Arriving at beliefs

[Jeremy E Walker]

You cant compare determing the credibility of events from 2000 years ago vs 45 years ago.

The moon landing was broadcast on live tv and involved numerous scientists some of which are still living and have been interviewed countless times.

Anything to do with jesus, was written about by anonymous authors decades after jesus died and likely after most potential witnesses were dead. The gospels themselves, dont claim to be first hand accounts of the events but are hearsay. When 40-50 years went past 2000 years ago it was much easier to simply fabricate stories, with little to no means to determine their true credibility.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Paul here is saying: "Look here guys, if you do not believe me, just ask the people that saw Him, yea that's right, the people that are still alive who saw Him. Just ask them if you do not believe me."

He appealed to people who were still living who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead.

Luke here mentions that many had sat down to write accounts about Jesus. That these people were eyewitnesses.

So what is the problem?

 

[lesliedellow]

Not too many contemporary Jews, Romans, or other gentiles agreed that any of the New Testament occurred as written by the founders of the religion i.e. they who wrote the story.

That is bacause they wrote nothing at all on the subject, and there is no reason why they should have done.

In any case, had they done so, and had they confirmed the New Testament account, that would automatically qualify them as "biased" in the eyes of the new atheists. Either that, or, as with Tacitus, they would have been dismissed as third hand reports.

And don't tell me that the adjective "new" is surplus to requirements. It differentiates the atheists that were born without a brain from the ones which were born with one.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That is bacause they wrote nothing at all on the subject, and there is no reason why they should have done.

In any case, had they done so, and had they confirmed the New Testament account, that would automatically qualify them as "biased". Either that, or, as with Tacitus, they would have been dismissed as third hand reports.

As George Macdonald once said:

To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.

 

[Gladius]

That is bacause they wrote nothing at all on the subject, and there is no reason why they should have done.

No reason to record zombies rising from the grave and walking thoughout Jerusalem (Matthew 27)? No reason to record raising a 4 day old corpse from the dead (John 11)? No reason to record feeding 5,000 people from 5 loaves and 2 fish (Matthew 14)?

Contemporary 1st century Roman and Jewish historians and other writers recorded a great deal less impressive activities of the Jews and a great many other messiahs, prophets and preachers.

Can't see why they wouldn't include men walking on water or Roman centurions confirming that they'd seen the Son of God being crucified followed by earthquakes.

If your God returns to earth a second time, do you think any non-Christians would have any reason to report/record the apparent supernatural events which will proceed and accompany him?

Please...

 

[Gladius]

Lol!! I think I read the title and thought you were asking how we arrived at our beliefs.

I fail at reading comprehension! lol

No probs, you can still have a go at the moon landing question though.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ew! Gross! LOL

But I agree with you. If the government couldn't hide a private sex affair that just one, two, or three people knew about, there's NO WAY they could hide a fake moon landing.

And BTW, wouldn't an extension of this thought process also mean that there probably WASN'T an elaborate hoax for the resurrection of Christ, or when Moses receiving the commandments on Sinai in front of hundreds of thousands? Think of all the eye witnesses!

Mohammed "spoke" to an Angel in private. Budhha allegedly meditated by himself. Joe Smith located, dug up tablets on his own, and spoke to an Angel on his own.

Notice that of all the major religions, only Judaism & Christianity had their miracles witnessed by multitudes & multitudes of people!

Are you under the impression that because a story claims to have had all sorts of eyewitnesses present...then there must've been eyewitnesses present?

 

[bhsmte]

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Paul here is saying: "Look here guys, if you do not believe me, just ask the people that saw Him, yea that's right, the people that are still alive who saw Him. Just ask them if you do not believe me."

He appealed to people who were still living who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead.

Luke here mentions that many had sat down to write accounts about Jesus. That these people were eyewitnesses.

So what is the problem?

