Foundations

Jake writes:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All I am saying is that the gospels are clearly not unbiased histories.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is ample evidence in the New Testament to indicate that the writers where much more objective than you give them credit for.

"They (gospel writers) not only include self incriminating details about themselves, they also record embarressing details about their leader, Jesus, that seem to place him in a bad light."

Norm Giesler - "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist", pg 277


Mark records that the mother and brothers of Jesus' own family thought He was "out of His mind" (Mark:21,31). They went to seize Him in order to take Him home. I would think that if Mark were biased he would have withheld these embarressing details that those closest to Jesus thought He had mental problems.

John records that the brother of Jesus did not believe in Him John 7:5. It is more characteristic of bias that these details would have been omitted to place Jesus in the most favorable light.

John also records candidly that Jesus was thought of as being a deceiver (John 7:12). Prejudicial bias usually conceals negative information and puts forward the positive. An objective reporter is more likely to include incriminating evidence of this kind about a favored historical figure.

John further mentions the potentially embarresing account of how all of the disciples of Jesus forsook Him (John 6:66). It is quite unbiased of John to include this detail that even Jesus' own followers deserted Him.

The flavor is not of prejudicial bias but of stark objectivity. His family thought Him crazy? His brothers disbelieved His claims? He had reputation of being a deceiver? His own disciples forsook Him? Biased Jake?

John even records the Jews who DID finally come to believe in Jesus, He offended to the point that they CHANGED and wanted to stone Him ! (John 8:30-31). I think a biased reported would have quite while he was ahead. Why in the world would John show that Jesus TURNED OFF some Jews who finally came around to believing His words?

This suggests candor and objectivity rather than spin or bias.

Futher potentially embarressing information volunteered by the Gospel writers:

Jesus was accused of being a "drunkard" (Matt. 11:19). Biased would be more expected to CONCEAL such a negative rumor going around.

Jesus was thought by other to be "demon-possessed" (Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48). That is incriminating information that a slanted writer would conceal in order to place the subject in the most favorable light.

Jesus was called a "madman" (John 20:20). Why would John go out of his way to include this damning rumor about Jesus had John been biased?

Jesus had His feet wiped with the hair of a prostitute (Luke 7:36-39). That detail would surely be foder for a sensational scandel. Luke candidly informs us of the event.

Then the law of Moses said that there was a curse on anyone who hung from a tree (ie, in crucifixion). Amazingly enough a most disqualifying detail for a Jewish Messiah was included. The Jews and the Romans had Him hung on a tree.

A biased writer trying to put a Jewish Messiah in the best light would not have been likely to put Jesus under the curse mentioned in Deut. 21:23 Compare Gal. 3:13)

Objectivity is the flavor of the New Testament Gospels rather than BIAS.

In fact many things are said in a very matter of fact way. The writer simply states what happened without begging the reader to believe. You get it or you don't get it. There is no begging or special pleading.

I think we are dealing with an honest unbiased account of an extraordinary Man - the Christ, God's Son.

Originally posted by jaywill
Jake writes:

[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All I am saying is that the gospels are clearly not unbiased histories.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is ample evidence in the New Testament to indicate that the writers where much more objective than you give them credit for.

"They (gospel writers) not only include self incrim ...[text shortened]... ith an honest unbiased account of an extraordinary Man - the Christ, God's Son.

Jesus was considered to be out of his mind and a deciever? Wow, great traits there.

Jesus' own followers do desert him, but the gospels continue in the same style. Eyewitness accounts? As for what causes bias. Did the supposed writters of the gospels believe Jesus was the Son of God? If yes then saying that a few people thought badly of Jesus hardly will alter the conclusions you draw with regards to their opinion of him. I'm sorry but the quotes you give are not proof that these are completly accurate historical documents.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Jesus was considered to be out of his mind and a deciever? Wow, great traits there.

Jesus' own followers do desert him, but the gospels continue in the same style. Eyewitness accounts? As for what causes bias. Did the supposed writters of the gospels believe Jesus was the Son of God? If yes then saying that a few people thought badly of Jesus hardly ...[text shortened]... but the quotes you give are not proof that these are completly accurate historical documents.

They are not proof of historical accuracy per se. They are offered to demonstrate the likelihood that the writers were objective and not bias.

There are two kinds of propoganda. There is false propoganda and there is true propoganda.

For example, I saw a gruesome film on the Holocoast under Hitler. It showed bull dozers pushing mounds of corpses along the ground. I believe that that was a propoganda film of the true type.

The New Testament is propoganda. I believe that is propoganda of the true type. And the objectivity of the authors to include details incriminating to thier case suggests not bias but true witness objectivity.

But as I said before, I think you should read the New Testament. I don't think you do.

Did the supposed writters of the gospels believe Jesus was the Son of God?


Eventually yes. Except for Judas who betrayed Him.

