GameBanshee Forums

Why does it matter? God is far beyond our comprehension. We merely must believe the facts that we have(unless you refuse to believe the Bible at all, then God's gender would matter even less, I should think). Considering the fact that God is already beyond our comprehension, why would you men wish to make God even more difficult for you to understand by saying he's female?

Good point SS. I think I will leave this topic now, for fear that I will become eternally confused.

@Eminem, hi. I've looked over your post; and you appear to be saying that the NT has more manuscripts, earlier (closer to the source) manuscripts, and very accurate copies. From these three factors, you deduce that the evidence for the reliability of the NT is "greater than that of any book from the ancient world."

Leaving aside the accuracy of these three points, I fail to see how they positively influence the reliability of the reporting in the NT. For me, that's the crucial element. The NT cannot be proven, or disproven. Most of it is a work of faith, depicting miraculous happenings. It is written by the faithful, for the faithful, about (in part) miracles that the writers had never witnessed. I have little doubt that they did in fact witness faith-based miracles in their lifetimes, however, since Christianity was as yet an extremely evangelical, grassroots community, without the structure and dogma that later wished miracles tightly bound (whenever they unfortunately occured) in neat, easily analyzed folders--or out of existence, altogether.

I'm getting off track (long hours). In any case, if five milliion copies of the NT existed from the 1st century, all identical, testifying to the miracles and words of Jesus, it would still only indicate that Jesus said these things, and that these supernormal activities took place. It would not prove that 1) Jesus' religious beliefs were any more accurate than that of any similiar religious leader who has been recorded as manifesting such power--quantity is not quality (many cultures did not write, or used materials that quickly deteriorated); or 2) that Jesus was God, or the Son of God. (It would also not disprove them.) It would demonstrate what a lot of people already accept: that Jesus was an extremely wise, insightful religious leader.

(This is not my view. I am not a skeptical rationalist, but a polytheistic deist. But I'm attempting to explain why I think religious proofs, as such, only work for the faithful.)

This was the view of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who exchanged many letters late in life excoriating the supernatural element in Christianity, which they saw as a latterday corruption. These two US Presidents existed before biblical scholarship could demonstrate otherwise, but they illustrate something important: for many people, including some highly intelligent people such as Jefferson and Adams, you can't prove miracles, either. Unless they actually see it themselves; and even then, the miracle will prove *something* supra-normal happened, without necessarily conforming to the dogma spoken and believed by those present.

I would suggest that all sincere Christians who try to prove that events in the OT or NT actually occured, as evidence of the internal accuracy of the bible, are barking up the wrong tree. The NT in particular is largely a work of faith. It is not founded upon a bedrock made of archeological digs, or in a fabric supposedly demonstrating the death imprint of a god. Its only bedrock lies in the individual human spirit, that opens itself up, and takes a walk off a personal cliff--every moment of every day.

Please excuse these ramblings. I am truly out of it at the moment. I only hope some of the above makes sense regarding my perspective. Let me just briefly deal with a few of the scholars and their comments mentioned in your post.

The great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson said that the real concern is only with a thousandth part of the entire text. This would make the New Testament 99.9% free of significant variants. The noted historian Philip Schaff calculated that of the variants known in his day, only 50 were of real significance, and not even one affected an article of faith or a precept of duty.

This is not something I would suggest raising to most people, since claims to accuracy founder upon even a single important variant (and there are at least ten I'm aware of) in the NT. Of course they wouldn't affect faith or duty, but they're variants. In works of faith that make an endless point of the accuracy of transmission, any discussion of variants are a stroll in a minefield.

By comparison with the New Testament, most other books from the ancient world are not nearly so well authenticated. Professor Bruce Metzger, of Princeton, estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90% accuracy and Homer's Illiad with 95%. By comparison, he calculated that the New Testament is about 99.5% accurate.

Metzger! During his prime, Metzger was a brilliant biblical scholar. He was also a zealot (that's not too strong a term), with absolutely no comprehension of cultural context outside Christianity. The above demonstrates this. For example, the Iliad and the Odyssey were almost never presented as identical works. They were two major cycles in a very long-lasting (in fact, it's still going on) Greek bardic tradition that involved the oral transmission of materials. Each bard was expected to present nearly the entire material by rote, as memorized, and with time they were allowed to amend and adjust slightly from their own experience of what worked in performance and artistic abilities. Ethnologists will tell you that no two versions of any mythic cycle are ever identical.

