Can Christianity Be Proven? (part 2)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by verybdog, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    Because they don't believe in God, no.

    I'm not dating the origination of the Bible at that point, but rather the first instance of it being written down.

    Of what? The origin of Biblical stories? Of course they do.

    I make no arguments about the validity of Christianity. That's a matter of faith. But if you want to believe that a good reason for Christianity's validation is how its sacred books were composed, that's the worst sort of circular thinking, because to believe they were consistent, you also have to believe they were divinely inspired in the first place (prophecy).
     
  2. CyphaPSU

    CyphaPSU Member+

    Mar 16, 2003
    Not Far
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Christianity is based on evidence. It is based on the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not my idea or the idea of theologians, it is what the Apostle Paul argues in the NT. As he puts it, if Christ was raised then Christianity is validated, if Christ was not raised from the dead then the faith is dead (1 Cor:12-20). For Christianity, everything hinges on the event of the resurrection.

    It's what you do with the evidence of Christ's resurrection provided to you in the Bible--whether you choose to believe that the evidence presented is valid or that it is not--that makes the difference. And that is what people call faith. For Christians, it is a faith based on evidence.

    That's just my two cents. :)
     
  3. Val1

    Val1 Member+

    Arsenal
    Mar 12, 2004
    MD's Eastern Shore
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Well, it is amazing how two people can look at the same thing and draw different conclusions. You think Didier Drogba is a quality striker, I think Chelsea is a quality team despite him...

    First off, scripture is a little older than you're stating. The Hebrew people came to writing relatively late for the region, at about the time time of Solomon, which was the 11th Century BC. Given that they were a people defined by their relationship with their god, it's reasonable to presume that the Torah was written at that point. You are certainly correct that scripture was written in many languages and that authoritative versions were in languages other than Hebrew. The oldest book in the Bible is probably Job and it was "imported" into Hebrew from some other tongue.

    Now, the bit about scripture being decided by committees and edited for submission to the party has long been used by skeptics to discredit scriptures. Except that it is a specious argument. There are dozens of versions of scripture that span a millenium and the correlation between them is amazing. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain most of the Old Testament (excepting only Ruth or Esther) and date from 225BC to 65 AD. In other words, they predate this mad slashing you reference. They were discovered in 1954 (I think) and by the time they were fully translated in the late 50s, were correlated with the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament. Comparing verse for verse is slightly problematic because the traditional chapter and verse breakdown only dates from the 17th century and the Hebrew breakdown is completely different. Nevertheless, the verse-by-verse correlation between versions is well over 90%, in the mid-90% range. There is only one other written work from (I'm guessing here) pre-Renaissance history that has over a 85% correlation between major "folios" and that is the work of Homer. Furthermore, when the Moghuls conquered India and moved in in occupation, they took complete texts of the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible and the Islamic Qu'ran. The earliest Moghul texts dated from the 8th Century. By the 15th Century, all three works had been translated into various Indian dialects. Comparing the accuracy between these three works, the Qu'ran was found to have less than 80% correlation with it's original text, whilst the Bible and the Tanakh had correlations, again in the mid 90s.

    The Christian New Testament was originally written in Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew. One of the primary sources we have for early texts were Arabic scholars who translated all three languages into Arabic. In the third and fourth centuries AD, as the Roman Empire was crumbling, the Arabic world was withdrawing into itself, taking their own translations with them. During the Crusades, Europeans captured Arabic translations of the Bible and brought them back. In the 13th and 14th centuries, Irish missionaries reintroduced the "European" texts back into Europe, and discovered that there was again, a high correlation between the texts.

    I'm surprised you didn't bring up the old it-was-by-only-one-vote-that-Revelations-was-considered-to-be-scripture argument. Look, the history or Scripture is messy, because our history as people is messy. The creation of the Christian canon took a millenium to accomplish and the Bible has a greater intrinsic and literary consistency than any other work in the world, bar none. The guy who discovered the Unabomber and mastered the study of internal language has studied Shakespeare exhaustively and the Bible cursorily, and would characterize the Bible as being written in one voice.

    Scripture is a miracle. There is nothing else like it. Not even close. Since it claims to be the Word of God, I'll believe it, because there is no other way to explain it.
     
