Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Gordon]

Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence.  Its called the New Testament.  Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up.

Here we go again! I've asked this before without getting a meaningful reply, but I'll ask again: since the risk of human artifice exists for all human accounts how have you assessed these risks in relation to claims made within the NT?

I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.

What do these scholars regard the NT as evidence of though?

It is certainly evidence of the religious and social conditions of that society, time and place as portrayed by its various authors, albeit that the provenance isn't precisely known: such as who actually wrote what bits, any biases they may have had or the reliability of any informants (hence the need to assess the risks of mistakes or lies ) and no doubt some stuff, such as estimates of the date ranges, are examples of scholarly investigations

However, is it really the case that these same scholars treat the NT as being reliable evidence that the various miracle claims within the NT are historical facts? 

[jjohnjil]

But do you have any actual proof of this 'quite likely' scenario?  Do you even have any evidence that this was a common event in organisations like the early church that were persecuted, driven under ground, etc.?

Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence.  Its called the New Testament.  Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up.  I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.

Most scholars, whatever their belief system, believe that the gospels are based on one or more pre-existing, but no longer extant documents written before Paul's Epistles.  The best known one is called 'Q'.  Mark is often considered to have been dictated - at least in part - by Peter, thus providing a first-hand account.

Yes, the NT is evidence, Hope, just as all those police reports of the Hillsborough tragedy were evidence.  Those reports were doctored after the event ... the NT has been doctored many times over the millennia - even by order of King James.  What  makes you think the NT stories were immune from similar corruption? 

Of course, you can do what those police chiefs did and hope no honest copper comes along and owns up ... unlikely after all this time for you, so stick your head back in the sand and keep believing it all, you're safe..

[floo]

But do you have any actual proof of this 'quite likely' scenario?  Do you even have any evidence that this was a common event in organisations like the early church that were persecuted, driven under ground, etc.?

Regarding the final sentence, there is evidence.  Its called the New Testament.  Until you can categorically prove that what is written in that material is false, you have no evidence to back that claim of yours up.  I appreciate that yopu may believe that you know better than many scholars in this particular field, especially those non-believer scholars who still regard the material as evidence.

Most scholars, whatever their belief system, believe that the gospels are based on one or more pre-existing, but no longer extant documents written before Paul's Epistles.  The best known one is called 'Q'.  Mark is often considered to have been dictated - at least in part - by Peter, thus providing a first-hand account.

As has been said so many times, it is those trying to prove much less than credible events actually took place, who have to provide verifiable evidence, of which there is none.

[Spud]

As the life of Jesus was written up many years after he died, it is quite likely there was plenty of exaggeration, and untruths in their accounts. There is no proof whatsoever Jesus did the fanciful things attributed to him.

"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.

[Gordon]

"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.

Neither do you, so 'trusting' them would be a foolish option without having a basis to assess the risk of mistakes or lies having been introduced into this narrative.

So, Spud, how did you assess these risks?

[jjohnjil]

"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.

Spud

If you read tomorrow's newspaper and it says ten Arabs somewhere in the Middle East claim their leader was killed last week but came back to life three days later ... would you believe it?

No, you wouldn't, you're not stupid.  But that would be a week old account, not a two thousand-year-old account.

[floo]

"...it is quite likely that..."
So you don't know that their accounts were exaggerated or untruthful then.
Therefore trusting them is a legitimate option.

Oh come on spud, if you heard a 21st century person had been executed, but came back to life three days later, would you believe it to be true? I bet you wouldn't!

[Spud]

Spud

If you read tomorrow's newspaper and it says ten Arabs somewhere in the Middle East claim their leader was killed last week but came back to life three days later ... would you believe it?

No, you wouldn't, you're not stupid.  But that would be a week old account, not a two thousand-year-old account.

I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.

[BeRational]

I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.

Exactly.

But the default position is to NOT BELIEVE.

You move from this default position, when compelling evidence is presented.

[floo]

Exactly.

But the default position is to NOT BELIEVE.

You move from this default position, when compelling evidence is presented.

Agreed.

[Gordon]

I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.

True: but neither does it mean that you know the report is true. So, since we're talking about the NT here, how have you assessed the risk that the NT contains mistakes or lies? 

[jjohnjil]

I might not believe it, but that does not mean I would know the report was false.

