Debate on the relative historical reliability of the Gospels (Atheists Welcome)

[CharlieFinley]

No, really. Come at me. It is my position that the Gospels, the synoptics in particular, are unquestionably historically valid by virtue of being written within a relatively short period of time to the events they described and are corroborated by other sources to the greatest degree that can be expected of a religious movement that was treated as no more than an eccentric cult for hundreds of years.

[FreeFall]

Many other cultures nearby have records of a great flood, even the non jewish/christian cultures. They've found something they feel is evidence between Turkey and another country, they think it is Noah's Ark. It's high up on a mountain, how else would a boat be on top of a mountain unless there used to be a way of getting it up there? Some way like, water. Sadly, thanks to it being between two enemy lands, there's no real way to safely get there and check it out.
There's also evidence of the 7 plagues of Egypt having really occurred. Obviously not in the way people back then thought, what with their limited knowledge and vast fear of many things. The foul smelling blood they thought they saw, residue from Santorini. Suffocated the fish and in turn began to injure the frogs who escaped the water. No frogs, more bugs. Bugs bring disease, especially from their cattle. The volcanic activity produced hail, lightening looked like fire. There's tons of hypothesis that prove the plagues, along with visitor's recordings of Egypt's suffering.

But then we need to remember, mistranslations and writing like Paul's. Saul was wandering around, minding himself, when a resurrected Jesus blinded him. Saul regained his sight and declared himself an apostle of Jesus, whom he never met, unless you count Jesus blinding him randomly. Saul changed his name to Paul after that. He is believed to have written 14 of the works. Most Christians I know take Paul's writings, especially of the Eucharist, with a grain of salt because he was not there, not a first hand witness like the other apostles that wrote of it. Many assume he wrote down what he heard orally, maybe mainly from Peter. I cannot remember what pieces are the writings of Paul, but as someone who came along after the other apostles and the death of Jesus, his place isn't as strong I feel.
Mistranslations can really throw off the meaning of a verse, or the map if someone would like to follow the route. In general modern day translations may very well have altered from the ancient language of the original text, which doesn't always flow over well for us to understand. This link shows how some of that has taken form.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

So in my opinion, the bible may be half historically accurate, may be half butchered and twisted by man for their own desire or by human error.

____

I'd just like to point out that Paul is probably the most respected writer in the bible.
Doesn't change that what he learned/wrote for the religion were through "spiritual encounters" with Jesus and listening to others, mainly those who knew Jesus.
He also helped spread, grow and influenced Christianity, seen as only second to Jesus in this way. Seems as though had it not been for Paul, Christianity as known as it is today may not exist. It may not even be as widespread and understandable, he worked very hard for his religion he did. Despite the pastor at my parents church constantly reminding them that Paul wrote through his faith and spirit with Christ, Paul's work is found in many of the Christian religions for understanding and teachings. Could be why he's most respected.

________

And your point is? If Christianity is true, then God would make sure that the Bible wasn't filled with lies as it was his holy book. Hence Paul would be speaking true, and would be as wise as he appears.
You say he's probably one of the most respected writers of the gospel. I say he's probably more respected for having had such an enormous contribution and influence in the Christians faith. That is my point.

I'm atheist but I used to be a Baptist Christian, bible banger style, 10 years back. So, I didn't say the book is full of lies. Not sure why're you're jumping off of the "book is full of lies" tangent exactly. Is a bit extreme. I stated that I believe it to be as equally true on things as it can possibly be false. Human errors, translation failures and corrupted translators/publishers, centuries passing by like they do, etc.
Christianity is real, to those who accept it. Since I have no faith or belief in general or any religious or spiritual kind, I cannot apply those same principles to my own statements. Those who accept that Paul was visited by Jesus and spoken to, that's their truth. Those like me, tend to side for the oral history reports he gathered from others. Maybe he had dreams, that's what's the fun thing about debates. Gathering the differing view points and opinions to round out your own.

So again I say, in my opinion and in terrible estimation by your's truly, 50% historical fact with a good chance of accuracy and 50% abused by man as time marched on.

_____

You're missing my point completely. If God exists, I highly doubt he would allow the people he is god over to be led to believe that the bible is truth when it is actually full of human-corrupted trash.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it. More so that also, I do not believe in a god, your god, the god, and my bias would be apparent. I'm not going by his existence. I wasn't in the mood to derail the thread from the validity of the gospels to god's almighty power over all that is. But anyways, since you want your answer.
God wouldn't allow the bible to be full of corrupt human trash?
How about the corrupt churches then? That steals the money given to it for personal gain and not for man's greater good in god's name?
How about the corrupt people of the church? That abuse children? That cheat on their spouses many times? That partake in illegal activities?
The house of god, the people of god, they've been time and time again shown to be corrupt. What makes you feel the bible is safe from that evil when they are the ones who get to touch it?
And yet again you're jumping off of the "bible is full of lies!" cliff. Where do you keep picking it up from? I've yet to see any post stating it to be lies and trash and filth.


Posts Merged. -StoppingTime

[Cicero]

I honestly believe that the bible coincides with major events, around the time of when babies were being executed (to prevent the birth of Christ), there was actually a record of the King (or whoever gave that command) giving that order. There is also evidence of what Jesus looked like in the Shroud of Turin.

Here (http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm)and here (http://www.forumterrace.com/Questions/Historically.html) are excellent articles I found proving the validity of the bible and historical events.

