How strong is the evidence that the NT is true?

[KLA]

I had a discussion with my theology teacher about God and religion. My theology teacher is a Catholic priest. I told him how I don't believe in a God because basically I see no evidence of him in the conventional form. My teacher says he believes because that is who God was shown to be through Jesus Christ. I made the arguement that that was a long time ago and how I can see the documents changing, or being exaggerated, or being made up over time. He said that there is scientific evidence and we can date these articles back to their times, to prove that the testimonies were accurate. He said the stuff is out there for the whole scientific community to disprove. I'm still skeptic because I hear things like this all the time. I heard the day before that they had accient writings and documents from all over the world proving levitation, and that all these documents were too similar to be false. I also mentioned that science is often inaccurate on large scales, like how we used to think the earth was a couple hundred million years old, then it changed, then changed again, and how it could be the same sort of thing is happening here. Any thoughts on this. I really couldn't argue very well because I don't know anything about the validility of the science of dating the NT. Thanks all.

[Lord Kenneth]

How long ago the bible was written has nothing to do with its accuracy.

No, religion has given us nothing to disprove, they have given us no evidence to do so!

Welcome to the forum!

All you can do is read the NT. Then try to find historical documentation that backs it up.

...

[UnrepentantSinner]

If you really want to check out what the two sides are saying, hit
http://www.infidels.org
and
http://www.leaderu.com
and start reading.

[Keneke]

Welcome to the forum! Let me say a few things on this issue:

First, the events in the New Testament may have actually happened, given a bit of storyteller leeway for miracles as allegory or exaggeration. Jesus very well may have been a real person. This doesn't mean that he is the Son of God, or that he did make those miracles. There may have been a flood in Noah's time as well, but attributing it to Jehovah is just man's way of explaining the unexplainable. Even miracles can be simplified explanations for complex events, or outright hyperbolizing for Jesus' benefit.

So, just because these people existed, and a book was written about them, doesn't mean that God exists.

[Yahzi]

He said that there is scientific evidence and we can date these articles back to their times, to prove that the testimonies were accurate
How does dating them prove they are accurate?

We can date O.J. Simpson's testimony to the exact minute... does anybody think that means it's true?

BTW, all the scientific evidence shows that the NT was not written by people who knew Jesus personally.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Yahzi


BTW, all the scientific evidence shows that the NT was not written by people who knew Jesus personally.

First off, welcome KLA!

Secondly, Yahzi makes a very valid point. I can't recall the source at the moment, but, I believe I've read that most of the books in the NT were written some 40+ years after Jesus' death. I'd like to suggest that you may want to approach this issue from several persepectives, not the least of which might include the 'originality' of the NT before examining authenticity. May I recommend to you a book called "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell. (I'm sure that this text is considered a must read by fellow JREF members) In it, Campbell reveals that virgin births, resurrections and miracles of transformation and ascension existed in many religious beliefs long before Christ was born. I can only echo the sentiments of other posters' replies to this thread....dating/proving the existence of inanimate objects should never be confused with validating the myth(s) associated with them..

Good luck!

[Consultant]

The problem I have with the NT is the same problem I have with funerals. Rather than approach this with people by arguing the entire burden of proof/evidence/objectivity angle with people, I've found a better approach for some cases.

The argument goes something like this: did you ever go to a funeral of someone who you had mixed feelings about and wasn't the greatest guy? At the funeral, did anyone say "Yeah, old Uncle Bob sure was a pain in the neck, always mooching off people.". Or did they say "He was so nice....we're really going to miss him".

It's a classic case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses (not to be confused with "Ignoring the Mrs.", which can also lead to all sorts of trouble ;) )

But in any case, assuming that a) some guy named Jesus existed and b) was probably rather charismatic, I have to assume that if there were any times his "powers/miracles/whatever" didn't work, no one included them after his death because they weren't deemed important. Only the successes were.

Multiply that by 2000 years of translation, and boom! You got yourselves modern religion!

This applies, of course, to every religion, but I used Christianity as an example.

This is obviously not an argument you'd use with a hard core skeptic ever because it doesn't hold water logically. However, IF you're trying to get a point across to people, you have to start somewhere, and to do so you must have a starting point. I think this is something missed all to often when arguing religion. If you do not get the believers to identify with you on one small point to open a doorway into thinking, you'll never succeed. And I have never seen a case where the full frontal assault of skeptics has worked to convince someone their religion was logically flawed.

[kittynh]

Many people look at the even longer historic record of the religions (not just Judaism) that Christianity is based upon. Stories very much built upon and all that. Doesn't make it true or not...I think for a priest to say you can come to a belief in Christianity through research is lacking something. Pascal said something like faith is seeing with your heart, not your head...

[Upchurch]

I was just thinking. Standard thinking is that anecdotal evidence is almost totally worthless in proving anything, in this case, using the new testiment to authenticate Christianity.

Now, the extent of my legal expertise is watching "Law & Order" on TV, but it seems to me that the legal system does put some worth in anecdotal evidence, as long as it is corroborated by other physical evidence. Assuming that documents scienctifically dated to the time period are physically available and/or there are other sources of corroboratation, couldn't one say that the Christianity could be proven "legally", but not scientifically?

Disclaimer: Again, I know nothing of law and this may be a really stupid question.

