Recently, I started a thread about the resurrection and the next world or what is commonly known as the Afterlife. Eventually I found myself deviated into a half-developed discussion about 'the resurrection of Jesus Christ'. Though it certainly is an integral part of the understanding of what is taught by Christianity about the next world, or the afterlife, it is also coupled to what I regard to be the second last step in how I generally present my reasons for believing in Jesus Christ.

Generally speaking, I talk about the essential rules of logic, and comprehension. Sometimes it becomes obvious that the person I am speaking to, has a bad grasp of grammar and comprehension, and is not even anywhere near understanding elementary rules of logic. So one has to literally go back to pre-school and lay some foundations in basic grammar and then hopefully move on to a place where elementary logic can be understood. Not wishing to condesend to you, should you already have covered this, let me go on.

Though most of the arguments for the existence of God, work upon the presuppostion that God exists, it is by no means a cementing factor in leading someone through logic to faith in God, by argument. At the best one might reasonably agree that there might be a god, or gods, or godess. Yet it is certainly not strong enough to convert one to faith in Jesus Christ. Only once one has decided upon a reasonable possibility that there is a God and one begins to pray for this God to reveal himself, that one might then go onto details about what God is like, and whether the God of the Bible is a God to be desired. Of course one stops there and asks.

How do I know I can trust what is written in the Bible ?

So begins the usual exploration into this, and if one manages to agree that the Bible is a very good sourse, or the best sourse for information about God and this Jesus, can one begin to examine the New Testament. Or, perhaps one goes straight to the New Testament. Then the question is, can one actually rely upon this New Testament with regard to the information about Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection.

If one cannot, for whatever reason, then one is unable to go further and will have various reasons for not believing in the historical Jesus and what He did. (The Gospel)

So dear unbeliever, if you are stuck there, would you please explain to me why you believe that the New Testament is not truth, but myth or fairy tale or worse ?

Sincerely,
HH

Edit: Add.

To put this as simply as I possibly can, for my opening post was definitely far too long.

The Question:

I know why I believe that the New Testament Scriptures are reliable, and though I have often explained why I do, there are still those who for some reason or other do not share my confidence.

If this refers to you, would you please be so kind as to inform me why you don't believe in the New Testament Scriptures ? (Please provide your reasons for not believing in the New Testament Scriptures.)

Note: Though others might agressively defend their position of confidence, I have no intention of interrupting the flow of disclosures by those who feel at liberty to express their reasons for not believing in the New Testament.

Kindly,
HH.

One could nitpick at the perceived faults of the NT. I only see its fault as a religious holy book purporting that a demigod walked the Earth and performed miracles. It isn't really the NT that I find fault in, but the lack of evidence of any god at all and how, like all of biology fits into the pattern of evolution, all religions fit into the pattern of being man-made.

I could just the same ask what fault you find in the epic of Gilgamesh, or the Rig Veda, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. Nobody carefully examines all other religious texts and measures their faults against their reliability. Like with sports, the religious pick a team and stick with it.* Of course all other religions are false, they aren't your team!

*Exceptions to be found in religions which embrace all concepts of god.

Originally posted by headheart

Edit: Add.

To put this as simply as I possibly can, for my opening post was definitely far too long.

The Question:

I know why I believe that the New Testament Scriptures are reliable, and though I have often explained why I do, there are still those who for some reason or other do not share my confidence.

If this refers to you, would you please be so kind as to inform me why you don't believe in the New Testament Scriptures ? (Please provide your reasons for not believing in the New Testament Scriptures.)

Note: Though others might agressively defend their position of confidence, I have no intention of interrupting the flow of disclosures by those who feel at liberty to express their reasons for not believing in the New Testament.

Kindly,
HH.

Some of this discussion occurred in another thread, which I will repeat here.

My view is not what I believe necessarily, but what the present historical and archeological evidence demonstrates about the NT. Probably the bottom line is that the NT, particularly the gospels, is not an accurate eyewitness testimony of the all the people and events at the time and life of Jesus Christ. The gospels are a later, after 70 AD compilation of previously written or oral traditions and stories concerning the life and times of Jesus. The writers of the present versions believed what they wrote was true, but like other records of ancient people and events, that does not make them true.

As far as the supernatural and miraculous claims of the events of the NT, there is not sufficient evidence to consider them historical facts. They are indeed similar to the claims of other events and beliefs claimed by various cultures and religions before and after the time of Christ, and written into the biographies of other famous persons. They could be myth or they could be true, and there is just insufficient evidence to consider them historically factual.

The Bible as whole contains records of historical events, some accurate, and some not, but it is not written as a record of history.

Come on fellow T-Webbers who do not believe in God, or a god, or goddesses etc., let's read more reasons why you do not believe in the New Testament Scriptures.

*)(**)(*

Note: Though others might agressively defend their position of confidence, I have no intention of interrupting the flow of disclosures by those who feel at liberty to express their reasons for not believing in the New Testament.

Sincerely,
HH

Originally posted by headheart

Come on fellow T-Webbers who do not believe in God, or a god, or goddesses etc., let's read more reasons why you do not believe in the New Testament Scriptures.

*)(**)(*

Note: Though others might agressively defend their position of confidence, I have no intention of interrupting the flow of disclosures by those who feel at liberty to express their reasons for not believing in the New Testament.