These are not objects of religion; the ancient Greek Mysteries again weren't written down, but transmitted by word-of-mouth at a time when writing was limited to a very few. The Roman versions of Greek gods are pitiful, by comparison, and much close to Xena than to what we know from the very few eyewitnesses who passed on information about ancient Greek rites of worship. I can see what I can find on the latter to post, if you'd like.

As for Metzger on the Mahabharata--again, this book (three times the size of the entire bible) was orally recited as a bard's cycle. Only one section was intended to be a direct religious text: the Bhagavad Gita, which comprises a small portion of what might be called the third section of the work. In all extant copies, that alone has never changed. It's said to be the words of God to one of the leading characters, and no bard was going to mess around with that.

But if you want to get into a completely different mindset, consider this: the Ramayana, one of the great religious classics of Hinduism, exists in more than 600 documented versions, with textual variants of up more than 30%. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion that calmly acknowledges the contradictions between religions and religious texts, shrugs its shoulders and says, "So what? These are matters of religion, which as humans we cannot comprehend because our senses and intellects are so limited." The local variants of the Ramayana are also seen as evidence how the cycle has been made highly personal and understandable by the dozens of indigenous and distinct cultures that call the Indian subcontinent home. It's perhaps best likened to the variety of Christian churches that may profess to use the same NT, but in reality discard different elements, or highlight others, or simply understand terms to mean different things--even basic things, like the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the Eucharist, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

So Metzger wouldn't have bothered compiling his famous statistics if he'd had a clue (IMO) about the cultures he was dealing with.

Okay, I'm crawling off to bed. Again, "proof" is not the issue, as I see it, since it is unattainable, and irrelevant in matters of faith. If you believe, you believe. I know you feel you have to convince others, but I think perhaps the only way to achieve this is by personal example in practice: walking the walk, as an Eastern Orthodox deacon I knew used to put it.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>These two US Presidents existed before biblical scholarship could demonstrate otherwise, but they illustrate something important: for many people, including some highly intelligent people such as Jefferson and Adams, you can't prove miracles, either. Unless they actually see it themselves;</STRONG>

It is true that a lot of people hold to the "Seeing is believing" idiom, but "seeing" is all a matter of perception. Just because you see something happen, doesn't mean that it actually happened. Just as not seeing something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

<STRONG>One of the disciples, Thomas(nicknamed the Twin), was not with the others when Jesus came. They told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he replied, "I won't belive it unless I see his nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side."
Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. He said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don't be faithless any longer. Believe!"
"My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.
Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me and believe anyway."
</STRONG>~John 20:24-29, NLT

It is okay to have to see before you can believe, but don't let the visual proof pass you by unseen.

I wasn't aware the creation of the world was in the New testement.

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: Word ]

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>I wasn't aware the creation of the world was in the testement. </STRONG>

Ne? I haven't the floggiest idea what you just said, Word.

sorry I just realized my mistake. I mean that Adam and Eve are in the Old Testement correct?

@Sailor Saturn writes:
Why does it matter? God is far beyond our comprehension. We merely must believe the facts that we have(unless you refuse to believe the Bible at all, then God's gender would matter even less, I should think). Considering the fact that God is already beyond our comprehension, why would you men wish to make God even more difficult for you to understand by saying he's female?

I find your comments puzzling. Why should it be easier to believe that a god who is the universe and more than that, and moves through everything in the universe, is actually associated more with one given sex--or race, or age, or religion? I can't comprehend of an ultimate god who could be limited in this fashion, and I can't worship it, either. De gustibus, I suppose.

Now, that was a decent rest. Let me clarify one paragraph I wrote earlier, rather than editing the entire set of remarks:

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>These are not objects of religion; the ancient Greek Mysteries again weren't written down, but transmitted by word-of-mouth at a time when writing was limited to a very few. The Roman versions of Greek gods are pitiful, by comparison, and much close to Xena than to what we know from the very few eyewitnesses who passed on information about ancient Greek rites of worship. I can see what I can find on the latter to post, if you'd like.
</STRONG>

I don't want to confuse the Iliad/Odyssey with the Greek Mysteries: they were two different things. The former was to the Greek Mysteries as Dante's Inferno/Puragatorio/Paradiso is to the Bible.

