If the New Testament included only the Gospels..... (page 2)

Spectrum

"Secondly, when has the last time a person suffereing from hallucinations ever became a moral leader?"

The problem is we don't know how much of the NT naration is of true events and how much of it was written for effect, like Paul's vision and whether he really was anti-christian to begin with.

XJW4EVR

"Secondly, when has the last time a person suffereing from hallucinations ever became a moral leader?"

The problem is we don't know how much of the NT naration is of true events and how much of it was written for effect, like Paul's vision and whether he really was anti-christian to begin with.

Unless you have something concrete that proves that Paul was a liar, then the general rule of giving the benefit of the doubt to the writers of the NT remains. This is the rule within the scholastic community.

lovelylil

I can agree that some of the bible writers were more expressive in their language than others and could have added words for effect. But I cannot see why they would make it all up. Remember at that time there was no good benefit of being a Christian. You were looked at as being complete fools, everyone was suspicious that you would try to overthrow the government and most died horrible deaths. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be persecuted over made up beliefs? And beheaded and thrown to Lions? There would have had to have been a mass hysteria because there was just too many converting to Chrisitanity. Which shows they were true believers in it.

Paul had to go through some kind of experience that altered his course of life forever. And many Christians today go thru a similar experience, albeit not as dramatic as Pauls, and they are changed forever. I know many examples of living proof, and I believe I am one also. And I don't feel any of us are lunatics.

Spectrum

It was easier for the Jews to convert because don't forget they were already primed for it. They were waiting for the Messiah, the Romans were running rings around them and so it was easy for them to believe that they were going to be delivered once again this time not by Moses or David or Ester and the list goes on but by the Messiah himself, goodness I would have converted aswell.
Now how the hell they managed to convince the Greeks and Romans that their Jewish God was better than their Gods considering they had far superior societies is beyond me.

Halucinating doesn't make you a lunatic. I think Paul was very clever saw an opportunity and took it.

Pole

I can agree that some of the bible writers were more expressive in their language than others and could have added words for effect. But I cannot see why they would make it all up. Remember at that time there was no good benefit of being a Christian. You were looked at as being complete fools, everyone was suspicious that you would try to overthrow the government and most died horrible deaths. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be persecuted over made up beliefs? And beheaded and thrown to Lions? There would have had to have been a mass hysteria because there was just too many converting to Chrisitanity. Which shows they were true believers in it.

Sorry, but this is a very weak argument in many ways. Look at some religious fundamentalists even today. They are looked down at as being complete fools, many are ready to die in a terrible way, like blowing themselves up. To echo your question: "why would anyone in their right mind want to be persecuted over made up beliefs"? But they sometimes do. JWs are ready to die for the blood doctine which is a complete piece of bs. So what?

Incidentally, not only religious people have died over the centuries for their "made up" beliefs. For some people, made up or not beliefs are always worth dying for. After all part of your beliefs may be that your made up beliefs are not made up ;-).

Back to the original question: I agree with Narkissos: having done the minimum homework on early Christianity recently, I think separating the gospels out of the Christian writings is a rather arbitrary thought experiment.

Pole

EAGLE-1

For the heck of it I sat down and read only the statements that JC made or supposedly made.Its amazing how little there was to read.You can find more about Alexander the Great 300 years before JC or Elvis................I just do not know but I think maybe it would have been enough.I sensed a lot of division in the BOOK.Nothings changed either.....

XJW4EVR

Sorry, but this is a very weak argument in many ways. Look at some religious fundamentalists even today. They are looked down at as being complete fools, many are ready to die in a terrible way, like blowing themselves up. To echo your question: "why would anyone in their right mind want to be persecuted over made up beliefs"? But they sometimes do. JWs are ready to die for the blood doctine which is a complete piece of bs. So what?

The flaw in your thought appears to be that you think the martyrdom of an Islamofascist and a Christian are the same things. When an Islamofascist martyrs himself he usually takes additional innocent people with him. In most of the cases of Christian martyrs, they went to their deaths alone, and took no innocents with them.

You mentioned the JWs blood doctrine. Remember, that JWs have no assurance of salvation. They believe that only be remaing faithful to Jehober's commands that they will have the possibility of resurrection in the New System. In other words, only by their works (abstaining from blood, etc.) can they possibly entertain thoughts of living in the New System. Compare that to the Christian's view, which is that his/her entrance into heaven is guaranteed by the act of someone else and not as a result of his martyrdom.

I do agree that the martyrdom arguement is a weak argument if placed in the context of modernity. Back in the early days of Christianity, the Apostles did not have the luxuries of Fox News, CNN or the internet. Most of them were alone in countries far from their homeland. It just doesn't make sense to me that people, in their right mind, would die for a belief that they knew was false.

Pole

The flaw in your thought appears to be that you think the martyrdom of an Islamofascist and a Christian are the same things. When an Islamofascist martyrs himself he usually takes additional innocent people with him. In most of the cases of Christian martyrs, they went to their deaths alone, and took no innocents with them.

You mentioned the JWs blood doctrine. Remember, that JWs have no assurance of salvation. They believe that only be remaing faithful to Jehober's commands that they will have the possibility of resurrection in the New System. In other words, only by their works (abstaining from blood, etc.) can they possibly entertain thoughts of living in the New System. Compare that to the Christian's view, which is that his/her entrance into heaven is guaranteed by the act of someone else and not as a result of his martyrdom.

The doctrinal details are totally irrelevant to what I was trying to say. In no way was I comparing equating, or passing judgments about one religion or another. I only suggested that people are ready to die for their beliefs even if they're made up. So, what's the flaw again?

I do agree that the martyrdom arguement is a weak argument if placed in the context of modernity. Back in the early days of Christianity, the Apostles did not have the luxuries of Fox News, CNN or the internet. Most of them were alone in countries far from their homeland.

I'm not sure if I see your point here, can you elaborate?

It just doesn't make sense to me that people, in their right mind, would die for a belief that they knew was false.

You seem to make a false alternative: why did they have to "know those beliefs were false", or "know those beliefs were true"? Why not "they thought their beliefs were true"? In the past, millions of people have thought their beliefs were true and they died for them. Were they "in their right mind" or not?
Pole

garybuss

Spectrum, Did you read the Jefferson Bible?

inquirer

It's amazing how many times people debate New Testament Scripture, but never the OT books! Why are the OT books alway all so sacred, and that the Jews were so good at keeping the canon and there can be only 39 books in their part of the Bible. If most Jews were Christian at first, surely a historian can track down what books they used and match up the writings... And they did got the canon "sealed" a few centuries after, but before it was sealed they had a pretty good idea of what books were canonical and what wasn't. The Muratorian fragment helps, which was translated from a Greek original in 170 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment lacks its beginning and ending, and is a 7th century Latin manuscript, which internal cues identify as a translation from a Greek original from around 170. People back then like the ante-nicene fathers may have had shoddy beliefs, but had a basic understanding of canon, even though there was a few books they accepted that were non canon... But how many writings were there back then? And many did they disgard as heretical gnosticism? Heaps! Not that I don't read Apocryphal books, I think they contain interesting information. No wonder we have the canon today, the Catholic Church (one of those times I would agree with them) didn't hide any NT books. ...They don't think the NT is inspired, but leave that for another day....

If the New Testament included only the Gospels.....

Share this