  4. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    For your two cents worth then.
    The "evidence" as you put it is part of the conspiracy theory that Jesus survived the cross. It's kind of a fun one at that because Jesus was washed before they wrapped him in his burial shroud and if the "Shroud of Turin" is to be taken as 'that' shroud then Jesus was bleeding after he was supposed to be dead. Dead men don't bleed so he never really died to be resurrected.
    So there goes the leap of imagination that supports the Easter thingy and the only other reason for it was to hide the pagan festival of Beltain.

    You people think that the Bible is Gospel... :rolleyes:
     
  5. CyphaPSU

    CyphaPSU Member+

    Mar 16, 2003
    Not Far
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There is nothing novel in this argument. That 'conspiracy theory' is as old as the NT--and it has never appeared to be very plausible.

    The Romans were real experts at carrying out crucifixions. They performed them all over the empire all the time. They could tell when someone was dead. On top of that, the Jewish leaders at the time would surely not have allowed for Christ to be removed from the cross before He died. Then you have the body in a sealed tomb behind a huge stone...

    By the way, many Christian scholars believe that the "Shroud of Turin" is very, very unlikely to be genuine. I would not base any argument regarding the resurrection (for or against) on the Shroud as being evidence for anything.

    Easter, the holiday, and the resurrection event recorded in the Bible are completely two different topics. Let us not confuse them. Indeed, Easter--as a holiday--was invented during the middle ages to counter a pagan holiday, but so was Christmas. However, both holidays are meant to celebrate recorded events in Scripture.

    It is a rather simple matter: one either chooses to believe the evidence presented in the Bible, or chooses not to believe it. The Bible states that over 500 people were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus--including all those closest the Christ (many of whom penned the NT).

    There are all kinds of theories people over the years have tried to come up with to explain away the resurrection event other than how it is described to have happened in the Bible. This is not at all surprising. However, the biblical account of the resurrection remains consistant with itself and gives eyewitness accounts to the events. (The Bible states that more than 500 people were eyewitness to Christ's resurrected body--including women) Many of these eyewitnesses ended up (willingly) dying for what they saw, believing in the genuiness of the events they were witness to even to the point of death. As I have already stated, so I say again: the issue is whether or not one believes the biblical evidence for the resurrection to be valid. That is my main point, so I will leave it at that.

    Cheers everyone.
     
  6. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite


    No, the idea of Jewish history is older, but not scripture.

    I believe Solomon was earlier, but that's a quibble. There is absolutely no evidence that what we now consider the Old Testament was remotely codified at that time.

    Historical evidence points to the contrary.

    That's generally irrelevant. What cannot be denied, for example, is the huge influence the Babylonians had on the old testament, as the flood is simply lifted from Babylonian mythology, along with other scripts. As the first Diaspora does not occur until AFTER Solomon, it is not credible to believe that the Bible was codified during this time. Unless you believe the oldest civilization in the Middle East was getting its religious ideas from a minor tribe in the Levant?
    There are certainly other issues. Zoroastrianism did, slightly contribute to Judasim, as did Hellenism. (Many historians believe the Maccabi wars broke out when one of the Jewish priests attempted to sacrifice a goat at the Hebrew Temple to Zeus.) In fact, the Old Testament was not settled until very late in the previous millenium.

    No one is "discrediting" scripture. If you believe them to be the word of God, great. But you have to believe that before the fact, not as a way to explain God. That simply doesn't work. Christianity's record at excising "heretical" texts is remarkable.

    Actually, the Dead Sea scrolls are almost certainly around the turn of the millenium. And this discussion is about the new testament, not the old testament.

    While nice, that's utterly irrelevant to the New Testament.

    That's remarkably irrelevant. The New Testament was fixed by committee by the 4th century. Of COURSE the Mughal texts would have the same version. If they'd taken a copy of Don Quixote in 1800, it'd look the same now. They already had the finished draft. This is simply proof of their excellent copying skills.

    Really? That's interesting. Except that its absolutely wrong. As I'll explain below.