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>sorry I just realized my mistake. I mean that Adam and Eve are in the Old Testement correct?</STRONG>

Yes, Adam and Eve are in the Old Testament. Who said they weren't?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I find your comments puzzling. Why should it be easier to believe that a god who is the universe and more than that, and moves through everything in the universe, is actually associated more with one given sex--or race, or age, or religion? I can't comprehend of an ultimate god who could be limited in this fashion, and I can't worship it, either. De gustibus, I suppose.</STRONG>

I don't care what God's gender is. I believe he is male because the Bible says he is male. Who are we to debate God's gender? As the one who created us, he defined the physical differences between male and female in both humans and animals.

God has no 'race' as he is not human. He created species.

God is ageless.

There's a difference between religion and true Christianity. Religion is something traditional with lots of "Don't"s. Don't do this, Don't do that, Don't do him, Don't do her, etc.

*hops down off her soapbox and attempts to kick it away, but merely ends up hurting her foot* Ouch. Dang soapbox.

Oops, I gotta go home, now. Be back on sometime in the next half hour probably.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I don't care what God's gender is. I believe he is male because the Bible says he is male. Who are we to debate God's gender? As the one who created us, he defined the physical differences between male and female in both humans and animals.</STRONG>

On the one hand, you write that we shouldn't debate the gender of god; on the other, you write, "This is what the bible says, and that's it," if I understand you correctly. Well, if you're going to assert #2, people (including myself, obviously) are not going to settle for #1, and you will find debate. You can't silence debate by simply pointing to a book of faith and claiming it as an authority for everyone who doesn't believe in it, or believe it says what you claim it does.

There's a difference between religion and true Christianity. Religion is something traditional with lots of "Don't"s. Don't do this, Don't do that, Don't do him, Don't do her, etc.

And that's true of Christianity, too, and there's tons of historical fact behind this. It is a monotheistic, homogeneous religion that in a series of hierarchal councils, defined itself as such, and closed itself off from (what were until that time) various branches of Christianity and other religions. Christianity repeatedly said, as early as the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, "You can't be Marcionists. You can't be Montanists. You can't be Arians, or Sabellians, or Nestorians." (The Nestorians fooled 'em. They moved east, and were rediscovered by Europe when Jesuit missionaries uncovered small Nestorian communities in India and China in the early Renaissance.) "You must be baptized in water, you must believe in this god and only this god, you must believe in faith rather than works, etc."

The list of do's and don'ts issued by individual church communities since 325 AD is huge. That's because Christianity is a religion, and most religions are this way. If you're trying to indicate that Christianity is something special in this fashion, I think your efforts are demonstrably doomed to failure. Better to concentrate on the mystical beauty and truth of the Eucharist. You'll get better mileage.

@SS Nobody was saying that Adam & Eve weren't in the Old Testament. I just found it puzzling that all your translation comments had to do with the New testament Being in Greek, when my point has to do with the old testament.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>On the one hand, you write that we shouldn't debate the gender of god; on the other, you write, "This is what the bible says, and that's it," if I understand you correctly. Well, if you're going to assert #2, people (including myself, obviously) are not going to settle for #1, and you will find debate. You can't silence debate by simply pointing to a book of faith and claiming it as an authority for everyone who doesn't believe in it, or believe it says what you claim it does.</STRONG>

No, I said that the Bible says God is male, thus I believe God is male. I never said you have to believe it. My point with "#1" is that what God's gender is has no effect on my belief in him.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>And that's true of Christianity, too, and there's tons of historical fact behind this. It is a monotheistic, homogeneous religion that in a series of hierarchal councils, defined itself as such, and closed itself off from (what were until that time) various branches of Christianity and other religions. Christianity repeatedly said, as early as the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, "You can't be Marcionists. You can't be Montanists. You can't be Arians, or Sabellians, or Nestorians." (The Nestorians fooled 'em. They moved east, and were rediscovered by Europe when Jesuit missionaries uncovered small Nestorian communities in India and China in the early Renaissance.) "You must be baptized in water, you must believe in this god and only this god, you must believe in faith rather than works, etc."

The list of do's and don'ts issued by individual church communities since 325 AD is huge. That's because Christianity is a religion, and most religions are this way. If you're trying to indicate that Christianity is something special in this fashion, I think your efforts are demonstrably doomed to failure. Better to concentrate on the mystical beauty and truth of the Eucharist. You'll get better mileage. </STRONG>

You misunderstood what I said. I said the difference between religion and true Christianity.

