Only to a Christian and a believer is the NT a biography of God.
Well, not really. It is a biography of God whether anyone believes it or not, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln is a biography of Abraham Lincoln whether I believe it or not. But I can read it, and examine the evidence it presents, and the external historical evidence, and decide whether or not I believe it is true. That's pretty much what faith is. Most just don't recognize that they are exercising it every day.
Yeah, this.
Scheavo, I think we're getting somewhere. We were talking past each other a bit. My point is that my arguments in defense of Christianity don't assume anything. I can make a good case for the miraculous claims in the NT based specifically on what we know about the events. In fact, that's why I find your arguments so objectionable. If the those claims can be validated, then I don't have to start with "assuming God exists..." As I said, I would never dream of arguing that because Jesus was a real person that by default he's the son of god.
Well, testimonial evidence from 2000 years ago isn't very convincing to me of the truth (nor is testimonial evidence too convincing for me if my neighbor tried to tell me something incredulous). For starters, modern psychology has shown memory to be a rather... fickle.. thing. It's rather easy to implant a memory, or change a memory, drastically by simply asking the question in the appropriate way. I don't know about you, but I have friends who change the account of an event every time they tell it, and by the end, they forget the original event to a very large degree. For another, there many now known natural phenomenon that used to be given supernatural sources; so that witnesses could have all witnessed the same thing, and then ascribed it to a supernatural deity because of scientific ignorance. The fact then that there are several accounts of the same event in no way proves that those events were caused supernaturally. Such events still occur today, and science has to step in to explain the events, and why they are natural events, and understandable according to natural laws. By collaborating evidence, you at best prove that an historical event happened in some fashion, but you do not prove that the event attested to was true. I mean, people today swear they see Jesus in fucking TOAST; and while it's ridiculous, and I don't think you have to try and explain those people (cause they're crazy), you do have to prove how the testimonial evidence you point to was not written by people who basically see Jesus in toast.
To get more specific, I think it's very possible that there was some sort of event that led to the stories behind the flood of Noah. Numerous cultures ascribe something akin to it, but stories have a way of getting exaggerated (telephone, anyone?). But there are many plausible natural way to explain how people around the globe could speak of a "flood," while there not actually have been a giant flood that took over the globe. Just like I think the mythology around fantasy creatures (dwarfs, ogres, trolls, elves, etc), likely has some ground in reality (we know we lived with neanderthals, large brutish, ogre like hominids), we've found a small diminished species (halfings, dwarfs, gnomes, etc), and we've found evidence for another species of hominids that lives the same time as us (I believe I remember hearing most Asians have DNA from this mystery hominid). Myths and legends have
some ground in reality, but the actual event and truth is probably far different than what comes about in the myth.
Now, if you want to get Spinoza on me, and say that those natural laws are "God," I wouldn't really disagree with you on that count.
If God exists, why do we need to point to history to prove his existence? Where is God now? It seems to me that if proof of God's existence is possible (which I'm highly doubtful of), then we shouldn't need historical accounts to prove his existence, becuase we should be able to prove it now.
I was thinking about bringing up this point earlier, but it seems to fit in with this post rather well:
Compare your arguments, and the logic being presented, to that of science. You argue that by looking at historical evidence, comparing them, and pointing to area's of agreement, people can come to consensus about what is true, what happened, etc, yes? But we don't see that as happening, Christians don't agree with each other very much, and non-Christians don't agree with, well, Christians. Compare that to the scientific method, where the same logic, and the same principles, lead to consensus, and has had amazing power at changing our lives, and proving the existence of things no readily seen (radiation, for example).
@Bosk: do you really want to compare the evidence for Abraham Lincoln existing to the evidence for God's existence?
*edit*
Thought of a interesting point to make. Another reason I would distinguish the ethics portrayed in the bible, from it's history, and from it's theology, is because in terms of actual morality and ethics, I'm, as far as I can tell, pretty damn "Christian." I'm that despite the fact that I was never once in my life ever subjected to the Bible; I have never attended a Christian ceremony, my parents never once talked to me about it, and basically grew up in a completely agnostic household. And when I say that, I by no means think that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and find the whole concept of God, and knowing if it exists, preposterous to actually know - or defined in such a way as to render theology moot.