[Gregor]

Upchurch

The answer to your question depends upon what you are trying to prove.

If you are trying to prove any fact contained in the gospels, any competent judge would probably throw out the case.

The gospels violate three evidentiary precepts:

1. The best evidence rule
2. Authentication
3. Hearsay

The best evidence rule requires that original, source documents should be used. Many of the earliest known scraps of parchment or papyrus reflect that they are copies themselves. Thus, the best evidence would be the original gospel. Now, there is an exception to this rule for lost documents, but you have to question the credibility of the copy.

The requirement of authentication means that the author of a document must be known, or circumstances surrounding its creation must be known. Authenticating a letter is done by: (i) having its author say "it's mine" or (ii) having someone who recognized the writing say "that's Joe's writing." Since we don't even have a guess as to the identity of the author of the gospels, we have no ability to authenticate them.

Hearsay is the biggest problem (an out of court statement used to prove the truth of facts contained in the statement). Even if we knew the author of Mark was a guy living in 75 CE who was a fishing buddy of St. Peter, the gospel still contains multiple layers of hearsay. The writing itself is hearsay. It purports to reflect what St. Paul told 'Mark' - the second layer of hearsay. St. Paul is recounting what Jesus told St. Paul - a third layer of hearsay.

A doubt seriously that anything could be "proved" in a court of law with the gospels.

[phobos]

Originally posted by Gregor
St. Paul is recounting what Jesus told St. Paul - a third layer of hearsay.


Actually, Jesus and St Paul never met. St Paul was converted some time after the death of Jesus; apart from two lines on the road to Damascus, Jesus never said a word to him. All that Paul knew about Jesus beyond that, he heard from others.

[Gregor]

Oops, you are correct

I meant El Rocko - St. Peter, of "get behind me Satan" fame.

And the epistles, rather than the gospels, have different evidenciary issues.

[KLA]

Thanks all. Basically what my theo teacher meant by dating the NT writings was that we have eye witness accounts to Jesus' life, and that the odds of them all lieing are very unlikely. I tend to believe too that it was exangerrated, and that the scientific evidence isn't as accurate as he thinks.

[Gregor]

well, remember:

1. They're not eyewitnesses - Luke even says "this is what was told TO me" not "this is what I saw."

2. We don't know the authors. The names of the gospels were chosen a hundred years later and added to the anonymous stories.

3. They're not independent witnesses to a car accident. Someone we now call 'Mark' wrote first, and the rest simply relied upon his narrative and oral stories circulating at 90-120 CE.

4. Even Mark was written no earlier than 40 years after Jesus' death. Alot of changes to a story can occur in 40 years.

5. The oldest gospel scrap we have is from John at 120 CE.

[wert]

Originally posted by KLA
Thanks all. Basically what my theo teacher meant by dating the NT writings was that we have eye witness accounts to Jesus' life, and that the odds of them all lieing are very unlikely. Point out to your theo teacher that there are copious "eyewitness accounts" of alien abductions/visitations.

Ask your teacher if the odds of all those people lying is unlikely enough to make their claims true. :)

[Gregor]

"Exxxxxcellent. . .
Simpson, I have a job for you."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Gregor
"Exxxxxcellent. . .
Simpson, I have a job for you."
Smithers, who is that buffon?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Smithers, who is that buffon?

"Why that's Homer Simpson, sir, one of your drones from sector 7G"

"Simpson, eh?"

:D

[stamenflicker]

BTW, all the scientific evidence shows that the NT was not written by people who knew Jesus personally.

Wrong on numerous accounts. What we do know is that the gospels in their canonical form contain products of editors and redactions. What the scientific evidence remains divided on is the original texts. I'll take this up later this weekend, and start a new thread on the gospel of John.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

We don't know the authors. The names of the gospels were chosen a hundred years later and added to the anonymous stories.

Wrong. We have Papias naming the authors of the gospels and detailing their production by about 120. The net difference is at it greatest 70 years, and more likely about 50 years. Many scholars want to disregard Papias and have reasons to do so, but the initial reports paint a different picture than Gregors.

Flick

[c4ts]

What about the Ressurection? You'd think there would be a ton of eyewitness accounts from sources other than the NT...

[homunculus]

There is basically no unambigious evidence that the NT is an reliable historical document. The earliest known text was actually written around 70CE (some say even later), which means that if it was written by an eye-witness, he must have been a very, very old man by the time he got round to writing it all down. Only the rich lived that long in those days. Plus, why did he wait so long to record such momentous, earth-shattering events?

Your preist friend will probably tell you that many documents date back further than this, but none of these earlier writings record any historical details whatsoever about Jesus Christ. They do not say anything Jesus's birth, or life, or death, or his miracles. Paul even admits that he never met Jesus!

Many scholars think this is because the original Jesus story was a Jewish sectarian re-working of the Pagan "mystery" salvation cults. In other words, he is a mythological character.

Paul Hayward.

[stamenflicker]

Plus, why did he wait so long to record such momentous, earth-shattering events?

There is alot of evidence in the NT to suggest that these 1st generation Christians believed Jesus would return in their lifetime to establish a kingdom. I bet when the first generation folks started dying off, somebody said, "OMG we need write this stuff down!"

:)

Flick

[SFB]

KLA:

If you are still here have a look at the following site. It can be quite informative.........


http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html