Unknown~
<STRONG>More and more people are moving away from church and closer to God.</STRONG>

A lot of "Christians" are just "playing church." They're part of the Christian religion. A true Christian is someone who goes beyond talking the talk and walks the walk(to use an old phrase).

"You must believe in faith rather than works." That's a redundantly stupid sentence, no offense.

<STRONG>God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.</STRONG>~Ephesians 2:8-9

^That's where the saved by faith, not works comes from.

Catholicism is more Religion than true Christianity. They have all these religious rules of do this, don't do this, do that, dno't do that, don't do him, don't do her, etc. (So no one thinks I'm just bashing one of the other denominations...) The Southern Baptist Convention(SBC) is that way as well. Especially the "Traditionalists"(extreme fundamentalists). (Note: I go to a Southern Baptist Church...)

True Christianity is more about what you can do than what you can't do. It's really too complex to explain and I don't really expect you to believe me. I'm just an 18-year-old girl telling what she knows and what she believes. *hops back down off her soapbox and sets explosives around it* *walks a ways away from it, holds a detonator switch out in front of her* *pushes the button, destroying her soapbox*

Sailor Saturn writes:
You misunderstood what I said. I said the difference between religion and true Christianity....True Christianity is more about what you can do than what you can't do. It's really too complex to explain and I don't really expect you to believe me. I'm just an 18-year-old girl telling what she knows and what she believes. *hops back down off her soapbox and sets explosives around it* *walks a ways away from it, holds a detonator switch out in front of her* *pushes the button, destroying her soapbox*

I know it's difficult to explain these things, but since you've divided Christianity between "religion" and "true Christianity," and you're making judgements up here about what's right and what isn't, with respect I think you owe us some attempt at any explanation. We need to know where you're coming from, so to speak. As it is, I can only know when you tell me, "The bible says this," when the bible can in fact say that, and something else, and a third thing, again.

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>@SS Nobody was saying that Adam & Eve weren't in the Old Testament. I just found it puzzling that all your translation comments had to do with the New testament Being in Greek, when my point has to do with the old testament.</STRONG>

Ah. That's probably because I was speaking of the words Jesus used when speaking to God. The Old Testament was in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament(ALL of it) was written in Greek.

@SS thanx for clearing that up.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I know it's difficult to explain these things, but since you've divided Christianity between "religion" and "true Christianity," and you're making judgements up here about what's right and what isn't, with respect I think you owe us some attempt at any explanation. We need to know where you're coming from, so to speak. As it is, I can only know when you tell me, "The bible says this," when the bible can in fact say that, and something else, and a third thing, again. </STRONG>

You just had to give me a new soapbox, didn't ya, fab.

*gets on her new soapbox*

Okay, in a traditional SBC church, you've got your traditionalists(mostly people over 50). They'll constantly tell you "Don't do this" and "don't do that" and "don't do him" and "don't do her." They're the ones who will run off a pastor because he was seen having a glass of wine with dinner or some such. They're "New Pharisees" so to speak. They try to force everyone to live by the law.

As Christians, we are not under the law. Don't take this the wrong way(like many Arizona Christians seem to do(not much offense meant at Arizona).

<STRONG>Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.</STRONG>~Romans 13:1-2, NLT

I'm gonna go offtrack real quick to answer something before anyone has the chance to say that. One would likely argue that God wouldn't set up governments such as Totalitarian and Communist. Though God sets them up, it is still up to man to make them a good government or an evil government. The results of us humans having free will.

Okay, back to the other track.

Yes, we are supposed to obey the law. The "we do not live under the law" thing is refering to the Law of Moses. We are not bound under that law, though we should still follow it as a guideling of living a good life. We aren't supposed to have a whole bunch of religeous rules telling us we can't do this and can't do that.

*gives the soapbox back to fable* You can keep it, fabby.

Sailor Saturn raises her glaive, and replies:
You just had to give me a new soapbox, didn't ya, fab.

My pleasure, @SS.

Okay in in a traditional SBC church, you've got your traditionalists(mostly people over 50). They'll constantly tell you "Don't do this" and "don't do that" and "don't do him" and "don't do her." They're the ones who will run off a pastor because he was seen having a glass of wine with dinner or some such...

