New Testament...

I've been watching some Richard Dawkins movies on YouTube, and I thought of something...

When someone denies proof of God, why does no one ever challenge that belief with the validity of the New Testament?

Thats what I, and many others were trying to do in the other thread, no need for more threads.mark4091

I'm not talking about the teachings of the Bible, I'm talking about the validity of the events of the New Testament.

I've been watching some Richard Dawkins movies on YouTube, and I thought of something...

When someone denies proof of God, why does no one ever challenge that belief with the validity of the New Testament?

nbtrap1212

well, i dunno. but Old Testament is the basis of some other religions, such as Judaism and Islam too. but NT is the basis of Christianity only. so using the validity of the NT would only say something about Christianity, but what about other religions? maybe it's that.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

I've been watching some Richard Dawkins movies on YouTube, and I thought of something...

When someone denies proof of God, why does no one ever challenge that belief with the validity of the New Testament?

rowzzr

well, i dunno. but Old Testament is the basis of some other religions, such as Judaism and Islam too. but NT is the basis of Christianity only. so using the validity of the NT would only say something about Christianity, but what about other religions? maybe it's that.

No, I don't think so. I'm talking about the actual things that happened: the miracles, the walking on water, the crucifiction, and the resurrection. At one point historians believe the Gospels were written during the third century, but recent discoveries have led to the belief of first century documents.

Jesus' enemies didn't even deny the miracles, they simply atrributed them to Satan - and what about the conversion of the apostle Paul, who was at once largely anti-religious, but ended up following Christ? There are so many valid questions that are never brought up and should.

Give me proof of these miracles actually happening.Mumbles527

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"]Give me proof of these miracles actually happening.cool_baller

[QUOTE="cool_baller"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"]Give me proof of these miracles actually happening.Mumbles527

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"]Give me proof of these miracles actually happening.cool_baller

There are two kinds of proof, scientific proof and "legal" proof. The former proves something by repetition, but not all things can be repeated. "Legal" proof is the extreme likelihood of something to have happened based upon testimony. You can do the research yourself, but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.

but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.Mumbles527

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.Mumbles527

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

I think people getting turned into pillars of salt and basically the laws of physics getting broken every other page is a reason amirite?

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.Mumbles527

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

Right. I'd have to find a reason why you would tell a false story. Here, it's obvious: to make an argument.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.TongHua

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

I think people getting turned into pillars of salt and basically the laws of physics getting broken every other page is a reason amirite?

1. Pillars of salt?

2. Again, there are scientific proof and legal proof. There is no law of physics that says no one ever witnessed Jesus performing miracles.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

Right. I'd have to find a reason why you would tell a false story. Here, it's obvious: to make an argument.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.Mumbles527

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

No. The point is, you don't dispute the document without a reason to do so.

Right. I'd have to find a reason why you would tell a false story. Here, it's obvious: to make an argument.

I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's testimony.

And why would a bunch of Jews risk death so that people would follow the "ridiculous BS that is Christianity?" You do know that most of the apostles were executed?

I'm not saying it's proof...nbtrap1212

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]I'm not saying it's proof...Mumbles527

You're right, I should have said 'evidence.'

There are no primary historical sources that reference most of the events in the New Testament.foxhound_fox

I don't even know what to make of that statement...

I don't even know what to make of that statement...nbtrap1212

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]I don't even know what to make of that statement...foxhound_fox

I don't think I understand the question. If you're referring to the lack of testimony other than the New Testament, then that is a silly argument because the New Testament itself is a compilation of many stories by many authors. I'm going to bed, goodnight.

The events can be traced back to secular historians of the 1st Century. There is more proof of Jesus being at the very least a good man than there is even evidence of the existance of Julius Caeser but no one ever denies the existence of him it seems. Sure secular people argue that the miracles did not occur as said in the New Testament but the events written are based off of fact. Secular historians even say Jesus died upon the cross and that great things happened during that time because of his teachings. It is only the miracles that are in debate in the secular world. Sure some argue against what I've said but they are all very weak arguments and are based off of presuppositions that he didn't exist rather than trying to find out whether he did or not.

