The original 12 Apostles alone, it can be argued, were given authority to write Scripture. So if something is not written in the new Testament by them, a Christian can quite possibly reject it. — Gregory

It is true that we shouldn’t know about history merely by etymology,
and it’s reasonable for non-Christians to question such problems like Paul isn't the real author of the Pauline Epistles.( mainly the most controversial Hebrews, other letters of Paul are recognized in academia that they were all written by Paul himself) However in this case, in the church Pauline Epistles are just the traditional name/designation for a bunch of letters, if there are historians inside/outside the church who can provide conclusive evidence of the true author of a particular book/gospel/letter, then the church would just change the scope of Pauline Epistles, and I don’t find anywhere in Bible talking about that the original 12 Apostles alone were given authority to write Scripture, if there is I hope to know.

The gospels and the epistles are wildly accepted as historical materials (because they pass all the conditions for a material to be used in historical study), and there are a lot of evidence suggesting that Jesus and his deeds( healing, teaching, performing miracles, resurrection) were real, choosing not to believe doesn’t effect the reality that they are very significant evidence.

So the question is now simply that, are we supposed to accept Jesus, who is mighty and resurrected, as God.

Hopefully these answer your question about the truthfulness of the New Testament.

Therefore He wills the Good necessarily and freely. This may be possible in a supernatural (imaginary) being, but still I see no room left in God for Him choosing (within His nature) the Good in the face of pain and suffering. Therefore man has the ability to be greater than God. — Gregory

God is good so everything He does is just in His justice, but something He doesn’t do, so He can only honor our freewill. Even if human cause sufferings He too mercifully only does good for those things. There’s something I believe to be the core nature of God, that God is not, and can’t be love; God is not, and can’t be mercy, He is just who he is. Also why does this follow that man has the ability to be greater than God.

Hi Gregory,

Although there are a few conclusions in your post that I do not know from what it is that they follow, such as “So we are free to believe what we want”, I think your overall argument looks something like this:

1. If an argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus makes the most sense out of historical record, then the alleged resurrection of Jesus must possess extra evidence or additional support or look more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2. The alleged resurrection of Jesus does not possess extra evidence or additional support or looks more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
3. Therefore, the argument for Christianity based on alleged resurrection of Jesus does not make the most sense out of historical record compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims. (1,2 MT)
4. If the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a successful argument for Christianity, then the alleged resurrection of Jesus must possess extra evidence or additional support or look more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
5. Therefore, the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus is not a successful argument for Christianity. (3,4 MT)

Although Premise 3 could also be contested, my objection is aimed at Premise 4. It seems to me as though it is not necessary for Jesus’ alleged resurrection to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity. If an argument is to be successful, then it must be both valid and sound.

1. If it was possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record, then it is not necessary for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity.
2. It is possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record.
2a. If the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could be both valid and sound (and thus successful) without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims, then it would be possible for the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be a successful argument for Christianity without making the most sense out of historical record.
2b. The argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could both be valid and sound without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2bi. If warranted belief in the truth of a proposition requires sufficient evidence and not compelling evidence (which is the highest degree of evidence), then it is possible for the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus to be sound without providing extra evidence or additional support or looking more impressive compared to all other reported miracles and resurrection claims.
2bi1. There is sufficient evidence.
2bii. We know that an argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus could/has been formed, so it is possible.
3. Therefore, it is not necessary for the argument for Christianity based on the alleged resurrection of Jesus to make the most sense out of historical record in order to be a successful argument for Christianity. (1,2 MP)

Loving someone not of this world is not virtuous and worshiping any conscious being is idolatry.