[CharlieFinley]

the way you say "come at me" sounds like you want to fight about it. I do want to fight about it, but in a civilized manner. So instead of using brute force to accomplish our ends, let us instead use brute reason, and endeavor to fight like civilized men rather than barbarians. i don't know how to debate so i'm not going to try but i am curious what other sources corroborate the gospels and what part of the gospels they corroborate? and if there are writings that are written close to the time period of the events they describe and they say something different than the gospels, or are written even closer to the events than the gospels are, how historically accurate would they be?There aren't any (to my knowledge) earlier writings on the subject surviving today than 1 Corinthians, written by Saul, who was called Paul. However, Tacitus and Josephus, who were ancient historians, well-respected today, both made mention of "Jesus, called the Christ" and his followers, who were bitterly persecuted.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I honestly believe that the bible coincides with major events, around the time of when babies were being executed (to prevent the birth of Christ), there was actually a record of the King (or whoever gave that command) giving that order. There is also evidence of what Jesus looked like in the Shroud of Turin.

Here (http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm)and here (http://www.forumterrace.com/Questions/Historically.html) are excellent articles I found proving the validity of the bible and historical events.

I hate to offend, but not exactly the validity, just the historical events.

[TigerBoy]

I hate to offend, but not exactly the validity, just the historical events.
Well said.

There is also evidence of what Jesus looked like in the Shroud of Turin.

Since Popes and Scientists alike have a agreed the shroud is a mediaeval forgery, no.

I honestly doubt the whole thing has more than a few grains of historical truth in it. Things like the flood were copied from flood myths of other cultures predating Christianity by several thousand years, and yet there is no geological evidence in any of those regions of a major flood. @FreeFall the mount Ararat anomaly is geological, it is rock and shown to be part of a land slip, and a local geologist has identified the original cliff face it broke off.

The entire story of Jesus has key facts that are identical to several much earlier historical figures, and that again makes me think that it was just another good tale that was nicked to add to the book of stories. There are at least five characters with similar stories to Jesus going back to Horus in Egypt - 3000BC: Born Dec 25 from a virgin mother, heralded by a star in the East, adorned by 3 kings, Teacher at 12, Baptized minisry at 30. The next one is Attis, 1200BC, same birth details and he was crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected. Sound familiar?

If you take the aggregation of inconsistency and innacuracy and evidence of plagiarism, I don't think the bible represents a good history book.

[FreeFall]

@FreeFall the mount Ararat anomaly is geological, it is rock and shown to be part of a land slip, and a local geologist has identified the original cliff face it broke off.
Yes! Mt. Ararat was the name! Oh my, a rock? Oh my.
Oh goodness you're right. What I read and was taught was wrong.
It's a rock. I actually believed a rock was a boat. A rock!! D:

[Zenos]

The problem I have with the gospels it that in some ways they contradict each other:

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm


Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

The problem I have with the gospels it that in some ways they contradict each other:

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm


Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

Isn't the entire bible?

[CharlieFinley]

The problem I have with the gospels it that in some ways they contradict each other:

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm


Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
It was common practice in the day to omit some generations. In all probability, there were more than 14 generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception? The gospels don't actually contain everything Jesus said.

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
Matthew arranged the stories into groups of three that were not organized chronologically. Holding a text from the first century to the same conventions as modern-day journalism is recognized by intelligent atheists and theists alike as a non-starter.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
Again, common standard of the day was to attribute actions of subordinates directly to the person in question. You may hear, for instance, a news report saying, "the President announced today in a press conference..." when in actuality the conference was delivered by his press secretary. Ultimate attribution is a sensible thing.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying. In the context (Father asking Jesus for help, claiming daughter dying, everyone else saying, "go away, your daughter is dead) it seems clear that while everyone else said his daughter was dead, the father held out hope, hope which Jesus bore out.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
http://christianthinktank.com/nostaff.html

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.Are you dense? Look right here! "And I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining – this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’"

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. This goes back to the earlier problem of the Centurion, which is merely one of ultimate attribution.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt. Where does it say, "only a colt"?

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging. Again, in biographies of deeds, chronology was not considered to be important in Biblical times.

And that's the first ten, fairly easily. Now, you had the luxury of copy-pasting, and I did not, so I'll stop here.
http://calebspath.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-evilbiblecom.html

[TigerBoy]

Your response seems to furnish points that support the case that the historical reliability is in fact quite poor.

1) missing details of arbitrary generations out (without even noting that omission) makes for a very poor history book. If there are unaccounted omissions, we have cause to doubt the reliability of those names are given. We might also wonder that if this record routinely omits details, how many other details are omitted that we aren't aware are missing?

2) if the bible doesn't record Jesus stating something at the time (a point you used to justify its validity), Paul might be guilty of false attribution so we should discount that point. If on the other hand we should take Paul at face value, then it undermines your original assertion that the immediacy of the record makes it valid.

3,10) Chronology - if the implicit chronology is broken for the reasons you claim, and the explicit chronology is frequently vague, then as a reliable record of history it fails. Knowing that some events may or may not have happened at some point in time is not a particularly useful or valid record of history.

4,5,6,8,9) For our purposes these points do illustrate the issue with these records overall: as police witness statements show, human memory will selectively edit and misremember. As a record written by man with no other substantiation (made harder by the lack of firm chronology) these histories are fallible.

(7) Yep that seems pretty damn clear to me too, point against "evilbible" there.)

[CharlieFinley]

Your response seems to furnish points that support the case that the historical reliability is in fact quite poor.

