Religous debates and questions [2]

Hello everyone! Hope this finds you well. I'm back to the computer after a long hiatus taking care of those little plants. Quite the winter so far. I'm hoping to get at it the next week or so, as I am not planning to work much. Just catching up on this thread, and Halfy said he missed me and thought I was witty, while Petty had hopes I had dropped all religious ideas and was leading an armed revolt. You're such an angry, angry little tyrant. Take some notes from Halfy about not getting stressed.

A few of the comments above touch on what I believe is the first step in my own faith journey. I had to decide if there was something or nothing. This in my opinion is the biggest leap of faith, that either there was nothing before the universe was created, or something that set it in motion. An atheist friend of mine told me last year that he had modified his opinion, and now believed it was entirely possible that aliens had planted us here on earth. He was a bit surprised when I told him he was getting one step closer to my way of thinking. Whether it's an alien, God, or a group of deities, believing that there is something involved with our creation, rather than nothing, is the essential first step.

Everything in my being tells me there is something. Some of you have written about experiences that have led you to believe that there is something more to us than flesh and bone. As I said, I believe this is the step that requires the most faith. The next question of course then is "If something else had a hand in our creation, did this something else give us direction about who or what the "something" is? There are many possible answers to this, and unfortunately I cannot get at them until tonight or tomorrow. Until then, thank you all for your patience. My next post will not be so long in the waiting.

Good to have you back, Hillbilly!

I think it's a good and interesting point that a belief that something was there before the universe (and us) were created is an important first step towards faith. I try to keep my mind open, which actually results in actively not caring too much about the answer. If you feel a need for the answer, then of course psychologically you want something to have been there. This is true perhaps even if you are looking for a purely scientific answer. The desire for something rather than nothing I think must be the root of all mystical and religious experience.

Bluebottle wrote:The universe has not in it's entire history not existed.

I love quotes that seem deeply profound until you think about them.   

I feel like an Ant being told it has to find a way to walk on the Moon. You would think the Ant has trouble even getting round the concept of Humans walking on the Moon, of building a rocket, so an Ant has no chance in a million million years of Walking on the Moon, unless it toddles down to the rocket launch and hitches a ride. simpz

"I know not what others may say, but for myself I feel I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Isaac Newton

He was a wizard. A real one.

Welcome back Hillbilly! I hope your vines are sleeping soundly.  {{{{Secret Cranberry Handshake nobody else can see}}}}

halfwise wrote:
I think it's a good and interesting point that a belief that something was there before the universe (and us) were created is an important first step towards faith.  I try to keep my mind open, which actually results in actively not caring too much about the answer.

That's the key to critical thinking in every field: the ability to not care so much about any one thing that it blinds you to alternatives, or to the small fallacies that inevitably creep into all reasoning.  

That doesn't mean it's necessary not to have a position however.  
I find that even in the most rigorous problem-solving it's often more useful to assume that there's something and then try to disprove it, than to assume there's nothing and try to disprove it.
It leads down so many more interesting pathways.

Mrs Figg wrote:I feel like an Ant being told it has to find a way to walk on the Moon. You would think the Ant has trouble even getting round the concept of Humans walking on the Moon, of building a rocket, so an Ant has no chance in a million million years of Walking on the Moon, unless it toddles down to the rocket launch and hitches a ride. simpz

I don't think they make ant-size space suits, so even that bold ant who hitchhikes to the surface of the moon isn't likely to ever tell the story. A wise ant might be better off just enjoying the moonlight.

so if the Universe is not infinite whats beyond it? Is it Dark Matter? or Nothing.

Fantasy

 

Opportunity?   

halfwise wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:The universe has not in it's entire history not existed.

I love quotes that seem deeply profound until you think about them.   

Well, thank you Halfwise.  

I came up with it all on my own.

I believe the foundation for faith in Christ is the Bible itself. If it is not reliable, then neither are the claims that Jesus made about himself. There is really no point in having faith if it is founded on a fictitious account of events.

The best resources I can recommend are two that I have already mentioned, but I'll do it again because to me, they are outstanding in their defense of the Bible as a historical document. They are:

More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

Both authors have many other quality books, but these two are a good starting point. I highly recommend them for anyone looking for answers or an alternative point of view. Even if you do not agree with them, they will give you an idea where some Christians are coming from. I will be paraphrasing or quoting from McDowell for much of the next post. Both books are well sourced.

Why the Bible is a reliable historical document.

It is the contention of some critics that the Bible was written too long after the events it describes to be accurate. Twentieth century archaeological discoveries though have not only confirmed an earlier writing date, but have verified the accuracy of the new testament we read today. Examples of three such finds are the John Ryland manuscript (AD 130), the Chester Beatty Papyri (AD 155) and the Bodmer Papyri II (AD 200). The discovery of these manuscripts point to an original writing date of the new testament books to the mid to late first century.

Sir William Ramsay, who initially did not believe the book of Acts to be a trustworthy source of the events it describes (around AD 50), after investigation, concluded "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Giving the Bible the same tests as other historical documents is also interesting. There are three basic principles of historiography: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.

