I want to believe in evolution

[MikeH]

It's a book made over a few hundred years, which went through multiple different translations, and several editorial revision processes in which a lot of other contemporary gospels which also have equivalent historical basis were rejected because they didn't fit with the editorial direction the editors wished to take. And a book designed primarily to convince the reader of the existence of the god they favoured and the story of Jesus who they followed.

It also contains multiple recordings of some events, which are sometimes contradictory.

To choose to have faith in that book, is fine, but to look at historically and suggest that there aren't serious reasons to take a lot of what it says with a pinch of salt - and to require less biased confirmation - seems troublesome.

[MikeH]

It also records a lot of stories which we see echoed in other mythologies. The living - dying - resurrection story is particularly common, although never as important to the central mythology.

And, of course, the other major world religions also have equally as important and historically valid texts.

[Jon Miller]

It's a book made over a few hundred years,

Except it wasn't made over a few hundred years. The longest reasonable time (not the conservative Christian thought) is under 100 years.

which went through multiple different translations, and several editorial revision processes in which a lot of other contemporary gospels which also have equivalent historical basis were rejected because they didn't fit with the editorial direction the editors wished to take.

Once more, wrong. And on all 3 counts.

The gospels which are in the Bible today are the same ones which were quoted by Christians of ~100 AD as being valid.

Yes, there were other gospels, many of which we have evidence for being created much later. Not only are they only seen much later, but they are in disagreement with the earliest Christians on record (including people who knew the Apostles).

And a book designed primarily to convince the reader of the existence of the god they favoured and the story of Jesus who they followed.

Every story has a point of view, yes.

It also contains multiple recordings of some events, which are sometimes contradictory.

This is getting into the 'are the stories describing what really happened' bit, but this is a good thing. If the recordings are exactly the same then this would point to only a single source or collision. The fact that there are some small differences points to the gospels being stories from different sources of the same events. This actually gives support to the events being accurate.

Yes, this isn't at all what Bible literalists would agree with. They are wrong.

To choose to have faith in that book, is fine, but to look at historically and suggest that there aren't serious reasons to take a lot of what it says with a pinch of salt - and to require less biased confirmation - seems troublesome.

To look at it historically and say it is a legend or a myth is to be hypocritical at best.

To choose to think that there is not enough support to believe that the miracles actually happened is fine. As I said, the body could be stolen, people in a traumatic experience could be mistaken, etc.

JM

[kentonio]

x-Post

You aren't being very honest Kentonio.

If you don't believe in Christ or the Bible, that is your business. But as far as 'historicity', the NT has a lot of support for it. More than many stories which are understood to be fact.

As Mike has pointed out, the bible is a collection of lots of stories some of which may be based on real events, some of which are carry-overs from older myths, and much of which is allegorical. The idea that the bible as a single volume is in any way factual is absolutely laughable.

As for honesty, I'll happily throw that straight back in your face. People who believe the bible is fact are happy to point to the references to confirmed events of the time to justify their position yet seem to have no compulsion to deal with the endless contradictions and irrationality that that book contains.

They were not generally written down by eye-witnesses or those who interviewed eye-witnesses. Where we have references to the written stories from people 1 generation removed (as well as physical copies from that time) giving support to the NT.

When one goat herder says that another goat herder confirms their story about dead people coming back to life, that doesn't constitute what I'd call proof. The vast majority of the planet used to believe in sea monsters, dark spirits and the wrath of a wide pantheon of gods, should we take those eye witness accounts as accurate?

At least keep your criticisms reasonable.

And I would prefer it if you didn't try to present yourself as someone who considered religion with an open mind.

Get over yourself. I try and keep an open mind about most things, and despite currently considering myself an athiest I'm always interested to look at religion and things that fall outside the rational. There's a huge difference however between considering things with an open mind, and paying pathetic lip service to something I recognize as bull****. The bible is not a document that is a true and accurate representation of history, its a story book and an occasionally good one. For those people who want to use the NT as a moral guide, that's a completely reasonable position for them to choose to take, but when you start talking about it all being a real history then you're being intellectually dishonest. The only way the bible can be treated as a historical document is if you already accept supernatural events as plausible, in which case you're just using the bible to feedback into your belief loop.

[Jon Miller]

And, of course, the other major world religions also have equally as important and historically valid texts.

Not at all.

The only one that is close is Islam.

Even if you believe that the Books of Moses were written by Moses, we would have our first physical copy and references over 1000 years after. Not only that, but Moses wasn't there for Genesis....