1) missing details of arbitrary generations out (without even noting that omission) makes for a very poor history book. If there are unaccounted omissions, we have cause to doubt the reliability of those names are given. We might also wonder that if this record routinely omits details, how many other details are omitted that we aren't aware are missing? I'm sorry, I don't think I was quite clear. That was an accepted historical practice at the time, according to a respected Biblical historian that I shall name if you truly want me to dig up my Kindle. It in no way is an indicator of a lack of rigor.
2) if the bible doesn't record Jesus stating something at the time (a point you used to justify its validity), Paul might be guilty of false attribution so we should discount that point. Erm... what? The Bible never claimed to be an exhaustive record of Jesus' life. If on the other hand we should take Paul at face value, then it undermines your original assertion that the immediacy of the record makes it valid. How does taking the earliest Biblical author at face value invalidate the premise that immediacy is conducive to accuracy?
3,10) Chronology - if the implicit chronology is broken for the reasons you claim, and the explicit chronology is frequently vague, then as a reliable record of history it fails. Knowing that some events may or may not have happened at some point in time is not a particularly useful or valid record of history. You're showing a lack of understanding of historical practices at the time. This isn't just something the Bible did, this is something all historical records that date from that time did. They didn't have the kind of records (except census records) that we have access to today. Even the biggest names in historical writing from that era (The Plinies, Tacitus, Josephus) did the same.

4,5,6,8,9) For our purposes these points do illustrate the issue with these records overall: as police witness statements show, human memory will selectively edit and misremember. As a record written by man with no other substantiation (made harder by the lack of firm chronology) these histories are fallible. See above.

[Cicero]

The problem I have with the gospels it that in some ways they contradict each other:

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm


Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

Most of the scriptures you just changed the order of, you also distorted the context of each verse. Each verse is speaking in different contexts.

[TigerBoy]

I'm sorry, I don't think I was quite clear. That was an accepted historical practice at the time, according to a respected Biblical historian that I shall name if you truly want me to dig up my Kindle. It in no way is an indicator of a lack of rigor.
Erm... what? The Bible never claimed to be an exhaustive record of Jesus' life. How does taking the earliest Biblical author at face value invalidate the premise that immediacy is conducive to accuracy?

1) Whether or not it was 'historical practice at the time', it is still rendering the history unreliable. Habitual ineptitude doesn't alter the fact that it is ineptitude. It has still failed to deliver a complete and reliable lineage.

2) Because you can't have your cake and eat it. You claimed that recency of a record to the time of those events makes it "unquestionably historically valid". If we now have a record removed in time (and a second-hand one at that) from those events by many decades it implies that record is now less 'historically valid' by your criteria than one written nearer the time (and by an author who was actually present at the events chronicled).

Perhaps the issue is that you need to be more clear about what you mean by 'historically valid' - I have taken it as meaning a valid record of history, which I would expect to be both accurate and authoritative.


You're showing a lack of understanding of historical practices at the time. This isn't just something the Bible did, this is something all historical records that date from that time did. They didn't have the kind of records (except census records) that we have access to today. Even the biggest names in historical writing from that era (The Plinies, Tacitus, Josephus) did the same.

It isn't that I don't understand those practices, but rather I deem them unfit for purpose. They do not leave us with an accurate history. The issue goes beyond the lineage issue in point 1), besides which external documents wouldn't excuse a lack of internal chronology (historical practice or not). The bible as a history is only somewhat useful when cross referenced with other more substantial histories. As far as your examples of other histories, their problems with chronology are not as significant in my view. For example Tacitus histories may not have been written in chronological order, but the order is there nevertheless, both by the explicit sequence of each volume along with internal references where he intends to cover a portion of history elsewhere in a volume. He doesn't simply miss chunks out with no mention of a gap existing, or reorder them without any note of that happening. Any gaps in Tacitus' histories simply occur because having planned a contiguous series of approximately 30 volumes, he is known to have died before he could fill those gaps.

See above.
Your earlier arguments don't alter the case that humans are highly fallible and creative witnesses with respect to such inconsistencies illustrated in Zenos' points (4,5,6,8,9).

[Abyssal Echo]

I honestly believe that the bible coincides with major events, around the time of when babies were being executed (to prevent the birth of Christ), there was actually a record of the King (or whoever gave that command) giving that order. There is also evidence of what Jesus looked like in the Shroud of Turin.

Here (http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/HistoricalAccuracyOfTheBible.htm)and here (http://www.forumterrace.com/Questions/Historically.html) are excellent articles I found proving the validity of the bible and historical events.

I agree with Cicero that the Bible coincides with major events in history.

but Carbon dating tests have proven that the Shroud of Turin is not old enough to be the one that covered Jesus.

[CharlieFinley]

It isn't that I don't understand those practices, but rather I deem them unfit for purpose.

You and no historians. That pretty much sums up who holds the entirety of the opinions and objections you just listed. Now, there are those who argue that the gospels are insufficiently convincing, and there are those who argue that since there is no God (as their philosophy tells them) that the gospels must be wrong, but I don't think I know of a single real historian who thinks that records from that time are not sufficiently accurate as a whole.

[TigerBoy]

You and no historians. That pretty much sums up who holds the entirety of the opinions and objections you just listed.
Oh please, "I'm right and everyone agrees with me" isn't an argument. Alongside that opinion I've given you specific reasons refuting the specific arguments you've raised. If you've only got fallacies left - namely false attribution - then I assume we're done here.

Now, there are those who argue that the gospels are insufficiently convincing, and there are those who argue that since there is no God (as their philosophy tells them) that the gospels must be wrong,
This is a strawman argument - I'm not discussing theism, nor using it to justify or criticise the veracity of any historical merit.


but I don't think I know of a single real historian who thinks that records from that time are not sufficiently accurate as a whole.
Another fallacious bit of reasoning. Aside from the fact that I presently don't consider you qualified to determine what makes a 'real' historian (assuming you can even identify whatever an 'unreal' historian might be), this is (or was) a debate on specific arguments. If you can't think of (real) historians who support the specific points I have made, think of some who discredit it and cite their views. Since I am not particularly educated in matters of history I'm quite likely (and happy) to learn something that way.

[CharlieFinley]

There's Simon Greenleaf, who authored The Testimony of the Evangelists, Frederic Kenyon, who wrote Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament and The Bible and Archaeology, Eric Huntsman, who wrote this (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6432), and that's just from about three minutes of googling.