    Well, here's the only problem with that - in the 3rd and 4th century there was only one place that spoke Arabic - Arabia. And which Arabic world was withdrawing into itself? There was no Arabic world - just some border nomads that the Romans and Parthians/Sassanids traded with.
    Besides, what you interpret as the "Arabic world" is actually Roman. You are likely referring to North Africa, which is completely incorrect. Until its unexpected loss to the Vandals, North Africa was the Empire's most prosperous province, and the origin of most new Christian thought of the 3rd and 4th century. It was most certainly all in Latin. (As scholars in Hippo Regius and especially St. Augustine prove.) Even after its conquest by the Vandals, North Africa remained a bastion of Christian dogma, and continued to be so when it was recaptured by Belisarius.
    Above that, this line of reasoning makes no sense. While the Roman Empire was experiencing a period of decline, it was most certainly still very extant by the time Constantine discovers the usefulness of Christianity. It had actually managed to retain its territory, and would not lose a battle with its borders until 379. (Incidentally, the battle that ended Arianism as a true alternative. I wonder why there aren't ANY Arian texts extant? Hmmmmmmmm......)
    Your historical references are simply incorrect.

    All these would have to date from the 7th century, by which time the main Christological debates were over, and the Bible already fixed. The time to fix the New Testament was long past.

    This merely proves that Arabs were excellent copyists. You're arguing that the Bible was consistent as of the 7th century. Duh. The committee had met 3 centuries before.

    Its not necessary.

    That is a ludicrous statement that is absolutely untrue. All you've shown with the above, or rather what remains after your incorrect history is removed, is that the Bible was put together in the 4th century (all this is re: New Testament) and was expertly copied by several cultures. This completely fails to explain its creation by committee, and the remarkable absence of any works not chosen to be in the canon. We know these works existed, and some of these have been found, but only recently (some at Nag Hammadi, for instance). Most remain mysteriously missing.
    Well, not mysteriously. Christianity has a long history of ruthlessly destroying anything not consistent with canon. That's why we don't have any Arian, or Iconoclast texts. Or why the Christians destroyed the library of Alexandria. The early Christians were fiercely groupthink oriented and anti-intellectual. Complications in the canon were as abhorrent as Jews to them. That's why the Bible seems consistent.
    But that's besided the point - we have historical evidence that other gosples existed, but we can't find them. For a good reason - there's lots of things from ancient texts that are sadly lost to us. But these are lost especially because the early church wanted them to be.

    Because it was written by committee. We already know this. Edits were made. You have shown nothing to disprove this. If you can find me a lost Greek version of Matthew from 50 AD, sure, I'll buy that. But your evidence above is either simply incorrect, or completely irrelevant.

    That's the same argument I could make for a client memo my firm prepares, because we'll destroy the three drafts that went into it. No one will ever see them. But oddly enough, the memo will read in one voice, even though there will be as many as 100 previous versions and bits and pieces.
    Your argument fails.
    If you believe that the New Testament was inspired by God - I can't argue with that. But belief in Christ can't be based on the Bible's "consistency", because its a foolish argument.
     
  7. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Thanks for the very interesting historical discussion of Jewish and Christian scriptures. But how this intelligent stuff found its way into a thread started by vbd is beyond my understanding.
     
  8. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    Just try to provide something to cheer up democrats for a sad day.
     
  9. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    To me, the first revelation from GWBush's election is - There is no God. That's the best evidence there is because everything he has done so far is against acts of God.

    This is Hell. Here and now.
     
  10. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    If there is no God as you allege, then it is impossible for president Bush to be against acts of God. Right?

    Just when your thread was showing signs of intelligence, you had to show up. :D

    (Although, I have to admit, the lion is funny.)
     
  11. Quaker

    Quaker Member+

    FC Dallas
    Apr 19, 2000
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Except you said this...
     
  12. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    That should read "new testament" in the highlighted language.
    Sorry for the confusion.
     
  13. FlashMan

    FlashMan Member

    Jan 6, 2000
    'diego
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The Lord is/was there at the beginning, he is/was there in the middle, and he is/will be there at the end.

    That's all U need to know. Everything else is superfluous.

    PS. I can imagine peace on earth (which is the first step towards it). Can U?
     
  14. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    Not with the war mongers in control again.
     
  15. Riceman

    Riceman New Member

    Jul 26, 2003
    Wylie
    Man, I got a serious beef with these guys then because the sure could've done a lot better job of editing out the hard stuff. :)
     
  16. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    Talking about ungratefulness. If you enjoy the contents of this thread, shouldn't you thank me, the founding father of the thread, who provided the environment for serious and casual discussion and hence your enlightenment?

    btw, that smarty nicephoras just can't help himself to jump in.
     

Share This Page