From previous threads:
Is belief intrinsically irrational and why flame wars are almost innate in religious threads:
I would surmise that the large number of seemingly provocative and inflammatory replies by both "born-againers" and "non-born-againers" demonstrates why relationships between the two are so difficult. The problem is that both your hyper-fundamentalist born-againer and your strict materialistic rationalist are trapped in excessively left brain linear thinking that is its own language barrier.
When one gets stuck in such thinking, one interprets the opponent's statements in the worst possible light while insisting that one's own statements be interpreted in the best possible light. Hence, one's own statements are "accurate reflections of relaity" while the opponent's statements are "personal, pigheaded attacks."
No relationship can flower in such soil. I am a born-again Christian. Despite the "language barrier" between myself and people like Red Dawn and UG, I think we have managed to remain civil.
Still, to suggest that being "born-again" implies a particular deficiency in the individual who experiences it would obviously offend most born-againers. It doesn't offend me. I know I am weird Despite my weirdness, I think I have demonstrated many times here why theism in general is by no means irrational.
Consider the following from a previous thread. Look at the building blocks of this material universe that some limit themselves to:
Example 1: How can someone with a genuine case of Dissociative Identity Disorder have different brain wave patterns for each of their different personalities? Even in cases of extreme stress, a person's basic brain wave patterns do not change. But, if personality is ultimate nonlocal/non physical, then one person with multiple personalities could do what is, from a purely physical perspective, impossible. Hence, personality is greater than matter, even though we cannot scientifically prove personality unless we try to reduce it to a mere by product of the brain. Yet people with DID would tend to challenge such a reduction.
CONCLUSION: personality is seemingly greater than matter.
Example 2: According to our current understanding of physics (at least as best as I understand it), every region of space has different fields composed of different waves. When physicists calculate the minimum energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of space contains more energy than the total energy of matter in the known universe.
CONCLUSION: under current scientific paradigms, energy is seemingly greater than matter.
Example 3: Consider Bohm's experiment with plasma. Plasma is a gas containing a high density of electrons and positive ions. When in a plasma, electrons stop behaving like individuals and start behaving as part of a larger and connected whole. Although their individual movements appeared random, vast numbers of electrons were able to perform tasks that were surprisingly well organized. Like a living creature, the plasma regenerated itself and enclosed impurities in a wall much like a living body encloses a foreign substance in a cyst. Bohm was so amazed by these qualties that he had the impression that the electron sea was alive. His experiments with the beavior of electrons in metals confirmed this "communicative" ability of "mindless" electrons.
CONCLUSION: Interconnected, mindful order is seemingly greater than individual randomness, though both exist.
If personality is greater than matter, and energy is greater than matter, and interconnected, mindful order is greater than individual randomness, then why is belief in a non-material, universal Mind/Logos so "weak-minded"? Would it be less offensive to you if I used more obviously scientific terminology and called it "The Implicate Order behind all other implicate and explicit orders"?
Is there something intrinsically irrational about presupposing a mind behind the universe? And, if so, since we are the highest life form that we can scientifically observe, is it so irrational to assume that in some respects our minds would have the ability or potential to "connect" with the Universal Mind? And if one did, even in the most "seeing through a glass darkly" kind of way, wouldn't that constitute a "born again" experience?
The "arrogance" in some claiming such an experience is only arrogance if one acts like one had it because of some innate superiority. But it is just as arrogant to take a position that anyone who has had a born-again experience is some type of hypocrite or fool.
Has Core Christianity been lost in the historical process?
The Historicity of Core Christianity
It seems the debate has shifted to the historical reliability of the New Testament documents themselves, especially the Gospels. Some are trying to suggest that the New Testament and the Gospels were not historically established until many, many years after the events they supposedly record. This is simply not good scholarship. If one is looking for a particular church council or document that clearly lists the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, the evidence is abundant.
1) The Apostle Paul argues quite passionately that the miraculous resurrection of Christ was an historical event with eyewitnesses. His first letter to the Corinthians, which virtually all scholars accept as authentic and was written around 55 AD, mentions many witnesses of the resurrected Christ, telling the Corinthians that most of them were still alive in 55 AD and could be interviewed directly. That is a rather bold claim that could easily have been refuted, especially since Christianity was a scorned sect rejected by its own Jewish roots and soon to draw the ire of the Roman Empire.
2) The Apostle Paul makes significant use of early "creeds" of Christendom in his writings. These creeds include I Corinthians 15:3, Colossians 1: 15-19, Philippians 2:5-1 1, I Timothy 3:16, and 2 Timothy 2:11-13. These creeds represent a very early from of Christian belief. Since I Corinthians 15:3 is dated around 55 AD, this creed must significantly pre-date 55 AD and truly go back to the earliest teachings of the Apostles themselves.
3) 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes from Luke 10:7. Scholars differ as to when I Timothy was written, but the earliest Christians quote from the work and the internal evidence of the book itself dates it to about 65 AD. So, if a book written in 65 AD quotes rather causally from the Gospel of Luke, this suggests that the Gospel of Luke was familiar to the readers of I Timothy.