The events can be traced back to secular historians of the 1st Century. There is more proof of Jesus being at the very least a good man than there is even evidence of the existance of Julius Caeser but no one ever denies the existence of him it seems. Sure secular people argue that the miracles did not occur as said in the New Testament but the events written are based off of fact. Secular historians even say Jesus died upon the cross and that great things happened during that time because of his teachings. It is only the miracles that are in debate in the secular world. Sure some argue against what I've said but they are all very weak arguments and are based off of presuppositions that he didn't exist rather than trying to find out whether he did or not.

mindstorm

Living in England, I'm practically tripping over evidence of roman history and pre-roman history every week.

Secular historians like who? I'd like to read from some of these unbiased historians. I'll I have read from secular histoians denies the miracles of the new testament.

Archaeology disproves much of what was written in the new testament. Rationality dismisses the miraculous.

Research must surely be grounded in scepticism. Positive proof is the only way to reveal the truth. Dis-proof is a logical minefield. It is practically impossible to dis-prove anything at all.

If you pre-suppose something does exist, you must have faith. Science does without this concept, and has advanced at an exponential rate due to this method.

Archaeology disproves much of what was written in the new testament. Rationality dismisses the miraculous.

diz360

"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts."

- Archaeologist Joseph Free

"...it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."

- F. F. Bruce, author of Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament

[QUOTE="diz360"]

Archaeology disproves much of what was written in the new testament. Rationality dismisses the miraculous.

nbtrap1212

"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts."

- Archaeologist Joseph Free

"...it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."

- F. F. Bruce, author of Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament

Where do you get your information for such preposterous claims?

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

I think people getting turned into pillars of salt and basically the laws of physics getting broken every other page is a reason amirite?

TongHua

I think this thread is about the NT...amirite?

Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?yoshi-lnex

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.xaos

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

Not always. In fact, scientific proof often takes a back-seat to testimonial evidence.

For instance, if large numbers of random people start making similar claims to have seen something extraordinary (scientifically impossible), do the scientists say, "No, that's impossible." (which would be no different than calling the witnesses physchotic)? No. Instead, they start looking for ways to scientifically explain how it might have happened.

[QUOTE="TongHua"]

I think people getting turned into pillars of salt and basically the laws of physics getting broken every other page is a reason amirite?

LJS9502_basic

I think this thread is about the NT...amirite?

Yes, you are.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?LJS9502_basic

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?xaos

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

I'm not recalling where I mentioned miracles in my post. Refresh me....

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

Not always. In fact, scientific proof often takes a back-seat to testimonial evidence.

For instance, if large numbers of random people start making similar claims to have seen something extraordinary (scientifically impossible), do the scientists say, "No, that's impossible."? No. Instead, they start looking for ways to scientifically explain how it might have happened.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?LJS9502_basic

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

I'm not recalling where I mentioned miracles in my post. Refresh me....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?xaos

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

And that brings up another point. If you can find no reason why the authors and witnesses of the New Testament would lie (and risk martyrdom for doing so - please, find me eleven other people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie), then that leaves two possibilities:

1. They're telling the truth.

2. They're insane.

The latter is inconsistent with what we know about the morality of their lives and the things they taught. Plus, how is it that they all saw the same things?

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.xaos

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

Not always. In fact, scientific proof often takes a back-seat to testimonial evidence.

For instance, if large numbers of random people start making similar claims to have seen something extraordinary (scientifically impossible), do the scientists say, "No, that's impossible."? No. Instead, they start looking for ways to scientifically explain how it might have happened.

Did you not read my original post? I said that there are two kinds of proofs: scientific, and "legal" (testimonial). You can't always test something scientifically but you can always look for reasons (outside of science) to believe why a person would lie.

I never said anything about data.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?nbtrap1212

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

And that brings up another point. If you can find no reason why the authors and witnesses of the New Testament would lie (and risk martyrdom for doing so - please, find me eleven other people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie), then that leaves two possibilities:

1. They're telling the truth.

2. They're insane.

The latter is inconsistent with what we know about the morality of their lives and the things they taught. Plus, how is it that they all saw the same things?