The Bibliographical Test
This is an examination of the textual transmission by which we receive documents. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and extant copy.

The history of Thucydides (460-400 BC) is available from eight manuscripts dated around 900 AD, roughly 1,300 years after he wrote. Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 BC, yet the earliest copy we have is from 1100 AD, and only five manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 BC, and there are only nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death.

In contrast, there are over 20,000 manuscripts of the new testament. The Iliad is second with 643.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

I read The Case for Christ a number of years ago when I was going through my questioning period.  I recall it being well-written, though it didn't convince me in the end.

Edit: simulpost. I don't have time to comment on your latest, Hillbilly, but I will try to remember to tomorrow.

Okay, well I skimmed through it and recognize some of the arguments so I do have one question.  Maybe you're planning on addressing this in a future post. But even if we agree to the general historicity of the New Testament, how does that provide evidence of claims that were unverifiable even at the time, such as Jesus' resurrection?

I think it's a valid point that the new testament is better documented than the greek authors - and hence we have a better chance of determining the original text.

But what also matters is the intent of the text. The greek historians were trying to document what everybody already knew happened and had no reason to doubt: these are therefore focussed on detail. The New Testament is trying to convince people that something they may not otherwise believe is indeed true. They are persuasive by intent, rather than fact gathering.

But they are not just trying to persuade that Jesus' life is factual, they are also trying to put together a theology. This is more true of the later testaments than of Mark, which is perhaps the most "just the facts, Ma'am" style of testament. The theology causes different facts to be downplayed or elevated, perhaps even created. Matthew is intent on convincing Jews that Jesus fits into the Messiah mold, so presents a genealogy that subtly conflicts with the old testament. Luke is interested in attracting gentiles, so plays down the Jewish dietary laws and introduces kings from foreign lands. John is...well, John is on a whole different plane entirely, and gnostic symbolism seems more important to him than history.

Anyway, saying the New Testament is not focussed on historical accuracy does not detract from what they do. The idea that they are better sourced than the Greek philosophers is in fact very exciting to me, for the New Testament is one of the most fascinating collections in history. To me the power of the Gospels and the Acts is how straightforward they are: they present a historical man as a representative of what men should be, and don't trip all over themselves trying to interpret the message (slanting the presentation to strengthen a viewpoint is different from interpretation). That is left for Paul. Much is made of Paul as the most influential interpreter of Christianity, but his letters would have fallen flat if he didn't have such fresh and thought provoking material to comment upon.

Why the Bible is a reliable historical document continued.

The bibliographical test tells us that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. To determine if what was written was credible is up to the next principle of historiography-

The Internal Evidence Test
It is generally accepted that documents receive the benefit of the doubt, and we should not "assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies" (JW Montgomery). The ability to tell the truth is closely related to the witness's nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The new testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Christ.

Historians though must deal with an eyewitness who may consciously or unconsciously tell falsehoods even though they are near the event and are competent to tell the truth. The new testament accounts of Christ were circulated within the lifetime of those who would have been alive during the events, people who could confirm or deny the truth of the writings. Couple that with the fact the apostles frequently told their critics such things as "you yourselves know these things" when speaking of Christ, his miracles or events in his ministry. Defenders of Christ were constantly at odds with authorities at the time, and could not afford inaccuracies, much less willful manipulation.

Another point that to me is important is the inclusion of information in the new testament that generally would be considered embarrassing at the time. If people were going to sit down and write a fictitious history, why would they include such things as the fact that Mary and Martha discovered the empty tomb. Women at the time were considered to be very unreliable as witnesses. Wouldn't it be easier to say Peter and John found the empty tomb? Sometimes the truth of the events were not convenient, but the new testament authors included them anyway.

All good points.   

My ass hurts, my fingers are cramped and my head is fuzzy. I haven't spent this much time online since that Pamela Anderson sex tape went viral.

Why the Bible is a reliable historical document continued again.

External evidence test
This involves whether other historical documents confirm or deny the content of the text in question. Two examples are the writings of Eusebius and also Irenaeus. Archaeological finds can also validate text, as previously mentioned about Ramsey. In the opinion of classical historian A. N. Sherwin-White "for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming." and he continues "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

I think there is a large gulf between claiming a document is authentic and claiming the contents are the same.
One does not necessarily prove the other.

Most scholars seem to generally believe that the earliest forms of the gospels were collected sayings- so a collection of exorcisms, a collection on teachings about the Kingdom ect and these formed the basis for the Gospel format.

However it was the result we have in the Bible is of mini episodes- pericopes as Biblical scholars refer to them.
They are linked by short sayings or passages that strive to give the impression the authors are speaking with the authority of knowing, when in fact they tell you nothing at all- so lines like "And at that time..."
This also explains why the different gospels order the events differently and emphasis different aspects to one another. You can move pericopes about and they still make sense- as a passage that begins "And at that time..." can in fact be moved anywhere. Most likely they hadn't a clue exactly when he had said or done something, they just knew he had done so.

