is just one more gapping hole.
faith is "belief that is not based on proof:"
You seem to have the idea that many Christians exist. How many of these people do you meet ? If I have met a handful in my life I'm probably exagerating.
I'll have to return to this because I'm starting my evening meds. I apologise for leaving off suddenly.
best wishes to you all,
john

[edlee]

It is with great trepidation that I enter this thread, but since it held my interest enough to read a portion of WCs post and the entirrty of the others, I thought I might try.

John had my complete concurance until he stated how few christians he had met over his lifetime. Surely he must have been refering to TRUE christians, and that brings us , once again to definitions. I, living in the USA, am surrounded by people who claim to be christians. Who am I to call them liars?

For me, tho, I have no doubt about the thousands of fragments of scrolls that have been found being valuable in a historical sense. Whether they are individually historically accurate is where I have a great deal of doubt.

From what is known( or assumed) of the middle east in the time frame under discussion here, it is hoped that we can agree that the literacy rate of that area and time was quite low. And by low I don't mean Appalacian (sp?) low, I'm talking about .1% or fewer who could write their name let alone read a text from a scroll.

One must, in this case, remember who it is that is composing these texts from which ALL the later texts would NEED to be copied/ translated. And, for that matter, who was doing the translating/transcribing.

The former, it is hoped, wrote down exactly what the composer (Peter, Paul, or whoever) actually said to them or , even better, was himself that person. In Paul, we have one of the educated class who was supposed to have written many letters.

I say supposed and hoped so often because I have no real reason to believe that those who originated the texts, creeds, prayers were any less selfserving than those in charge of deseminating information today. That they were less likely to bend the truth to serve their own ends than many of us are today.

I think I'll stop now, before I'm accused of more "strawman" tactics, whatever that is.
ed

[Kwag_Myers]

I haven't been in a forum yet where someone, sooner or later, asked for proof of God's existence. Then, when I provide some example of modern science agreeing with something written hundreds, or thousands of years ago, I get the same response – “that isn’t good enough to qualify as proof”.

In the NT, Jesus said that stones are capable of praising God (Luke 19:40). The Bible also states that all creation testifies of God’s existence. And anyone who truly wants proof needs only to learn how to use Google. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support much of the Bible as both a historical record and a work inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Bible also tells us not to debate these things, since we are to accept them by faith. What I can do is tell you what my experience has been. God has proven Himself to me, and many others, time and time again. The fact is, God doesn’t need me, or anyone else, to stand up for Him, He’s perfectly capable of providing His own proof. Why don’t you just ask Him to?

[Tim13]

Kwag_Myers, on Jan 14 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

He’s perfectly capable of providing His own proof. Why don’t you just ask Him to?

OK, how about we ask the great invisible sky pixie to heal all spinal cord injuries this afternoon?


...didn't think so.

[edlee]

I believe it to be a wonderful thing, Kwag, that you have found happiness in your faith.

I, also find it extremely inconsiderate of you to expect others to follow you, blindly, down your path, without question.

Your assertion that the bible tells us not to question, seems odd to me. Those who most often ask us to trust them are the ones we need watch the closest.

As for faith, my dictionary defines it as unquestioning belief. Why is it that the only ones asking for that are politcians, clerics, and unfaithful spouses. I refuse to give it to the first two but would rather not think about it for the third.

As for proof,,,, Sorry , but there is none that doesn't boil down to " what else could it be?" Google all you like, proof is in the eye of the beholder. Where you see proof of what you already believe, others, who don't believe as you, won't.

Please don't be angry with those of us who don't see things as you do. Faith should be a personal thing , as religion should be. If you want to share your faith with others, do it by example, not words. In other words,, don't talk it , live it!!!
ed

[nomis]

edlee, on Jan 15 2008, 10:55 AM, said:

...Please don't be angry with those of us who don't see things as you do. Faith should be a personal thing , as religion should be. If you want to share your faith with others, do it by example, not words. In other words,, don't talk it , live it!!!
ed

Now, you can't beat that for a statement.
Cheers edlee.

[Kwag_Myers]

Tim13, on Jan 14 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

OK, how about we ask the great invisible sky pixie to heal all spinal cord injuries this afternoon?


...didn't think so.

Sorry, we were talking about God, not Santa Claus. And I said, "Ask", not "Tell". With an attitude like that, it's no wonder you don't get an answer. If I were God, I'd ignore you too.

edlee, on Jan 14 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

I believe it to be a wonderful thing, Kwag, that you have found happiness in your faith.