[TigerBoy]

There's Simon Greenleaf, who authored The Testimony of the Evangelists, Frederic Kenyon, who wrote Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament and The Bible and Archaeology, Eric Huntsman, who wrote this (https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6432), and that's just from about three minutes of googling.

Well that's a bit tedious in debating terms. I'll go off and read those and get back to you in a few months when I've had a chance to have a read then :P

[CharlieFinley]

Well that's a bit tedious in debating terms. I'll go off and read those and get back to you in a few months when I've had a chance to have a read then :P

There is a God has a nice summary of a part of the historical argument as an eight-page appendix.

[TigerBoy]

There is a God has a nice summary of a part of the historical argument as an eight-page appendix.

Hmm, I just found I could get to the appendices on amazon and there are two, Appendix A which is quite interesting regarding general philosophy and ontology, but while Appendix B does broadly talk about historical events and his thoughts about their veracity, it doesn't refute my points about a flawed chronology, immediacy of record and unreliable and conflicting witness statements.

On that latter point, thus far quotations I've dug up from Greenleaf support my point about the unreliability of witness statements and thus the lack of granular accuracy.

`The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing ... substantial truth, under circumstantial variety.'

The exact amount of truth is debatable under a more objective reading, I would note. There are some pretty harsh criticisms of Greenleaf I've found, which are specifically around the rationality and bias of many of his conclusions.

[CharlieFinley]

Hmm, I just found I could get to the appendices on amazon and there are two, Appendix A which is quite interesting regarding general philosophy and ontology, but while Appendix B does broadly talk about historical events and his thoughts about their veracity, it doesn't refute my points about a flawed chronology, immediacy of record and unreliable and conflicting witness statements.

On that latter point, thus far quotations I've dug up from Greenleaf support my point about the unreliability of witness statements and thus the lack of granular accuracy.


The exact amount of truth is debatable under a more objective reading, I would note. There are some pretty harsh criticisms of Greenleaf I've found, which are specifically around the rationality and bias of many of his conclusions.What is greenleaf?

[TigerBoy]

What is greenleaf?

The dude whose book you recommended. And possibly a type of Hobbit pipe tobacco.

[CharlieFinley]

The dude whose book you recommended. And possibly a type of Hobbit pipe tobacco.

Ahhh. Haha I thought it was a website of some sort.

Did I really recommend a Greenleaf? Geez, what a horrible name.

Anyway, one thing to remember when it comes to the validity of the eyewitness evidence is that it can be taken to be substantially more reliable than eyewitness evidence from modern-day accounts, for several reasons.

The first is that the claims of the eyewitnesses would have been evaluated by a very hostile audience (read: the Jews) for any possible way to tear down their claims. For example, we see that the empty tomb truly was empty, because if it wasn't, the dialogues would go something like this:

"How do you know you didn't hallucinate him?"
"His tomb is empty."
*runs of and checks*
"Come off it! He's right there!"

Had there been no guards, the dialogues would go something like this:

"How do we know you didn't steal the body? "
"The guards were there."
"Come off it! There were no guards!"

Had Jesus not actually performed miracles, the Jewish writings of the day would have denied that he performed miracles. Instead, do you know what they did? They denounced him as a sorcerer like Simon Magus.

We see that the very people whose accounts of the events would have been most likely to go the opposite direction (for they were not merely skeptical but open-minded, as an agnostic witness would have been, but rather actively depended on Jesus' status as an apostate rather than the Messiah) confirming the Christian accounts.

In judiciary, a hostile witness who agrees with you is worth his weight in gold, and with good reason. We have hostile witnesses, and they confirm the statements of the Christians.

The second reason is that these claims have been supported (where mentioned) by neutral witnesses of undisputed accuracy (they weren't theologians, but historians of a broader nature, and their claims have been borne out by archaeology whenever applicable), such as Tacitus, Josephus, and the Plinies.

Finally, we come to the point that Jews of that time were trained in the oral tradition. Few knew how to write or read, but instead they used a sort of mock-neural network very similar to the way the brain stores information, which is one of the great strengths of the oral tradition over the relevant time-frames. Say something happens to five people. They all witnessed it, and, being eyewitnesses, all have slightly different but still mutually corroborative accounts.

What happens next, as the story spreads throughout the village, is essentially the opposite of a game of Telephone. In a game of Telephone, the story is passed from person to person without confirmation from any of the earlier messengers, and eventually the message becomes humorously distorted. However, what happens in the neural network of the oral tradition is this: the five witnesses tell maybe twenty people between them, and each of the twenty tell a few more. At this point, it is conceivable that the story could be distorted. However, this was no mere parlor game, but rather a matter of crucial religious importance to them, so the villagers verify what has been told them by returning to the source. In this way, the development of legend (for instance, in the "Gospel" of the Cross, Jesus emerged from the tomb as a giant) is prevented, an effect which becomes self-perpetuating as more and more villagers learn the truth.

[TigerBoy]

The first is that the claims of the eyewitnesses would have been evaluated by a very hostile audience (read: the Jews) for any possible way to tear down their claims.

Had Jesus not actually performed miracles, the Jewish writings of the day would have denied that he performed miracles. Instead, do you know what they did? They denounced him as a sorcerer like Simon Magus.

I see your argument, however it is still supposition - we can't be certain about the circumstances around the events, and the reactions of individuals who may or may not have been present, or on any influence those may have had on the ultimate writings. There are many examples of religious martyrs and other spiritualists enduring all kinds of horrific abuse without recanting their views, and it seems plausible that even if such witnesses and encountered hostility, they would have resisted censure.

To my knowledge Jewish orthodoxy is that Jesus did not resurrect (and nor was he the son of God), so if we are to rely on them to substantiate miracles, we should rely on them in that too.