Another thing that seems to be generally held as accepted among a majority of scholars is that Luke and Acts are notably composed later than the rest.
They are also preoccupied with repentance, something Jesus doesn't seem to have been so bothered about, as if you exclude Luke and Acts, and the references to repentance than are in fact about John the Baptist's teachings Jesus barely mentions the idea at all. Whereas he barely shuts about the Kingdom which he mentions loads of times.

This probably explains why Jesus reception seems to have been a lot less popular than Johns, even when on the surface they appeared to be doing the same thing.

John went among the prostitutes and taught them to give up their ways and live according to God and repent and God would love them- and he was roundly praised for doing so.

Jesus went among prostitutes and sinners and he was accused of drunkenness, gluttony and hanging about with sinners and was derided for it.

The difference?

Jesus didn't seem to be telling them to give up their ways and repent like John had, instead he seems to have told him that even if they persist in their ways, God loves them anyway.

My reason for bringing that up is that as a historical document the Bible can only go so far, there are issues around when each book was composed- I strongly believe there is a link between the earliest teachings passed in secret among the first followers and the gospels we have, but there are what seem clearly later works like Luke that have a different agenda politically and socially.

On the point of them leaving in uncomfortable information- such as the women at the grave - for me this seems like a case of something being too well known- they couldn't just change it.

A good example of where faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God comes up against what everyone already knew about him is his birth.
Its clear everyone knew he was Jesus of Nazareth- which is a bit of a problem as the OT prophesied he would be born in Bethlehem- so the gospels invent a (highly unlikely) series of events to conspire to get Mary in Bethlehem so that the story matches.

The census the gospel gives as the reason is unworkable, insane as a concept, impossible to carry out (if you try to trace your line back as many generations as between Joseph and David you end up at having potentially thousands of ancestors- it would be like asking people now to return to the home town of their ancestor who was alive at the time of King Arthur), and we know from the records this didn't happen, the census was in fact at least 6 years after the latest estimates for Jesus birth, was perfectly rational and didn't even include Galilee anyway.

So both things cannot be true- he cannot both be Jesus of Nazareth and have been born in Bethlehem due to a census that ever actually happened- its a clear example of the Bible writers inserting information they probably had about a census, but without a precise date for it, into the story of Jesus in order to get him to the right location to fulfil a prophesy.

It would of course have been easier just to have said Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem to start with but it seems they couldn't because where Jesus was from was too well known. So they had to invent something instead.

And if they invent a census we know for certain never happened, then no matter how well one can verify the earliest dates for the composition of the document, it says nothing to the truth of it.

Thank you for your comments Petty, and also a good summary of many of your previous posts. The census in Luke has long been a problem for new testament historians. I would like to refer you and anyone else interested to a fine website that discusses just that problem:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article

Given the excellent accuracy of Luke, it is difficult to throw out the entire book because of one statement that right now appears inaccurate. Changes in the translation syntax could change the role of Quirinius not as Governor at the time, but possibly some other type of official. As the article also states, the answer will likely come out with more archaeology, as other stories once thought of as Bible myth have been proven out.

To get to the point of inventing things, this is where I believe critics can get into trouble. How difficult would it be for two people to write a book about a person and have them match perfectly? For example, if both your parents were to write separate books about your childhood, would they be different? Would people who knew you as a child fully understand what your parents were trying to say? Would the chronology of events be exact or approximate? Could there be the same truth in an event, yet told from two different perspectives? Of course, so for a group of authors to write such detailed information about Christ, his life and his teachings, and have them match as well as they do, to me it's impossible unless it is God inspired.

As I stated in a previous post, even Tolkien, the sole author with a lifetime to get it right, ended up with contradictions and different versions of the same story. There's no way a group of people could conspire to write different books about the same events and have them match up as well as the gospels do, much less have them line up with two thousand years of old testament prophesy. Impossible I say, unless God inspired.

I hope the link works, I'm a Hillbilly not a techy.

As the evidence currently stands the census thing is one of those cases where it seems to me likely the most obvious and likely reason is the truth.

The many (in my view) convoluted and straining attempts to make Luke 'fit' with information from other sources smacks of over elaboration and trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole.
It seems much more likely to me that the author of Luke probably wrote the piece late in the first century, and was removed enough from events that he just got it wrong.
Luke aimed his work at a Gentile market- its big on the birth stories; ghosts shagging virgins and gods born of mortals- all the usual stuff the Greek gentile audience lapped up and were well used to, so more than the other gospels Luke has a keen interest in bigging up the whole destiny from birth angle tying Jesus to David and to Bethlehem, and that was more important to the underlying message to the author I think than strict factual accuracy. (And also just as tellingly happens to mirror the line the early Church was taking on these matters at the same time period Luke was writing)

Luke has much more detail than the other gospels and goes some way to 'filling in the gaps' and seems to be based not only on the other gospels for source but also possibly Josephus, and at least one of the opening phrases mirrors very strongly one of the Dead Sea Scrolls in its use of descriptive titles for the Messiah, a scroll that although lost to us until recent times may have been freely available to the author of Luke.