You can come up with reasons not to believe in Christ other than making stuff up.

Additionally, Christianity (of the major religions) is the most dependent on the historicity of the gospels. Even Judaism and Islam don't depend so heavily on their historicity and Buddhism/Hinduism are almost independent of their historicity.


JM

[Jon Miller]

Kentonio, all you do is show that you haven't even looked at Christianity from a secular point of view, much less as a seeker after religious truth.

JM

[kentonio]

To choose to think that there is not enough support to believe that the miracles actually happened is fine. As I said, the body could be stolen, people in a traumatic experience could be mistaken, etc.

Take away the miracles, and what exactly do you have left?

[kentonio]

Kentonio, all you do is show that you haven't even looked at Christianity from a secular point of view, much less as a seeker after religious truth.

JM

Once again you pull the tired old adage of 'you haven't even looked'. If you can defend your positions then defend them, don't just pretend anyone who disagrees doesn't understand.

[Jon Miller]

Take away the miracles, and what exactly do you have left?

You don't have a legend or a myth, instead you have a group of people believing in miracles/etc that they claimed to have seen and some of who were martyred for/etc.

As I said, you can always believe people were mistaken. You don't even have to believe that they are lying!

For example, I definitely believe that Opera observed neutrinos going faster than light although I didn't (and still don't) believe that neutrinos can go faster than light. I just thought they were mistaken, not that their report was a made up/imagined/legend/myth/etc/etc/etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Once again you pull the tired old adage of 'you haven't even looked'. If you can defend your positions then defend them, don't just pretend anyone who disagrees doesn't understand.

I keep correcting you but you keep saying the same bull****. You could read what scholars/historians/etc have to say, but all you seem to do is repeat atheist points from reedit or something.

As I said, it is like talking to those who believe that 7-day creationism is supported by the fossil record.

JM

[snoopy369]

The book of John was written around 100 years later. Agreement on canon was somewhere between very late second century and mid fourth century.

And I'm fairly sure that an awful lot of other religions would readily dispute your argument that only Islam was nearly as thorough. Only Islam was nearly as modern, but that's hardly relevant except insomuch as it conforms more to our expectations being ourselves modern. Hinduism has an extremely vast tract of sacred works, for example, that date back thousands of years. Buddhists have thousands of sutras, teachings that are not dissimilar to Jesus' teachings (by far the most important part of the New Testament, I'd argue) and date back several thousand years as well.

Frankly I've never understood literalism in any of these texts, and most religions aren't nearly as literal as Christianity these days. The teachings are what matter, acting in a moral fashion is what matters, and the rest is pretty much irrelevant. Believe in God/creationism/whatever, don't, I don't think even God cares. Act morally and do unto thy neighbor as you would have him do unto you, and you're 99% of the way there already.

[kentonio]

You don't have a legend or a myth, instead you have a group of people believing in miracles/etc that they claimed to have seen and some of who were martyred for/etc.

As I said, you can always believe people were mistaken. You don't even have to believe that they are lying!

You miss my point, if you take away the miracles and the things that defy logic and reason, then what are you left with in religious terms? A man called Jesus who told his followers some good stories?

I keep correcting you but you keep saying the same bull****. You could read what scholars/historians/etc have to say, but all you seem to do is repeat atheist points from reedit or something.

As I said, it is like talking to those who believe that 7-day creationism is supported by the fossil record.

Unless I accidentally skipped over a post, all I've seen you do so far is talk in generalities. I've read numerous things that confirm there was certainly relevant things going on at the time, one of the more compelling being the Roman references. As I said above however, just because parts of the bible reference some real world events, doesn't legitimize the rest of it, and as even the real world events are covered in a layer of supernatural belief they offer a very unconvincing account.

Was there a guy called Jesus? Yes, probably. Did he form a sect of followers that in time became christianity? Yes, probably. What I'm at a loss to understand however, is how this tells us anything other than that there was probably a guy called Jesus who started a religious sect. What am I missing?

[Jon Miller]

The book of John was written around 100 years later. Agreement on canon was somewhere between very late second century and mid fourth century.

John is provably in existence already before 100 years after Christ's death.

Both liberal and conservative scholars now place it before 110 AD, so 60-70 years at the latest really.

Agreement on cannon came later, but the 4 gospels we have today were quoted as scripture very early, (early) in the 2nd century AD.