Who wrote Luke?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who wrote Luke?

bhsmte,

Determining that issue might depend on how much weight you are willing to give to the internal evidence of the Bible (such as in the book of Acts), as opposed to simply attempting to make a determination on authorship based on scant external evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte,

Determining that issue might depend on how much weight you are willing to give to the internal evidence of the Bible (such as in the book of Acts), as opposed to simply attempting to make a determination on authorship based on scant external evidence.

I would rely (most heavily) on the work of NT scholars who forget more about this stuff than anyone on these boards.

Some of those NT scholars do in fact put more weight into certain evidence's, likely depending on their personal bias. Since the vast majority of these people are Christians, there is indeed some bias involved. But, if you read enough of the works, you can get an idea, who is basing their opinion on objectivity and who is grabbing onto whatever evidence they can to satisfy their bias.

The other issue in what you mention, relying on other parts of the bible to substantiate other parts, is using circular logic and is only as strong as the credibility of what you are basing it on.

 

[Feldon]

I'm sure one of the reasons why there weren't more written eye witness accounts of Jesus was due to the lack of literacy. Duh! (And I also imagine that the culture back then was much more accepting & reliant on oral tradition.)

What IS so shocking is the lack of "written testimony" from eye witnesses who say Christ DID NOT rise from the dead. NOBODY wrote, "I was there that day and nothing happened!" LOL

Instead, you have multiple written accounts from multiple eye witnesses that something AMAZING happened.

That's worth noting too!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Instead, you have multiple written accounts from multiple eye witnesses that something AMAZING happened.

Which written accounts do you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No reason to record zombies rising from the grave and walking thoughout Jerusalem (Matthew 27)? No reason to record raising a 4 day old corpse from the dead (John 11)? No reason to record feeding 5,000 people from 5 loaves and 2 fish (Matthew 14)?

Contemporary 1st century Roman and Jewish historians and other writers recorded a great deal less impressive activities of the Jews and a great many other messiahs, prophets and preachers.

Can't see why they wouldn't include men walking on water or Roman centurions confirming that they'd seen the Son of God being crucified followed by earthquakes.

If your God returns to earth a second time, do you think any non-Christians would have any reason to report/record the apparent supernatural events which will proceed and accompany him?

Please...

If you honestly believe that the historians contemporaneous with the aforementioned events would have been breaking their neck to devote their time to giving accounts about what some deluded and superstitious followers of a Galilean carpenter/wannabe Jewish liberator rabble rouser had claimed to have seen, then I have some ocean-front property in Kansas I will sell you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

bhsmte

I would rely (most heavily) on the work of NT scholars who forget more about this stuff than anyone on these boards.

Some of those NT scholars do in fact put more weight into certain evidence's, likely depending on their personal bias. Since the vast majority of these people are Christians, there is indeed some bias involved. But, if you read enough of the works, you can get an idea, who is basing their opinion on objectivity and who is grabbing onto whatever evidence they can to satisfy their bias.

Actually, I agree with you; we do have to be careful with how we evaluate the 'evidences,' especially when using the work of scholars who may themselves be prone to certain biases already in favor of their position. In line with the first post I made in this specific forum, I implied (through some sarcasm), that it is important to study these things in an academic fashion, which for me means reading at least several professional viewpoints, both pro and con.

The main thing I was attempting to communicate in my previous response to you is that I know some people who, when trying to discern who the author of Luke was, for instance, would only look at summary scholarship that focused only on external evidences/viewpoints.

The other issue in what you mention, relying on other parts of the bible to substantiate other parts, is using circular logic and is only as strong as the credibility of what you are basing it on.