We see that the very people whose accounts of the events would have been most likely to go the opposite direction (for they were not merely skeptical but open-minded, as an agnostic witness would have been, but rather actively depended on Jesus' status as an apostate rather than the Messiah) confirming the Christian accounts.
Except on key points as above. And as a rationalist I would argue that primitive people - of whatever religious stripe - are easily gulled. Even today, a stage magician who can fool a Muslim is as likely to fool a Christian or a Jew.

[CharlieFinley]

I see your argument, however it is still supposition - we can't be certain about the circumstances around the events, and the reactions of individuals who may or may not have been present, or on any influence those may have had on the ultimate writings. There are many examples of religious martyrs and other spiritualists enduring all kinds of horrific abuse without recanting their views, and it seems plausible that even if such witnesses and encountered hostility, they would have resisted censure. That's untrue. Jewish writings of the time demonstrate that they regarded him as a sorcerer and an apostate.
To my knowledge Jewish orthodoxy is that Jesus did not resurrect (and nor was he the son of God), so if we are to rely on them to substantiate miracles, we should rely on them in that too. There's a crucial distinction, here. The Jewish faith places a huge emphasis on resurrection -- except for the Sadducees, but they were never very big -- and his resurrection of others and his resurrection of himself were things that he absolutely could not have done were he not God Incarnate. Other prophets worked miracles, and sorcerers did things that would have been considered miracles, but nobody resurrected people. It just wasn't done. They could not have preserved their statement that he was apostate while acknowledging that he returned to life.

Except on key points as above. And as a rationalist I would argue that primitive people - of whatever religious stripe - are easily gulled. Even today, a stage magician who can fool a Muslim is as likely to fool a Christian or a Jew.And I'd say that's certainly true -- until you consider that:
1. there was no benefit whatsoever to running a scam. It got them more hate than prestige, by a huge margin. The apostles themselves, rather than sharing whatever fragment of glory Jesus had, got all of the baggage with none of the meager fame. Most of them were killed for their beliefs.
2. primitive people may be easier to fool by civilized people, but it's not at all as if Jesus was thinking to himself, "those primitive people think that I work miracles, when in fact it's just my iPhone." He was in the same boat they were, and science has shown that while we may know more today, we are not more intelligent by any substantial margin.

[TigerBoy]

That's untrue. Jewish writings of the time demonstrate that they regarded him as a sorcerer and an apostate.
There were several points in that paragraph, I'm not clear which one(s) you are discounting based on the reason you give. To paraphrase my point, if the Jews treated witness accounts as credible, it doesn't tell us that those events happened, simply that the Jews believed they did. Given the issues I have with Judaism's own fantastic claims I'm not predisposed to consider them unbiased witnesses in matters relating to the mystical elements of Abrahamic faith. As a result of that skepticism I feel it more likely that either they couldn't bully or torture any 'witnesses' into recanting their testimony or they were convinced by a charming con man speaking their theological language.


There's a crucial distinction, here. The Jewish faith places a huge emphasis on resurrection -- except for the Sadducees, but they were never very big -- and his resurrection of others and his resurrection of himself were things that he absolutely could not have done were he not God Incarnate. Other prophets worked miracles, and sorcerers did things that would have been considered miracles, but nobody resurrected people. It just wasn't done. They could not have preserved their statement that he was apostate while acknowledging that he returned to life.
Yes I'm aware of that argument, however you either use that argument to accuse the Jewish faith of lying, which discredits them as an honest, unbiased and thus reliable supporter of the other points you wish them to support, or they are reliable and he did not resurrect.

And I'd say that's certainly true -- until you consider that:
1. there was no benefit whatsoever to running a scam. It got them more hate than prestige, by a huge margin. The apostles themselves, rather than sharing whatever fragment of glory Jesus had, got all of the baggage with none of the meager fame. Most of them were killed for their beliefs.
Supposition again - we can speculate as to many benefits for being involved. Things may not have worked out as they'd planned - "no honour among thieves" and all that. (Or keep your eye on which one was meant to kill the bus driver, as it were).


2. primitive people may be easier to fool by civilized people, but it's not at all as if Jesus was thinking to himself, "those primitive people think that I work miracles, when in fact it's just my iPhone." He was in the same boat they were, and science has shown that while we may know more today, we are not more intelligent by any substantial margin.
Primitive in world view, social attitudes and education specifically on matters of science. In those times it was possible for one man to know all that man knew, which wasn't an awful lot, leaving a great vacuum for the supernatural to fill.

[CharlieFinley]

There were several points in that paragraph, I'm not clear which one(s) you are discounting based on the reason you give. To paraphrase my point, if the Jews treated witness accounts as credible, it doesn't tell us that those events happened, simply that the Jews believed they did. Given the issues I have with Judaism's own fantastic claims I'm not predisposed to consider them unbiased witnesses in matters relating to the mystical elements of Abrahamic faith. As a result of that skepticism I feel it more likely that either they couldn't bully or torture any 'witnesses' into recanting their testimony or they were convinced by a charming con man speaking their theological language. The fact remains that there were an absurd number of witnesses, many of whom were not mere eyewitnesses (which are unreliable, especially in small numbers) but actual people who had traveled with Jesus, and knew him personally.

Yes I'm aware of that argument, however you either use that argument to accuse the Jewish faith of lying, which discredits them as an honest, unbiased and thus reliable supporter of the other points you wish them to support, or they are reliable and he did not resurrect. When did I say that they were unbiased? I repeatedly said that they are biased, which is great, because a hostile witness is worth his weight in Gold and we have a huge number of hostile witnesses. They were biased against Jesus' status as God Incarnate, but even they could not deny that he worked miracles. Even in their negations of the resurrection, they confirmed essential historical facts about the resurrection, like the empty tomb and the guards at the tomb.