And I'm fairly sure that an awful lot of other religions would readily dispute your argument that only Islam was nearly as thorough. Only Islam was nearly as modern, but that's hardly relevant except insomuch as it conforms more to our expectations being ourselves modern. Hinduism has an extremely vast tract of sacred works, for example, that date back thousands of years. Buddhists have thousands of sutras, teachings that are not dissimilar to Jesus' teachings (by far the most important part of the New Testament, I'd argue) and date back several thousand years as well.

You don't seem to understand historicity very well. Yes, the Hindu texts and Buddhist texts are very old. But for the Buddhist texts for example, the 'conservative' viewpoint is that an oral tradition built up shortly after the death of Shākyamuni and was finally written down ~500 years later (near 0 AD). And of course, our earliest copies come from much later.

Based on how historians and other such scholars reconstruct historical events/etc this is much less likely to give historical truth than something which was written down right away and that we have copies from right away.

Note that this says nothing about their validity religiously, and neither Buddhist or Hindu religious thinkers put much focus on historicity. It just isn't as important to those religions as it is to Judaism say or especially Christianity (which is pointless without Christ, at least in the Paulian form).

Frankly I've never understood literalism in any of these texts, and most religions aren't nearly as literal as Christianity these days. The teachings are what matter, acting in a moral fashion is what matters, and the rest is pretty much irrelevant. Believe in God/creationism/whatever, don't, I don't think even God cares. Act morally and do unto thy neighbor as you would have him do unto you, and you're 99% of the way there already.

I am not actually arguing for literalism. At all.

I am pointing out that if it were not a religious text, there would be no doubt of the historicity of the gospel story at all. But since people feel threatened if they even consider the possibility that Christ might be real, they must deny completely the historicity of the gospel story.

Which is silly and hypocritical.

And unlike for Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Judaism, the gospel story really really matters for (Paulian) Christianity. If Christ wasn't here, then Christianity is really pointless (even in non-paulian Christianity, I think).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Was there a guy called Jesus? Yes, probably. Did he form a sect of followers that in time became christianity? Yes, probably. What I'm at a loss to understand however, is how this tells us anything other than that there was probably a guy called Jesus who started a religious sect. What am I missing?

You said it was myths and legends, that there was no way that the stories could be trusted.

What you are missing is that as far as historical evidence goes, the stories can be trusted. By that I don't mean they are true, anymore than Opera's report meant that neutrinos travel faster than light. Rather I mean that the stories are actually what the eyewitnesses/followers of Christ were telling people and give a reasonably accurate reflection of what went on and so on.

I understand the point about great claims. With Opera I didn't believe that neutrinos traveled faster than light purely from their report. Rather, I wanted more. I think this is true for most scientists, but it would be reasonable for some to say 'oh, yes, Opera saw it and MINOS (?) saw some evidence of it, so I think that neutrinos go faster than light'.

Christ's resurrection is also a great claim. I personal believe that Christ was resurrected, but in the end you have to decide what you would believe or not. Are the witnesses in the Bible enough, or do you need something more? That is just something for you to determine.

This is very different from saying 'it is myths/legends' or whatever.

JM

[kentonio]

You said it was myths and legends, that there was no way that the stories could be trusted.

What you are missing is that as far as historical evidence goes, the stories can be trusted. By that I don't mean they are true, anymore than Opera's report meant that neutrinos travel faster than light. Rather I mean that the stories are actually what the eyewitnesses/followers of Christ were telling people and give a reasonably accurate reflection of what went on and so on.

Absolutely untrue, that's not how history works. If you look at the bible from a purely historical standpoint, the supernatural stuff alone would cause you to have to treat many of the sources as potentially highly unreliable. Think about it without your religious hat on for a minute, how much actual confirmation do we have from other sources as to individual NT biblical events actually occuring? The christian sect arising around that time, yes obviously, but I'm talking about the individual events that you say can be trusted?

I understand the point about great claims. With Opera I didn't believe that neutrinos traveled faster than light purely from their report. Rather, I wanted more. I think this is true for most scientists, but it would be reasonable for some to say 'oh, yes, Opera saw it and MINOS (?) saw some evidence of it, so I think that neutrinos go faster than light'.

A modern experiment using scientific tools that produced an unexpected result. An experiment that could then be repeated to test its validity.

Christ's resurrection is also a great claim. I personal believe that Christ was resurrected, but in the end you have to decide what you would believe or not. Are the witnesses in the Bible enough, or do you need something more? That is just something for you to determine.

This is very different from saying 'it is myths/legends' or whatever.

Obviously you can believe whatever you wish to believe, but when your beliefs stand so far outside the realms of rationality then I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to people calling them myths.