Actually, I don't think I said this, but if you understood it that way, my apology; what I meant to say was that we might want to additionally take into consideration such things as internal evidence that might also give us some additional evidence or clues in making a determination. Adding this to our existing approach might help in determining some of these kinds of things, although I know that some issues are simply unanswerable no matter how much of the existing evidence we might try to collect and evaluate, or despite the method(s) we use to reach a conclusion.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a 'who wrote Luke' debate. My focus here is simply to discuss what would constitute the best 'research method' by which to conduct an investigation of this 'kind' of thing. In reality, I'm not sure we can know who wrote 'Luke,' although some of the evidence seems to me to point in the direction of saying that the author was--at the least--someone from Paul's entourage.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Peace

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte

Actually, I agree with you; we do have to be careful with how we evaluate the 'evidences,' especially when using the work of scholars who may themselves be prone to certain biases already in favor of their position. In line with the first post I made in this specific forum, I implied (through some sarcasm), that it is important to study these things in an academic fashion, which for me means reading at least several professional viewpoints, both pro and con.

The main thing I was attempting to communicate in my previous response to you is that I know some people who, when trying to discern who the author of Luke was, for instance, would only look at summary scholarship that focused only on external evidences/viewpoints.

Actually, I don't think I said this, but if you understood it that way, my apology; what I meant to say was that we might want to additionally take into consideration such things as internal evidence that might also give us some additional evidence or clues in making a determination. Adding this to our existing approach might help in determining some of these kinds of things, although I know that some issues are simply unanswerable no matter how much of the existing evidence we might try to collect and evaluate, or despite the method(s) we use to reach a conclusion.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a 'who wrote Luke' debate. My focus here is simply to discuss what would constitute the best 'research method' by which to conduct an investigation of this 'kind' of thing. In reality, I'm not sure we can know who wrote 'Luke,' although some of the evidence seems to me to point in the direction of saying that the author was--at the least--someone from Paul's entourage.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Peace

I can't disagree with most of what you say.

IMO, a true objective critical analysis of the NT specifically, is a more cumbersome task than legit historians doing critical analysis of other works in the past.

Why? Well, we are dealing with something, that would be considered one of the most important question in the world to many, the legitimacy of certain religious claims. When you add in the fact, that the vast majority of NT historians and scholars are Christian to begin with, it doesn't exactly set the stage for the most objective environment one would seek. Sure, there is academia and peer reviewed material, but when the core basis of belief with most doing the work can be biased going into it, it can skew the work and conclusions a certain way. Not unlike, relying on scientists hired by the tobacco companies to render an opinion on the harmful effects of smoking.

With all that said, reading the works of a variety of well credentialed authorities, is the best method and that would include; conservative, moderate and liberal view points. Clearly, they disagree on many fronts, but if you dig in and read the reasoning each uses to come to their conclusions (what evidence do they rely heavily on, what evidence do they dismiss), it can give one a view of potential bias in one's work.

Then of course, you have the bias of the person investigating the material to begin with and that is another issue.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

bhsmte

I can't disagree with most of what you say.

IMO, a true objective critical analysis of the NT specifically, is a more cumbersome task than legit historians doing critical analysis of other works in the past.

You're definitely right about that! Such an attempt at objectivity would prove to be a more cumbersome task, one which should reflect an interdisciplinary investigation, and not just one from a few biased historians.

Why? Well, we are dealing with something, that would be considered one of the most important question in the world to many, the legitimacy of certain religious claims. When you add in the fact, that the vast majority of NT historians and scholars are Christian to begin with, it doesn't exactly set the stage for the most objective environment one would seek. Sure, there is academia and peer reviewed material, but when the core basis of belief with most doing the work can be biased going into it, it can skew the work and conclusions a certain way. Not unlike, relying on scientists hired by the tobacco companies to render an opinion on the harmful effects of smoking.

With all that said, reading the works of a variety of well credentialed authorities, is the best method and that would include; conservative, moderate and liberal view points. Clearly, they disagree on many fronts, but if you dig in and read the reasoning each uses to come to their conclusions (what evidence do they rely heavily on, what evidence do they dismiss), it can give one a view of potential bias in one's work.

Then of course, you have the bias of the person investigating the material to begin with and that is another issue.