Supposition again - we can speculate as to many benefits for being involved. Things may not have worked out as they'd planned - "no honour among thieves" and all that. (Or keep your eye on which one was meant to kill the bus driver, as it were). When the Romans persecuted the Christians, we see (either in the writings of Tacitus or Pliny, I forget which) that they were allowed the opportunity to recant rather than be tortured to death. They invariably did not. You're suggesting that something like half of the Twelve (maybe more, I just don't have my Kindle with me at the moment and am very confident that it was at least half), who would have known if Jesus was a confidence man, consistently refused to recant rather than be tortured to death.

Primitive in world view, social attitudes and education specifically on matters of science. In those times it was possible for one man to know all that man knew, which wasn't an awful lot, leaving a great vacuum for the supernatural to fill.That's also untrue. This was over 300 years after Archimedes. Portraying them as ignorant savages is a common but highly inaccurate misconception.

[TigerBoy]

The fact remains that there were an absurd number of witnesses, many of whom were not mere eyewitnesses (which are unreliable, especially in small numbers) but actual people who had traveled with Jesus, and knew him personally.
There are reportedly a number of witnesses. Reported by each other apparently for the most part. The evidence that the entire party isn't a post hoc invention by a later author is not exactly overwhelming,

When did I say that they were unbiased? I repeatedly said that they are biased, which is great, because a hostile witness is worth his weight in Gold and we have a huge number of hostile witnesses. They were biased against Jesus' status as God Incarnate, but even they could not deny that he worked miracles. Even in their negations of the resurrection, they confirmed essential historical facts about the resurrection, like the empty tomb and the guards at the tomb.
I did take that point earlier, here I was considering "gentiles" versus the Jews, leaving Jews as a party open to the idea of miracles and not biased against them in that sense.

In any case the argument still stands - either the Jews give us a wholly reliable witness or they don't.

When the Romans persecuted the Christians, we see (either in the writings of Tacitus or Pliny, I forget which) that they were allowed the opportunity to recant rather than be tortured to death. They invariably did not. You're suggesting that something like half of the Twelve (maybe more, I just don't have my Kindle with me at the moment and am very confident that it was at least half), who would have known if Jesus was a confidence man, consistently refused to recant rather than be tortured to death.
Yes exactly - that that seems very possible to me, especially if they were all in on it and heavily invested.

That's also untrue. This was over 300 years after Archimedes. Portraying them as ignorant savages is a common but highly inaccurate misconception.
Ignorant of a great deal of basic science - certainly. Education was not universal, so your audience would have been ignorant and uneducated for the most part, and where they were, they may well have seen wonders beyond their - but not necessarily our - understanding. They would have been quick to reach for supernatural explanations back then.

[CharlieFinley]

There are reportedly a number of witnesses. Reported by each other apparently for the most part. The evidence that the entire party isn't a post hoc invention by a later author is not exactly overwhelming, That's true of literally ninety-five percent of all history from that era. What evidence is there that those witnesses did not exist?


I did take that point earlier, here I was considering "gentiles" versus the Jews, leaving Jews as a party open to the idea of miracles and not biased against them in that sense. The word you used there, "open," is very telling. The reason it's telling is because their fault, according to you, is not in being prejudiced towards the idea of miracles (they were certainly prejudiced against the idea of Jesus performing miracles) but the fact that they were "open" to the idea. Keeping an open mind is what separates a wise man from a fool.

In any case the argument still stands - either the Jews give us a wholly reliable witness or they don't. When did I say they were wholly reliable?


Yes exactly - that that seems very possible to me, especially if they were all in on it and heavily invested.
I'm afraid I don't agree. Perhaps several would have held firm, but only true belief is sufficient to produce the numbers we saw.

Ignorant of a great deal of basic science - certainly. Education was not universal, so your audience would have been ignorant and uneducated for the most part, and where they were, they may well have seen wonders beyond their - but not necessarily our - understanding. They would have been quick to reach for supernatural explanations back then.
Really? What's the scientific explanation for seeing a dead person walking around?

EDIT: Another salient point is that Jesus couldn't just go around performing fake miracles if he wished to be considered the messiah. He had to perform a very, very, very specific set of miracles, and he HAD to be crucified. So, firstly, he couldn't just do what was convenient and easy to convince a crowd with, he had to do things as they were written down (and I doubt even the greatest con man could control the circumstances of his birth), and he knew going into it that he had to be crucified. Crucifixion entails (and this was common knowledge at the time) having nails pounded through the wrists and the lower legs (you know the feeling when you bark your shin on the coffee table or hit your funny bone? Imagine having a nail through all four of them).The arms were positioned such that it was impossible to exhale without rising up on your feet, which required pushing against the nail (which was embedded in your bone). You scraped up the log incrementally until you could exhale, at which point, you could inhale and lower the pressure back onto your shinbones. The necessity of breathing regularly prevented you from passing out from the pain, and you eventually died of suffocation. Before this, Jesus was brutally beaten, stripped naked, and made to wear a crown of thorns.

Do you truly think that a confidence man would choose that path for himself?

[TigerBoy]

That's true of literally ninety-five percent of all history from that era. What evidence is there that those witnesses did not exist?
I suspect 'literally 95%" is hyperbole :P You do raise the pertinent question. We can be confident in far older historical figures thanks to evidence and corroborative documentation. When you have a dearth of evidence and corroboration, there is great doubt.

When did I say they were wholly reliable?
Then how reliable must they be before I should accept everything they say, no matter how contradictory that becomes? As I said before: "you either use that argument to accuse the Jewish faith of lying, which discredits them as an honest, unbiased and thus reliable supporter of the other points you wish them to support, or they are reliable and he did not resurrect. "

I'm afraid I don't agree. Perhaps several would have held firm, but only true belief is sufficient to produce the numbers we saw.
Your premise is supposition: we could probably find many reasons for people to advocate a false witness even under duress, however I do respect your opinion. The point is we can't know on available data, and thus I remain unconvinced.