Do you believe that Socrates was a real historical person? How much testimony to the existence of Socrates do we have as compared to Jesus?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have read you post over and over and I cant figure out what you are saying. You appear to be making two statements:
1. some things we accept as factual,
2. some things we simply accept because we believe them to be true
What is the difference between these two? Surely 'accept as factual' is 'believing to be true'?

If I pick up a rock and say I have rock in my hand that would be
a factual statement I would hope we could agree on. If I say I have
a 2 billion year old rock, that would be a different matter altogether
since it could be a 3 billion year old rock, a 4 billion year old rock,
or a 7 thousand year old rock. The fact would be I'm holding a rock
what I have added to that fact by suggesting I know the age would be
a something else altogether and not necessarily true.

If I got a certain reading from a test that gave me a date of 2 billion
years, that would be a fact; the truth of the age may or may not be
2 billion years old, that makes accepting it or rejecting it a matter
of beliefs that what we are doing is an accurate testing. My accepting
the test as true makes it a matter of belief, that does not mean I’m
saying it isn’t true, but does open the door for error while saying the
fact is just (holding the rock, and getting a reading) are truly the only
facts we are looking at here, the rest is a matter of belief.

Our faith in what we think we should see will lay the foundation of
how we view all facts. For example someone who believes the
universe to be billions of years old will with that belief judge all
things with that belief as a filter on all the evidence they run across
and either accept or reject findings accordingly. Our faith trusts
and rests upon things we cannot know for sure it guides our lives
with or without God we are creatures of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
They are not proof of historical accuracy per se. They are offered to demonstrate the likelihood that the writers were objective and not bias.

There are two kinds of propoganda. There is false propoganda and there is true propoganda.

For example, I saw a gruesome film on the Holocoast under Hitler. It showed bull dozers pushing mounds of corpses al ...[text shortened]... ity.

But as I said before, I think you should read the New Testament. I don't think you do.

I listen to it every week in church. Anyway, like you said, its a matter of belief. You believe, so you wouldn't ever consider it from an alternative perspective. You havn't provided conclusive evidence, so the validity of the gospels is still questionable. It comes down to whether you'll believe in the impossible on the bases of texts that can't be validated.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I listen to it every week in church. Anyway, like you said, its a matter of belief. You believe, so you wouldn't ever consider it from an alternative perspective. You havn't provided conclusive evidence, so the validity of the gospels is still questionable. It comes down to whether you'll believe in the impossible on the bases of texts that can't be validated.

++++++++++++++++++++++
I listen to it every week in church.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I do not compare being a passive pew sitting listener to the clergy with taking the initiative to read for oneself the Bible.

It is a suggestion. If you think being a passive pew sitter participating in a religious spectator sport is all the Bible you need, I kind of feel sorry for you.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyway, like you said, its a matter of belief. You believe, so you wouldn't ever consider it from an alternative perspective.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I lived by alternatives prior to believing in Christ the Lord.

I studied Zen Buddhism for a while.
I was an agnostic for a while delving into the Rosicrucians.
I was very much interested in hypnotism and para normal events for a time.

I was solidly in the counter culture movement of the 1960s along with its experimentation with psychedelic drugs.

I've been around a little bit Jake.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You havn't provided conclusive evidence, so the validity of the gospels is still questionable. It comes down to whether you'll believe in the impossible on the bases of texts that can't be validated.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No, that's not all. It comes down to not being able to deny the Holy Spirit when Jesus Christ enters into your spirit.

You haven't provided me with a reasonable alternative as to why the disciples were motivated to write such an alleged fiction, including potentially incriminating evidence against their "cause".


Anyway, I asked you about Socrates. If I recall correctly, all we know about this great man Socrates is what ONE and only ONE of his pupils passed on to us. I wonder then if you aim the same amount of skepticism towards the teachings and deeds of the philosopher Socrates.

I think it is the CONTENT of the message, the IMPLICATIONS of the message which influence you to lean toward doubting the details of Jesus Christ.

The implications of ignoring Jesus have heavier consequences than belief in the rather limited witness to Socrates. I think that is why you take the position that the New Testament can't be trusted. The implications of the message are farther reaching - even unto eternity.

Nice to compare notes with you a bit, anyway.

Jake,

Tell me something. Do you know who your father is?

How do you know that that man is your father, if you do?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++
I listen to it every week in church.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I do not compare being a passive pew sitting listener to the clergy with taking the initiative to read for oneself the Bible.

It is a suggestion. If you think being a passive pew sitter participating in a religious spectator sport is all the Bible you ...[text shortened]... ther reaching - even unto eternity.

Nice to compare notes with you a bit, anyway.[/b]

I do read bits of the bible. But I will take your advice. I have my last A level exams on Monday, and after that I have a lot of free time. I promise over the next few weeks I'll sit down some time and read the new testament. Not just the Gospels but at least the letters of Paul because I think in a way they are more the foundations of christianity then the gospels were. I will also try and get hold of that 'why I havn't got enough faith to be an atheist' book.