In fact, a lot of branches of Christianity would nod enthusiastically would you about the SBs. Gods, I would, and I'm not a Christian; but I've worked for SBs, and I've got SB relatives (courtesy of my wife).

No offense, but you seem to be defining "true Christianity" not by what it is, but by what it is not.

As Christians, we are not under the law. Don't take this the wrong way(like many Arizona Christians seem to do(not much offense meant at Arizona)...Yes, we are supposed to obey the law. The "we do not live under the law" thing is refering to the Law of Moses. We are not bound under that law, though we should still follow it as a guideling of living a good life. We aren't supposed to have a whole bunch of religeous rules telling us we can't do this and can't do that.

But Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Your faith is based on a bible. Right there, you've excluded the worship of other gods, and you've excluded faith based on other books, or an interpretation of your own book of faith as less than that.

So you have dogma you follow. I guess I'm trying to get a sense what the dogma consists of, besides what I've just very briefly, summarily related.

*gives the soapbox back to fable* You can keep it, fabby.

Back to you, @Sat.

Okay in in a traditional SBC church, you've got your traditionalists(mostly people over 50). They'll constantly tell you "Don't do this" and "don't do that" and "don't do him" and "don't do her." They're the ones who will run off a pastor because he was seen having a glass of wine with dinner or some such...

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>In fact, a lot of branches of Christianity would nod enthusiastically would you about the SBs. Gods, I would, and I'm not a Christian; but I've worked for SBs, and I've got SB relatives (courtesy of my wife).</STRONG>

The traditionalist SBs are a "dying breed" so to speak. They're mostly old folks, so as they die out, they're replaced by younger folks. It'll still probably be many generations before the traditionalism is eradicated, if ever.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>No offense, but you seem to be defining "true Christianity" not by what it is, but by what it is not.</STRONG>

Process of elimination, boyo. I'm starting by telling you what Christianity isn't. As those are eliminated and you question everything, you'll start to see what "true Christianity" is, I hope.

As Christians, we are not under the law. Don't take this the wrong way(like many Arizona Christians seem to do(not much offense meant at Arizona)...Yes, we are supposed to obey the law. The "we do not live under the law" thing is refering to the Law of Moses. We are not bound under that law, though we should still follow it as a guideling of living a good life. We aren't supposed to have a whole bunch of religeous rules telling us we can't do this and can't do that.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>But Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Your faith is based on a bible. Right there, you've excluded the worship of other gods, and you've excluded faith based on other books, or an interpretation of your own book of faith as less than that.</STRONG>

That has nothing to do with whether or not we are under the law. We obey the law because God loves us, not so that God will love us. That is the point there. As a child, did you obey your parents' rules so they would love you or because they love you?

"Worksbased" Christianity is based on the idea that we do "good works" so that God will love us.

"Faithbased" Christianity is based on the idea(mentioned in Ephesians 2:8-9) that we do "good works" because God loves us.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>So you have dogma you follow. I guess I'm trying to get a sense what the dogma consists of, besides what I've just very briefly, summarily related. </STRONG>

That's all any of this metaphysical stuff is. Even an Athiest has faith. She has faith in her decision that God doesn't exist. Everything anyone does, says, or decides is based on faith in something. It may be as simple as deciding to buy something because you have faith in the knowledge that there is money in your bank account or something far more complex.

*gives the soapbox back to fable* You can keep it, fabby.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Back to you, @Sat. </STRONG>

Thank you, oh so much, fabby. *pushes it back over to you* Your turn.

"gets out his personal Gamebanshee soapbox..."

@Fable, heya! When I posted those facts above, I was addressing Word's concerns regarding Biblical interpretation, not mounting a defense of New Testament reliability. I'll attempt to do that now, using some of your points as a platform for mine. It will not be exhaustive by any means. BTW, please don't think I'm trying to desconstruct your arguments piecemeal instead of fully. I'm trying to answer your most important points is all. If I don't refute a given point, then assume that a) I can't respond appropriately to it at this time b) I concur with your reasoning or c) I have no idea what you're talking about


Fable writes:
Most of it (the NT) is a work of faith, depicting miraculous happenings...