Sincerely,
HH

It is important to note that it is not whether you believe in the NT or not, but how you view the NT in the context of history, belief, and understanding.

There is a claim that not only did some bloke rise from the dead, he is also the son of the creator of the entire universe (or is the creator of the universe, whatever), and all of a sudden there is a life after death which involves a lot of pain and misery, unless you accept that this bloke who copped it then rose a bit later died for something called "sin" (which they say is because of what some ribwoman did in a magical garden).

And what do we have to back this up? The book that claims it in the first place, which is the collection of the musings of various authors nearly always written well after the events supposedly took place, chosen due to a vote by some old men in ancient times, with little to no coroboration of any of the interesting stuff from outside sources.

That is why I don't believe you, the claim is not only absurd, you have little in the way of evidence to support it, other than religious faith, which I have little use for. I think it may have had its uses in the past, and still has limited uses now, however for the most part it is utterly antiquated and superfluous.

..."something called sin." Yes, what in this thing called "sin" ? I can't imagine the word's meaning either. (Whatever it is, I doubt people do it because some ribwoman makes them.)


>

Why should it be historical truth. That is not its intent.

The whole Bible is code to be read between the lines.

If Adam and Eve are allegory for something else, so to is Jesus and all the conflicting testimony about him.

He who has ears let him hear.

It is only meant to be understood by a few.

Originally posted by gharfish

..."something called sin." Yes, what in this thing called "sin" ? I can't imagine the word's meaning either. (Whatever it is, I doubt people do it because some ribwoman makes them.)


>

Imagery of Eve as Satan. The Goddess killed by the Israelites.

Sin is designed to bring your conscious self into turmoil with the sub conscious.?

Or rather the guilt that is being programed into the conscious about imperfection seeps into the sub conscious where an epic battle is being fought with a genetic memory of a state of perfection?

Maybe the sub conscious is in tune faintly with something else?

Just my imaginations running loose again.

One wonders does Mosaic Law and Mosaic, a picture constructed of many parts to reveal an image have the same root? Moses

Must consult my dictionary.

Please try not to go off topic: before 2010

This is a thread for those t-webbers who are unbelievers --- to express their reasons for not accepting (or reasons why they do not believe in ) the New Testament as truth, but instead regard them as myth, fairy tales or worse.

Have yourselves a merry little Christmas time.

Peace,
HH

Originally posted by headheart

Please try not to go off topic: before 2010

This is a thread for those t-webbers who are unbelievers --- to express their reasons for not accepting (or reasons why they do not believe in ) the New Testament as truth, but instead regard them as myth, fairy tales or worse.

Have yourselves a merry little Christmas time.

Peace,
HH

These are two extreme views if taken in the absolute sense. I would argue that the NT is not true in terms of what traditional Christianity considers infallible Doctrine and 'true.' The Roman (c) Church holds to the Infallibly accurate NT, and most Protestant Orthodox churches also hold this view. I consider there to be a middle road where the NT contains both myth and fact concerning the life of Jesus Christ and the events surrounding his life.

The following I considered relatively well established historical facts. By relatively, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the events are true, because of the limits of records available concerning Jesus Christ at the time he lived.

Fact #1 - A man with a Jewish name to Jesus existed at that time and claimed to be the Messiah. He was convicted of rebellion against Rome and crucified under Roman Law when Pontius Pilate was governor.

Fact #2 - John the Baptist is real historical figure who was executed and beheaded for preaching rebellion against Rome.

Fact #2: Paul is a Hellenist Jew with strong Roman allegences, and a real real historical figure who converted to Christianity based on a vision he saw. His letters are reasonably accurate to what he believed, but not all letters in the Bible attributed to him are not necessarily his.

Fact #4 - The gospels we have now were written after 70 AD, and evolved as edited compilation from earlier written and oral traditions by unknown authors, likely more than one. Their authorship was later attributed to the disciples of Christ.

Fact #5 - The Book of Revelation is by an unknown John (or other author) and likely not the disciple John and represents one of many similar works of the time.

Originally posted by headheart

So dear unbeliever, if you are stuck there, would you please explain to me why you believe that the New Testament is not truth, but myth or fairy tale or worse ?

I don't believe the New Testament is truth because I have no good reason to think it is the truth.

What I think it is instead of truth depends on which part of it we're talking about. The epistles record the opinions of the men who wrote them, supplemented occasionally by the opinions of redactors. They are truth insofar as they accurately record what those writers actually believed, but I happen to think those opinions were mistaken. The gospels and Acts are, I believe, works of fiction. I don't know what to make of Revelation.

I cannot believe this, only five unbelievers on a Theology Campus who have an opinion about the New Testament.
When I was last here, this place was simply swarming with you guys. Am I to conclude that your numbers are seriously diminished, or is it perhaps that you guys are a little shy to present viewpoints that are new or challenging ?

Hopefully 2010, will see a unified front from ye all.

Have a Happy New Year.

Peace,
HH

Originally posted by headheart

I cannot believe this, only five unbelievers on a Theology Campus who have an opinion about the New Testament.
When I was last here, this place was simply swarming with you guys. Am I to conclude that your numbers are seriously diminished, or is it perhaps that you guys are a little shy to present viewpoints that are new or challenging ?

Hopefully 2010, will see a unified front from ye all.

Have a Happy New Year.

Peace,
HH

HeadHeart - you have converted all of the atheists. A miracle !

Regards
magellan