But I don't feel that I have to. I don't even think the passive listening I get every week is necessary. I don't think religion is necessary for my life.

Clearly you have much more experience then I do. I still don't think that necessarily makes you right. My experiences have almsot be solely christian. Obviously I still go to church, so my exposure to the religion I now disagree with has been 100% of my life.

When you speak of Jesus entering your spirit, I can't agree with you. Relgious experiences are not solely the domain of Christianity. You must accept that truth alone does not cause religion. If you think about it, prechristian times and even pre Jewish times, in fact, for the whole of human history, there have been religions. So you must accept that religions can come from humans.

Given that, you are trying to convince me that Christianity is different. But you can't proove that. You can't show me that the gospels are accurate. As I've said, the gospels probably developed as oral tranditions which were then written down and altered by evangelicas to suit their audiences. Sorry to repeat myself, but if the gospels were written straight down by four eyewitness disciples, then why are the last words of Jesus different? I've asked a preist this, and he said that the gospels came from oral traditions, but each version is still important because of what it meant to the people that heard them. So I don't think anyone wrote a fiction. I think it developed. Yes based in fact, but yes exagerated and added to, especally to fit propheses. Remember, Jesus was not the only holy man of the time to have miricals such as healing associated with him.


I don't know much about Socrates, but I'm fairly sure he never did anything impossible.


So tell me. What are the implications of a belief in Jesus? If I put my trust in God, if I 'do not see and yet believe' what does that mean? Surely you find the love of Jesus a comfort. Surely you are content in the promise of eternal life. What do I have to be afraid of? If Jesus came down from heaven now and said, 'guys look over here! I'm real; look water into wine!' do you think I would be dissapointed? The point is, I don't believe. Not because I'm scared of believing, but because I simple don't see any reason why its true.

Originally posted by jaywill
Jake,

Tell me something. Do you know who your father is?

How do you know that that man is your father, if you do?

I do know my father. He has been their my whole life, right there where I can see him. I trust him. Partly because he is there and I accept the evidence in front of my eyes. God has never spoken to me.

Originally posted by jaywill
Jake,

Tell me something. Do you know who your father is?

How do you know that that man is your father, if you do?

DNA testing. Empirically verifiable.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Did the supposed writters of the gospels believe Jesus was the Son of God?


Eventually yes. Except for Judas who betrayed Him.

Do you believe that Socrates was a real historical person? How much testimony to the existence of Socrates do we have as compared to Jesus?[/b]

Actually it's pretty much the tradition in Philosophy to use the name Socrates as a character for that very reason.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
DNA testing. Empirically verifiable.

Do you mean that you had your DNA tested to verify that your dad was your dad?

Do you mean that when you became an adult you did not trust that he had told you the truth so you elected to go have a DNA test?

Originally posted by Starrman
Actually it's pretty much the tradition in Philosophy to use the name Socrates as a character for that very reason.

I read a book by Plato on Socrates which was fascinating. It was about how Socrates was executed by being told to drink poison.

The book was filled with his arguments against his friends who were pleading with him not to do it. His logic was strong. His reasons were well reasoned. His attitude was "No if this is what they want me to do it is proper that I should do it."

I could hardly believe that a man could be so consistent as a good citizen. I thought this Socrates must have been quite something.

But I had also heard that had it not been for this one pupil Plato we would know nothing about Socrates. Plato is the sole (primary) witness to the existence of Socrates. All other witnesses are based on what Plato has told the world.

In comparison there are numerous more testimonials concerning Jesus of Nazareth - Matthew, Mark, John are among the eye witnesses. And Luke who was an assistant to Paul who claimed a post-resurrection encounter with Jesus, furnish us with more testimonial than of one pupil of Socrates.

I trust Plato that he probably represented his teacher Socrates pretty well. Anyway I have to. Or I can assume that Plato is pulling the wool over the world's eyes or exagerating.

I trust the witness of the gospel writers concerning Jesus. To add to this I firmly believe that Paul was exactly right when he echoes Christ's teaching "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

Christ today is in the form of "a life giving Spirit" as He eloborated in chapters 14 through 17 of John. I think my encounter with the Spirit of Christ is consistent with what He taught.

So I trust the historical testimonials to Jesus. And I trust my post-resurrection encounter with the last Adam - Christ - who "became a life giving Spirit"

He said to His disciples, afterall - "And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (Matt. 28:20)

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
DNA testing. Empirically verifiable.

Jake,

You empirically verified your dad's word to you that you were his son ?

Did the DNA test confirm that he had told you the truth ?

But then if you had trustingly taken his word for it, you would have had the truth just the same. Am I right?