I, also find it extremely inconsiderate of you to expect others to follow you, blindly, down your path, without question.

From what part of my post did you get that from? I'm simply pointing out what the book in question has to say about debating it's authenticity.

edlee, on Jan 14 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Your assertion that the bible tells us not to question, seems odd to me. Those who most often ask us to trust them are the ones we need watch the closest.

I never said anything of the sort. To the contrary, Jesus gave very clear instructions on how to ask questions of God. God Himself tells us to test His word to see if it isn't true.

The Bible tells us not to get into these types of debates. Here's an example of what I am referring to:

"Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These kinds of things are useless and a waste of time. If anyone is causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with that person." - Titus 3:9-10

Here's the way I see it: If you're going to buy a new car, would you completely ignore the information provided by the manufacturer about that car? Yet, here we have a thread about the New Testament and none of you want to hear what the New Testament actually has to say on the matter. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

edlee, on Jan 14 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

As for proof,,,, Sorry , but there is none that doesn't boil down to " what else could it be?" Google all you like, proof is in the eye of the beholder. Where you see proof of what you already believe, others, who don't believe as you, won't.

So you're saying this thread is a waste of time. Hmmm, wished I'd said that...Oh, wait. I did.

edlee, on Jan 14 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

Please don't be angry with those of us who don't see things as you do. Faith should be a personal thing , as religion should be. If you want to share your faith with others, do it by example, not words. In other words,, don't talk it , live it!!!
ed

I agree with you about the "live it" part. The only problem is that when I try and tell people what God has done for me, I get pretty much the same response as yours.

Okay, here's an example from my life: I had three different doctors tell me that I'd never walk again. Now, to their surprise, I am walking with very little assistance. You'll probably say something like, "Oh, they don't always get it right." Or some other reason why you don't think it's God. So, what good does my life's example do if you still don't accept it? Or is it that you want me to make it easier for you to ignore what God has done in my life? 'Cause that would indicate a person who has already made up their mind on the subject and only seeks to have others...how did you put it, "...follow you, blindly, down your path, without question." If you truly want proof, why is it that you don't accept any?

[Tim13]

Kwag_Myers, on Jan 16 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

OK, how about we ask the great invisible sky pixie to heal all spinal cord injuries this afternoon?


...didn't think so.

Sorry, we were talking about God, not Santa Claus. And I said, "Ask", not "Tell". With an attitude like that, it's no wonder you don't get an answer. If I were God, I'd ignore you too.

God, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, pretty much the same thing, isn't it? You were the one who suggested asking god to prove himself,

Quote

The fact is, God doesn’t need me, or anyone else, to stand up for Him, He’s perfectly capable of providing His own proof. Why don’t you just ask Him to?

next time you might do better to specify exactly what we should ask for.

[edlee]

Kwag,

I had hoped that what I had written would not offend you, but I obviously failed, from the sound of your post.

But, I will not stand silent to your "divine intervention" inference any more than for other's " try harder" inferences.

You think you are the only cripple who "believes" as much as you? You think you are more "worthy" than any other of us?

I don't care how pious you have been, there are a hundred others who have been more so, a hundred more "worthy", yet you are the one chosen. Why do you suppose that is? Oh,, I know, HE has some special purpose for you, right?

The bible, old testament ( which you like to quote) or new testament,, were all written by men.

You've been told that they were divinely inspired,,,,,, by other men.

Feel free to believe what you like, but offer me the same courtesy, if you don't mind...

ed

[longhaul]

Kwag just because there are places in the bible that exist does not make the characters in it real. I have read many books that are fiction with made up characters but take place in real towns. When something happens to you no mater what you do three things will happen 1. you get better 2. you stay the same 3. you get worse. if you pray and get better then you say that God did it if you get better and don't pray then who gets the credit ? and if you pray and get worse or stay the same who gets the credit ? There was a clinical trial where groups of patients who underwent heart surgery were divided into groups, one group was prayed for one was not the group that was prayed for actually did worse. So it goes.

[Gwest78]

true!

This post has been edited by Gwest78: 18 January 2008 - 12:28 AM

[Kwag_Myers]

edlee, on Jan 16 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

You think you are the only cripple who "believes" as much as you? You think you are more "worthy" than any other of us?

I don't care how pious you have been, there are a hundred others who have been more so, a hundred more "worthy", yet you are the one chosen. Why do you suppose that is? Oh,, I know, HE has some special purpose for you, right?