Really? What's the scientific explanation for seeing a dead person walking around?
The same as any ghost story. In the case of a scam we could speculate as to many ways that such reports were either manufactured or where witnesses were tricked.

[CharlieFinley]

I suspect 'literally 95%" is hyperbole :P It's literally hyperbole. Literally, figuratively, same thing (if you want to make an English teacher's head explode). :P You do raise the pertinent question. We can be confident in far older historical figures thanks to evidence and corroborative documentation. When you have a dearth of evidence and corroboration, there is great doubt. I don't necessarily know that that's true. We have corroboration that the beliefs of the Jewish people changed very radically in regards to the resurrection. As is pointed out in Appendix B to There Is a God, there was a huge range of beliefs regarding the resurrection among the Jewish faith. The sudden solidarity of belief in a physical resurrection is, theological historians contend, due to the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus and his physical appearance before witnesses. The fact that this solidarity existed when the Nicene Creed was established, three hundred years later, would indicate that the belief in a specific sort of resurrection came about as a result of witnesses who either saw Jesus, resurrected, or were convinced they did. As we've seen in the example of the False Gospel of the Cross, when legend is allowed to spread freely, you get claims that vary wildly.
Then how reliable must they be before I should accept everything they say, no matter how contradictory that becomes? As I said before: "you either use that argument to accuse the Jewish faith of lying, which discredits them as an honest, unbiased and thus reliable supporter of the other points you wish them to support, or they are reliable and he did not resurrect. "
And, again, they're incredibly biased. A hostile witness is great evidence on the elements he, she, or it corroborates, but is not particularly damaging in the areas he does not. Especially when you consider that their argument for the theft of the body was "the guards were asleep," which is a really awful defense when you consider how noisy moving the rock would have been.Your premise is supposition: we could probably find many reasons for people to advocate a false witness even under duress, however I do respect your opinion. The point is we can't know on available data, and thus I remain unconvinced. I do agree with you on one point: we can't know for certain. I was probably easier to convince than you, because I was already more or less convinced of the existence of God due to the close correlation of Genesis with the actual scientific stance as to what happened at the moment of the birth of the universe, as well as the fine-tuning argument and the argument from laws.


The same as any ghost story. In the case of a scam we could speculate as to many ways that such reports were either manufactured or where witnesses were tricked.How would you do that?

[TigerBoy]

I don't necessarily know that that's true. We have corroboration that the beliefs of the Jewish people changed very radically in regards to the resurrection. As is pointed out in Appendix B to There Is a God, there was a huge range of beliefs regarding the resurrection among the Jewish faith. The sudden solidarity of belief in a physical resurrection is, theological historians contend, due to the actual, physical resurrection of Jesus and his physical appearance before witnesses. The fact that this solidarity existed when the Nicene Creed was established, three hundred years later, would indicate that the belief in a specific sort of resurrection came about as a result of witnesses who either saw Jesus, resurrected, or were convinced they did. As we've seen in the example of the False Gospel of the Cross, when legend is allowed to spread freely, you get claims that vary wildly.
Interesting. And yet this is correlation, not causation. We could speculate as to other reasons for that solidarity in terms of politics, increased communication and cooperation from changes in trade or population movements.

And, again, they're incredibly biased. A hostile witness is great evidence on the elements he, she, or it corroborates, but is not particularly damaging in the areas he does not. Especially when you consider that their argument for the theft of the body was "the guards were asleep," which is a really awful defense when you consider how noisy moving the rock would have been.
This is reiterating a point you've already made and which I've addressed.

What you haven't addressed is my assertion that logically you cannot use the Jewish witness account as confirmation of the miracles of Jesus and thus his status as a non-sorcerous holy man, AND ignore their denial of his resurrection. Only if scholars could show that the resurrection denial was indeed down to some specific cause that didn't discredit their witness of his miracles, could the Jewish account be used. In that scenario theists would still have to defend against the argument that if the Jews had some valid reason for lying about the resurrection, that same reason may have applied to the witness of his (alleged) miracles, and the broader point that their reliability has been eroded.

I do agree with you on one point: we can't know for certain. I was probably easier to convince than you, because I was already more or less convinced of the existence of God due to the close correlation of Genesis with the actual scientific stance as to what happened at the moment of the birth of the universe, as well as the fine-tuning argument and the argument from laws.
LoL I think that gem is a topic for an entirely separate debate ;-)

How would you do that?
I would start by studying Victorian seance fraudsters or by asking Derren Brown :P

[CharlieFinley]

Interesting. And yet this is correlation, not causation. We could speculate as to other reasons for that solidarity in terms of politics, increased communication and cooperation from changes in trade or population movements.
Except this solidarity didn't bleed over into Judaism at all.
This is reiterating a point you've already made and which I've addressed.

What you haven't addressed is my assertion that logically you cannot use the Jewish witness account as confirmation of the miracles of Jesus and thus his status as a non-sorcerous holy man, AND ignore their denial of his resurrection. Only if scholars could show that the resurrection denial was indeed down to some specific cause that didn't discredit their witness of his miracles, could the Jewish account be used. In that scenario theists would still have to defend against the argument that if the Jews had some valid reason for lying about the resurrection, that same reason may have applied to the witness of his (alleged) miracles, and the broader point that their reliability has been eroded. The problem is, that's not how hostile witnesses are treated in a court of law, and for good reason. A hostile witness will seize any excuse possible to cast doubt on the issue in question, even if that's not reasonable. For this reason, they are treated as excellent corroboration for things that are not in their interests to agree with (Jesus' miracles), and are not treated as seriously credible when they cast doubt on other issues. Their own denials confirm key historical evidence for the resurrection. It's really not nearly as much of an issue as you seem to think it is.