4) The Book of Hebrews was almost certainly written before 70 AD. It was written to Jewish people and discusses the temple worship system of Jerusalem with significant detail. It also uses the present tense about this worship. This strongly suggests that the book?s writing occurred before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. It seems unfathomable that the writer would not even mention the destruction of the temple and the ceasing of the sacrificial worship. Rather, he suggests (perhaps prophetically?) that the sacrifices are still going on but will "soon disappear" (Hebrews 8:13). Yet this book contains some of the most advanced theology of the New Testament, even calling Christ "the LORD," a powerful claim to his Deity, especially to Jewish readers. (See Hebrews 1: 6, 10). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews does not claim to be a first generation Christian, but he does claim to have been an eyewitness of the Apostles and of the miracles they performed. In this same passage, he calls on the readers to remember the miracles their own eyes had seen (Hebrews 2:1-4).
5) The earliest church fathers, such as Ignatius and Clement, reference sections of the New Testament and of the Gospels so frequently that it seems self-evident that these works were widely circulated by then. Clement wrote around 95 AD and personally knew both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul. Ignatius wrote around 100 AD and was personally mentored by the Apostle John.
6) The Gospel of Truth, critically dated to 140 AD, quotes so much from the canonical writings that it strongly suggests that these writings were existent and well circulated by that time. The Gospel of Truth was found in Rome
7) Tatian was an early Christian who lived around 140 AD. He wrote a book called the "Diatesseron," which was a harmony of the four Gospels. This strongly suggests that the same four Gospel accounts that we have today were widely circulated and accepted by the first Christians.
8) Marcion the Gnostic established is own canon in 150 AD. Marcion taught that there were two gods: the "harsh OT god" and the "loving NT god, Jesus." Although his teachings were decidedly non-conformist to say the least, his canon contained the Gospel of Luke, eight of Paul's letters, and several other writings.
9) The Canon of Muratori. This text was dated at 170 AD. This canon recognizes all the same books as our New Testament today except for the following exclusions: 1 John, 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.
10) Origen of Alexandria (185-253 AD) Origen listed the "books being confessed" and the "books being argued against." All of the books in our current NT were listed in the ?confessed" works except Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, James, and Jude. Other books that were "argued against" were The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Gospel of Hebrews. Origen accepted all of our current NT books except possibly 2 & 3 John.
More could be listed, but what is listed sufficiently establishes historical credibility to the current NT manuscripts. Plus, it establishes this credibility well before Christianity was a politically acceptable religion. The Roman culture tended to despise Christianity in general and often actively persecute it. The last Roman persecution ended under Diocletian in 303 AD.
The early church was quite methodical in evaluating manuscripts. They looked for several signs of legitimacy:
(A) Was the book written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle?
(B) Was it consistent with "undisputed", already accepted Scripture?
(C) Was it widely circulated in the early churches?
(D) Did it "resonate" with the Holy Spirit?
Granted, #4 is subjective, but the first three are pretty objective and reasonable historical criteria. Yes, some books have less evidence (2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews), and other books were seriously considered before being excluded (The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas), but for the most part the legitimate books stand on their own given the methodology the church used. And that methodology seems reasonable as a way of tracing back our roots to what the Apostles themselves taught.
Once Christianity was accepted as a legal religion (early 4th Century) and the church was given freedom to meet openly, it did not take long to establish the Canon. Eusebius (270-340) wrote a list of books, and the Easter Letter of Athanasius (367 AD) gave a list of the same twenty-seven books that we have today. Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt and wrote that letter to exclude a large number of apocryphal writings that were popping up in Egyptian Christianity.
Special attention should be drawn to the Muratorian Canon in 170 AD. It lists the same books we have today except 1 John, 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews. If one took those books out of our NT, would that change the basic teachings of the New Testament itself? It would be a tragic loss, but no core concept of Christianity would be altered.
By any reasonable historical criteria, one would seem bound to draw the conclusion that the NT represents core Christianity, in all essential elements authentic and unchanged from the time of the Apostles. Whether one agrees with that core Christianity is a personal decision. But the historical evidence is overwhelming by the standards of historical criticism.
Keep in mind that this historical evidence exists despite the fact that Christianity was a marginilized, scorned, and often directly persecuted belief system. It had no political clout, no easy access to parchment and paper (both expensive commodities in those days), and no support by way of military might. The final and most brutal persecution of Christianity came under Diocletian and ended in 302 AD. Virtually all of the evidence I have cited easily predates this persecution.
Christianity was resilient because it claimed historical validity and verifiability. It was not a belief system that said that some God somewhere in ancient myth and legend loved us. It was not a belief system depending upon one prophet who gained any worldly profit from starting a new religion. It was and is a belief system that claimed that God invaded human history in the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. It claims that this person physically rose from the dead in the same body in which he died, and its first followers were obviously convinced enough of these facts to die for them.
There is no evidence that later church councils, after Christianity was embraced by the State, altered the original documents to create a palatable, believable myth that would appease the masses and keep the Clergy Elite in power. Certainly that kind of manipulation happens often enough in this world, but it is not a legitimate explanation for the origin and core beliefs of the Christian religion.