Yes, I agree again with you, bshmte; I couldn't have said it better myself. And it is this very point you make which we should all keep in mind in attempting to ascertain answers to various inquiries about the nature of religion, bible, etc. It is also why I try to read a wide swath of viewpoints when studying. Unfortunately, not everyone has had the opportunity to go to college and learn some of the principles of research, so they won't see why this is important.

So, I guess that, despite the fact that you and I hold different conclusions 'about' Christianity or the Bible, we do agree on the general approach in how to collect information, deliberate and evaluate the facts and theories we find, as well as in how to attempt to draw objective conclusions.

Peace

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I can't disagree with most of what you say.

IMO, a true objective critical analysis of the NT specifically, is a more cumbersome task than legit historians doing critical analysis of other works in the past.

Why? Well, we are dealing with something, that would be considered one of the most important question in the world to many, the legitimacy of certain religious claims. When you add in the fact, that the vast majority of NT historians and scholars are Christian to begin with, it doesn't exactly set the stage for the most objective environment one would seek.

This might be true. But you should not let this put you off if you want to know the truth. The real question you should be asking yourself first and foremost is not: are they being objective, but am I being as objective as I can?

This is a personal issue and calls for introspection and reflection. C.S. Lewis once remarked that it was not by a deductive argument that he became a Christian, but rather, after having meditated and reflected on his experiences as a human being. These issues cut to the heart of all that you hold dear, love, and cherish and want. It cuts to the heart of all that you hate. It cuts to the heart of all that you stand for and stand against.

I have spoken with people who would have had me believe that they would just abandon their entire way of life and become a Bible Believing Christian if only I could prove to them Jesus was who He said He was.

But if said people really wanted to be bible believing Christians, they would not ask me to do what they know is impossible before becoming what they really wanted to be.

Christ is portrayed as a person who lived a certain way. Those who follow Him are portrayed as those who are to live as He lived.

If a person is willing to conform their life to His, then they will have all the proof they need to be justified in doing just that.

If a person is unwilling, then no proof will persuade them. There will always be an excuse as to why they cannot believe.

So examine yourself first and foremost before you spend your time trying to figure out who is and who is not being objective.

 

[Gladius]

If you honestly believe that the historians contemporaneous with the aforementioned events would have been breaking their neck to devote their time to giving accounts about what some deluded and superstitious followers of a Galilean carpenter/wannabe Jewish liberator rabble rouser had claimed to have seen, then I have some ocean-front property in Kansas I will sell you.

Can't argue with you there.

 

[bhsmte]

This might be true. But you should not let this put you off if you want to know the truth. The real question you should be asking yourself first and foremost is not: are they being objective, but am I being as objective as I can?

This is a personal issue and calls for introspection and reflection. C.S. Lewis once remarked that it was not by a deductive argument that he became a Christian, but rather, after having meditated and reflected on his experiences as a human being. These issues cut to the heart of all that you hold dear, love, and cherish and want. It cuts to the heart of all that you hate. It cuts to the heart of all that you stand for and stand against.

I have spoken with people who would have had me believe that they would just abandon their entire way of life and become a Bible Believing Christian if only I could prove to them Jesus was who He said He was.

But if said people really wanted to be bible believing Christians, they would not ask me to do what they know is impossible before becoming what they really wanted to be.

Christ is portrayed as a person who lived a certain way. Those who follow Him are portrayed as those who are to live as He lived.

If a person is willing to conform their life to His, then they will have all the proof they need to be justified in doing just that.

If a person is unwilling, then no proof will persuade them. There will always be an excuse as to why they cannot believe.

So examine yourself first and foremost before you spend your time trying to figure out who is and who is not being objective.

I'm way ahead of you.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm way ahead of you.

 

[bhsmte]

For clarification, you likely took my response as something that it wasn't.

I am way ahead of you (in regards to your response) in regards to making it a priority to myself, to find the truth and to be as objective as I can in my view point. Doing the same, has arrived me to where I am today.