There is no probability for an "event" that allegedly happen 2000 years ago. Therefore there is no "most reasonable" way of looking at it. Check through the "Lists of Religions" on Wikipedia. They all have claims. It does not matter if you have a handful of documents saying the same thing. They are all religious works written by a cult involving many people. They worked together. That is what makes the most sense, considering how awful Christian doctrine is. Even the claim that the writers died for the belief in Jesus comes from those religious text.

saint Augustine converted to Christianity — Gus Lamarch

"Saint" Augustine was a self-worshipper who said babies burn in hell. And if you don't know well know verses of the Bible that is not my fault. You chose a 6 instead of a 7 and want Jesus now to bail you out

Conflating outcome and intent is a conspiracy theorist play. — Kenosha Kid

I said that was their intent. You can't prove otherwise

Saint" Augustine was a self-worshipper who said babies burn in hell. — Gregory

And he has been known as a Saint for more than a thousand years. That's a win to me.

And he has been known as a Saint for more than a thousand years. That's a win to me. — Gus Lamarch

By Satanists

we shouldn’t know about history merely by etymology, — xinye

All fields of study about ancient cultures' beliefs are based on etymology. If you don't know the language you can't know what they knew. Language passes through history, so you have travel that path, day by day, back to 33A.D. in order to truly know what happened. It's far back in history, language changes every decade. Persona meant mask originally. Now it means personhood. Sophia meant wisdom, but the Sophists were not wise.

By Satanists — Gregory

"Satanist Christians". You have a contradiction there, one of your propositions is wrong, and I think it is that of "Satanists".

Satan is a force, not a person

I said that was their intent. You can't prove otherwise — Gregory

Then I was quite accurate in describing you as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist nutjob.

.

For saying that they make up things like every religion in the world?

Explain

St. Paul is racist, not me. I have close family that is Jewish idiot kid

For saying that they make up things like every religion in the world? — Gregory

No, for describing it as a conspiracy theory to take over the West. Standard anti-Semitic delusion.

.

Rome conquered them first

Rome conquered them first — Gregory

And that was intentional, as evidenced by the huge scale military action. That is not, therefore, a crazed conspiracy theory.

The Bible is a religious text and so inherently conspiratory. They used it against Rome and won.

The Bible is a religious text and so inherently conspiratory. They used it against Rome and won. — Gregory

You understand that the Bible didn't exist then. The Roman Catholic church collated the Bible after the fall of Rome.

.

It as written by a group of scribes in the 1st century, if you trust history.

You understand that the Bible didn't exist then. — Kenosha Kid

The first Christian bible consists of The Gospel of the Lord as preached by Paul the Apostle and referenced by him with the phrase "my gospel" on three occasions as found in the original Epistles of Paul. Within the Epistles are: Galatians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Romans, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Ephesians, Laodiceans, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians. It was written in the year of 144 AD by Marcion of Sinope (85 AD - 160 AD), a shipbuilder and son of the Bishop of Pontus. And of course, it is the first we know of, it could have been earlier versions.

It as written by a group of scribes in the 1st century, if you trust history. — Gregory

The individual books were written over a much greater period of time, along with a great many more texts that are not in the Bible. The Bible was collated in the 3rd century and became standardised in the 6th. Your Jewish conspirators played a very long game, didn't they. Precisely how did they plot to make Christians hundreds of years later collate the book to bring an end to an empire that was already ending/ended? Jewish sorcery, perhaps?

Your being ridiculous. All religions do this

Religion is a drug that is usually from an evil force connected to the Satan force. Most religions run amuck and troll the world, it's everywhere. Its not just Judaism

Religion is a drug that is usually from an evil force connected to the Satan force. — Gregory

Philosophy, people! LOL

Back to the basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Philosophy, people! LOL — Gus Lamarch

You don't believe in anything

And you're not proposing philosophy by saying there is a unified personafied trinity of a God nature somewhere out there?

There appear to be two streams of conversation here. The first is generally of the nature of that found among historians. The second is perhaps philosophical, but seems free-floating. It's not grounded in an agreement as to just what is being discussed/disputed. A step backward would take us to 'Is there a supreme being?' and a further step back would arrive somewhere near 'How can we know something?'

A step backward would take us to 'Is there a supreme being? — Torus34

Is there a buttery in a cosmic cup drinking cool-aid under a green sun? More probably than there being a God

But you are right, talking about historical documents will be influenced by whether you believe in God, aliens, or whatever your belief system is..