He blesses whom He chooses to bless. It's not up to me at all. And He has a special purpose for each of us, even you.

longhaul, on Jan 16 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Kwag just because there are places in the bible that exist does not make the characters in it real. I have read many books that are fiction with made up characters but take place in real towns.

So, Flavius Josephus was in on this New Testiment conspiracy? It's a good thing the Romans never found out about that. They would have fed him to the lions as well.

[longhaul]

[quote name='Kwag_Myers' date='Jan 17 2008, 05:17 PM' post='50145']
[quote name='edlee' post='50017' date='Jan 16 2008, 03:52 PM']

When someone gets to a point that reality and reason are no longer accessible to them they are considered mentally ill. You may have entered that realm there are sites to help people get off of "God" they're like AA it may be worth checking into.

This post has been edited by longhaul: 18 January 2008 - 08:12 AM

[edlee]

I've never thought of it in that respect, before, but there do seem to be parallels that could be drawn.

The comparison of faith and addiction could provide an entertaining and possibly enlightening thread, but,,, perhaps,,, not a particularly friendly one. Maybe better to leave it alone.
ed

[longhaul]

ed you said "The comparison of faith and addiction could provide an entertaining and possibly enlightening thread, but,,, perhaps,,, not a particularly friendly one. Maybe better to leave it alone.
ed" I was wheeling through the park one day and this young lady came up to me and said that if I would let her pray for me that I would be able to get up from my chair and walk usually I politely decline and go on but she was about the age of my grand daughter and I thought that after she prayed and I didn't get up and walk she might question the power of prayer. She prayed and laid hands on me and after she had finished she stepped back and said "Ok walk" I told her I can't walk because I have a SCI and my legs don't work. She couldn't accept that her prayer didn't work and blamed the failure on me. She was delusional she was mentally ill she went off still convinced that God was this all powerful being even though she had just witnessed it's failure. I can no longer just let it go, the world is threatened by religious people and the sane people have to speak up and say we are tired of the craziness. Peace

[dom]

whilst i applaud the various attempts at proving there is a god or disproving it i can't help thinking what both sides really think? what will happen when we die?are we going to live on a cloud strumming a harp all day? or are we going to be in an eternal fire,thinking we weren't that bad were we?
or are we going to die, be buried,a few years later become compost for growing weetabix?
why is it that people say-god punished them [tsunami etc] or god works in mysterious ways[when we have an sci]i think the 'opium of the masses' bodes pretty well,also with regards to morals and ethics i am confused- abortion is not allowed in the catholic faith,what,when a child is due to be born malformed? thou shalt not steal,thats ok for a rich westerner but for a child in africa without bread?sorry but there are tooooooooo many contradictions/confuscations/cultural differences/upbringings/poverty gaps/nature/nurture/individual makeup/unanswered questions/etc etc ad infinitum,i've only typed this in one minute and these are some of my thoughts spinning round in my head.

[nomis]

The variable historic accuracy of the New Testament is perpetuated in today’s followers.

An interesting thing about religion, any religion, Christian, Islam, etc, is that they make themselves unaccountable to rational thought. Now, maybe that is the symptom of some underlying fear, but rational argument, facts in their face, won’t change them. It’s the old “they have to change it for themselves”.

I was listening to a leading Protestant theologian the other day who said he didn’t believe in the resurrection, no heaven, no hell, when we die we die. Among theologian academics that is common talk. He said many church ministers agreed but when they preached to their congregation they reverted to the old simple line that was expected.

It’s the same with many scientists who accept the rational arguments but irrationally switch their beliefs when attending church on Sunday. We’re talking top brains, here. If religion is an addiction, it’s deathly powerful.

Point out my hypocrisies to me and I swear I’ll do my darnedest to correct them. I have respect only for honesty. (God, give me the courage to be rational.)

This post has been edited by nomis: 19 January 2008 - 12:17 AM

[longhaul]

We are so close to sliding into chaos, the Muslims hate the Christians the Jews hate the Muslims Pakistan hates India India hates China Russia hates China China hates Japan N. Korea hates everyone and Pakistan is on the verge of collapse and if one of those crazy fundamentalists gets a nuclear bomb and sets it off were done. These religions have been around for thousands of years fighting and killing each other and we have advanced to where we are in spite of them. We don't have time to wait for them to change for themselves I'm not sure they can or will do it on their own There are some of these "top brains" who are speaking out and calling for reason and I try to help when I can . If the middle man ie the pope, imam, ayatollah etc. were removed and people had to read the book with no interpretations no middle man to God no one telling them what they thought it says I don't think we would be in this mess. Maybe addiction is the wrong word how about mental masturbation.