MM:
Not so. Most of the NT consists of the epistles written by Paul to the fledging churches he and his associates established in and around the Meditteranean basin. Theological essays, doxologies, discourses on Christian doctrine and duty, OT prophecies explained in light of NT teaching, and moral admonitions and warnings, dominate the bulk of his letters. You'll find little mention of miraculous events in them. Most of the miracles recorded in the NT are found in the Gospels themselves (17% of the content I would estimate), and their veracity IMO can be best confirmed by the testimony of eyewitnesses (see below).

Fable writes:
... It is written by the faithful, for the faithful, about (in part) miracles that the writers has never witnessed... I'm attempting to explain why I think religious proofs, as such, only work for the faithful...

MM:
"Written by the faithful"? Yes, of course, naturally.

"For the faithful"? Not quite. Paul's letters were addressed to Christians, admittedly, but the gospels themselves were evangelistic in nature, meaning they were written with a non-believing audience in mind: Greek-speaking Jews (gospel of Matthew), Gentiles in Rome (gospel of Mark), a Roman patron and publisher named Theophilus (gospel of Luke and Acts), and non-believers in general (gospel of John).

"Never witnessed miracles by the NT writers"?
Oh no, not at all. Matthew for one belonged to the Twelve, was recruited by Jesus early in his ministry, and stuck with him until his ascension. Ditto for John, the beloved apostle, who claimed to be a personal eyewitness of Christ's miracles (John 21:24), and later stated emphatically in the introduction to his first epistle: "We proclaim him (Jesus) who was from the beginning, who we have heard, who we have seen with our eyes, who we have looked at and our hands have touched..." And finally, the apostle Paul, a contemporary of Christ who was quite the miracle-worker himself, and testified before crowds, kings, and (eventually) Emperor that he was an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection, noting that there were over 500 witnesses most of whom were still alive at the time of his writing.

"Religious proofs only work for the faithful"? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement, or if you really believe in it yourself. If true, however, then the gospel writers were wasting their time trying to convert non-believers with accounts of the life of Christ, and Paul the veteran missionary didn't know what he was talking about when he affirmed that "faith comes from reading the Word of God" (somewhere in Romans). In my experience, religious proofs both establish and support one's faith. For example, it has long been the "standard operating procedure" in my Church to get proselytes reading and studying the gospels of John and Matthew as soon as possible, since they provide a solid introduction to discipleship and invariably become the starting points of their pilgrimage to the waters of baptism.

Fable writes:
I would suggest that all sincere Christians who try to prove the events in the OT or NT actually occurred, as evidence of the internal accuracy of the bible, are barking up the wrong tree. The NT in particular is largely a work of faith… not founded on a bedrock of archeological digs, or in a fabric supposedly demonstrating the death imprint of a god...

MM:
On the contrary, I think the NT's internal reliability can indeed be established, and that by legitimate empirical methods. Several authors of antiquity wrote of Jesus as a person of history, among them Tacitus, Josephus, Seuntonius, and Pliny. The gospel accounts give specific geographical, topological, and cultural details that are known to fit the time period of which they speak. Although Matthew, Mark, Luke and John offer different (but not contradictory) perspectives, they all present the same basic facts about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Further, all mention of real historical places of the times (ie. Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem) utilize the names of actual places of people such as Pharisees, Sadduccees, Herodians. In addition, names of real historical persons of the period are mentioned (ie. Herod, Pilate, Augustus).

The science of archeology moreover confirms the NT's historical accuracy. To cite one prominent example, Sir William Ramsay, whose conversion from a skeptical view of the NT was supported by a lifetime of research in the near-eastern world wrote: "I began with a mind unfavorable to it (Luke's writings). More recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for topography, antiquities, and society of Asia minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth.” As a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate historian. In Luke’s references to 32 countries, 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors.

Also consider that the NT writers like Paul, John, and Luke were known to be honest men. They not only expounded a high moral standard of honesty and integrity, they lived and ultimately died for it. While some people have been known to die for what they believed to be right but was wrong, few people have been willing to die for what they KNOW to be wrong.

Can it be proven 100% that the NT is reliable? Of course not, since then there would be no room for faith. On the other hand, I think that if one were to honestly examine the evidence, he or she would come to the conclusion that Christianity is based not on faith alone, but also by historical facts and reliable testimonies which serve to reinforce that faith.

"gets down from soapbox and covers his head with it in anticipation for flying tomatoes..."

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]