And yet you believe that a guy did just that ... why?  Because ancient stories, written not a week later but at least 20 years later, by people who may be honest guys - or may very well be lying conspirators - tell you the same story.

You base your whole life on this flimsy evidence?
 

[Ricky Spanish]

What documents are they based on?
Bumped for Thrud's attention.

Ok, you've got my attention!

We have to establish which one of the compendium of stories are you referring to, or if you are talking about the whole book?

You implied that the gospel writers made up Jesus to fit their ideas about prophecy. How do you know that?

No. Well possibly yes... but all in all the fact remains, and I cannot stress this fact enough as it is something that most evangelical Christians seem unable to understand. Whoever wrote down the original versions we now know as the gospels of the NT were NOT witnesses to the ministry of their protagonist. The names/titles given to them WERE just an afterthought to give the "accounts" gravitas. Out of the 27 separate parts contained in the present version, there are only 7 accounts in the NT that can be universally attributed to their author and all of them were written by Paul.

Now, what was the prophecy that Jesus taught? What was the Prophecy that Paul was most worried about in his letters?

[ippy]

Ok, you've got my attention!

We have to establish which one of the compendium of stories you are referring to, or if you are talking about the whole book?

No. Well possibly yes... but all in all the fact remains, and I cannot stress this fact enough as it is something that most evangelical Christians seem unable to understand. Whoever wrote down the original versions we now know as the gospels of the NT were NOT witnesses to the ministry of their protagonist. The names/titles given to them WERE just an afterthought to give the "accounts" gravitas. Out of the 27 separate parts contained in the present version, there are only 7 accounts in the NT that can be universally attributed to their author and all of them were written by Paul.

Now, what was the prophecy that Jesus taught? What was the Prophecy that Paul was most worried about in his letters?

The price of postage?

ippy

[Ricky Spanish]

BUMP for No Hope:

Ok, you've got my attention!

We have to establish which one of the compendium of stories are you referring to, or if you are talking about the whole book?

[Sassy]

Pot and kettle, you choose what you believe too, that is obvious from your posts!

Nothing at all in my posts could be said to be true of the above written by you.
The truth is you are void of all goodness and truth when it comes to God or others who do not fit into your world of no hope.
You moan about not believing in God and then in the next breath blame him for something only you can all humans can be responsible for... your own evil.

I guess it is far better to believe in God and good, to have a hope to want the good things for others as Christians than believe as you do that you can do nothing good, hope for nothing good, disbelieve in anything good then blame what doesn't exist for the state you leave the world and society in.

Grow up Floo, there is no backdoor when Christ returns and you have done nothing but moan and accuse falsely. The false bit is clear because you claim not to believe in a God then blame him. Get you...
If no God then you and you ancestors equally to blame for state of the world and suffering,. Heavy burden for your shoulders.

[Sassy]

...and how, exactly, does one do that?

Your quoting Einstein and yet cannot understand such a simple instruction?
Should you be discussing things about God when you cannot process the easiest and simplest of instructions???

[Sassy]

Floo, like you I haven't seen any positive evidence for a god or gods of any kind, it's not a case of me believing there is no such thing as a god.

ippy

Would you know what you were looking for by means of evidence?

[Sebastian Toe]

Your quoting Einstein and yet cannot understand such a simple instruction?
Should you be discussing things about God when you cannot process the easiest and simplest of instructions???

It was a simple question!

You are quoting Einstein and yet cannot answer such a simple question?
Should you be discussing anything when you cannot answer the easiest and simplest of questions???
 

[Sebastian Toe]

Would you know what you were looking for by means of evidence?

Would you? 

[Ricky Spanish]

OK.

Hope was chatting about the letters of "Paul"..


What was his question again??

[Sassy]

It was a simple question!

You are quoting Einstein and yet cannot answer such a simple question?
Should you be discussing anything when you cannot answer the easiest and simplest of questions???
 

ObeY God, read the bible and do as he tells you........

Don't you look stupid now.

[Sassy]

Would you? 

In my case being a Christian and knowing about God and his word, the answer is an obvious 'YES'. Your reply shows the answer in your case to be an OBVIOUS 'NO'.

You should have quit instead of announcing to the world your ignorance...

[Sassy]

OK.

Hope was chatting about the letters of "Paul"..


What was his question again??

Remind us.... been away a whole month...

[Sebastian Toe]

been away a whole month...

Remind us, why was that??