LoL I think that gem is a topic for an entirely separate debate ;-)
Yup.

I would start by studying Victorian seance fraudsters or by asking Derren Brown :P
What is a Derren Brown?

[TigerBoy]

Except this solidarity didn't bleed over into Judaism at all.
I'm not at all clear what point you are making here. Previously you stated "there was a huge range of beliefs regarding the resurrection among the Jewish faith." and then you talk about solidarity of belief, and propose this was due to a resurrection event. If by "Jewish faith" you mean Judaism, then you now appear to be contradicting your earlier point.

The problem is, that's not how hostile witnesses are treated in a court of law, and for good reason. A hostile witness will seize any excuse possible to cast doubt on the issue in question, even if that's not reasonable. For this reason, they are treated as excellent corroboration for things that are not in their interests to agree with (Jesus' miracles), and are not treated as seriously credible when they cast doubt on other issues. Their own denials confirm key historical evidence for the resurrection. It's really not nearly as much of an issue as you seem to think it is.
Not a problem at all - if a hostile witness' only support for a premise is their word, and their word is proven unreliable, the witness can easily be discounted by the opposition as being unreliable.
In this case it seems more likely to me they were unable to denounce Jesus' alleged miracles without eroding the entire premise for those miracles they claimed for themselves.
As an analogy consider defence witness (Man D) and prosecution witness (Man P):

Man D stands in court accused of being a thief.
Man P was the only other person present when the money went missing.
Man P claims to have witnessed that Man D stole some money from Victim 2.
Man P claims on a prior occasion where Man D is accused of theft from Victim 1, where Man P was the only other person present at the time that the money went missing that Man D was innocent of the theft on that occasion. Man D witnessed that Man P was also innocent of that theft.

A jury in this case might reasonably consider that the new claim detracts from the previous alibi and suggests Man P may in fact be less than honest himself, wouldn't you say?

Hostile witnesses are great but only if you can prove they are reliable

What is a Derren Brown?
A kind of professional trickster-turned-debunker.

[CharlieFinley]

I'm not at all clear what point you are making here. Previously you stated "there was a huge range of beliefs regarding the resurrection among the Jewish faith." and then you talk about solidarity of belief, and propose this was due to a resurrection event. If by "Jewish faith" you mean Judaism, then you now appear to be contradicting your earlier point. No, that's not true. There was, in fact, a wide range of beliefs about the resurrection in the Jewish faith, but only one in the emergent Christian faith. This solidarity of belief within Christianity (which you suggested was caused by an outside event) did not bleed over in the slightest into Judaism. It was exclusive to Christianity.


Not a problem at all - if a hostile witness' only support for a premise is their word, and their word is proven unreliable, the witness can easily be discounted by the opposition as being unreliable.
In this case it seems more likely to me they were unable to denounce Jesus' alleged miracles without eroding the entire premise for those miracles they claimed for themselves.
As an analogy consider defence witness (Man D) and prosecution witness (Man P):

Man D stands in court accused of being a thief.
Man P was the only other person present when the money went missing.
Man P claims to have witnessed that Man D stole some money from Victim 2.
Man P claims on a prior occasion where Man D is accused of theft from Victim 1, where Man P was the only other person present at the time that the money went missing that Man D was innocent of the theft on that occasion. Man D witnessed that Man P was also innocent of that theft.

A jury in this case might reasonably consider that the new claim detracts from the previous alibi and suggests Man P may in fact be less than honest himself, wouldn't you say?

Hostile witnesses are great but only if you can prove they are reliable
The problem is that I don't agree with your premise. They could easily have denied his miracles without undermining the perceived validity of the Old Testament miracles (which were all quite a long time in the past). All they had to do was say, "it didn't happen." Now, if the only options available to them were, "it didn't happen because miracles are impossible" and "he's the son of God," you might have a point. However, that's not the case.

[TigerBoy]

No, that's not true. There was, in fact, a wide range of beliefs about the resurrection in the Jewish faith, but only one in the emergent Christian faith. This solidarity of belief within Christianity (which you suggested was caused by an outside event) did not bleed over in the slightest into Judaism. It was exclusive to Christianity.
I see, it sounded like you were talking about the entire Abrahamic tradition. To be clear, my suggestions of events were alternatives to prove that this was not a valid deductive argument to draw any conclusion from, so it doesn't actually matter who we speculate as having been affected. It is still correlation without proven causation. I'd also note that the fact that Christianity's view of resurrection is a subset of Judaism is merely consistent with the rest of their views.

The problem is that I don't agree with your premise. They could easily have denied his miracles without undermining the perceived validity of the Old Testament miracles (which were all quite a long time in the past).
Since you don't know that for a fact, any deductive argument built using it as a premise is going to be flawed. In the absence of facts we aren't going to improve our knowledge by making assumptions biased in favour of the desired outcome.

It seems very reasonable to predict that the social reality of a group claiming living witnesses to miracles being denounced by those with no proof other than their records would leave the Jews on the defensive and at risk of looking foolish. It would be like two celebrity mediums having a bitch fight in the tabloids, with one denouncing the other as a charlatan. The potential fallout is harmful to the reputations of both sides, so I believe that the probability is that the Jewish leaders made a pragmatic choice. Again - it doesn't matter if my opinion of the Jew's motivation is right or wrong, the fact that we don't know what those motivations were means you cannot draw conclusions that are predicated upon this premise.

[CharlieFinley]

I'm sorry, but all I'm hearing at this point is, "sure, the evidence says X, but it could be bad evidence." The problem with that is that there's no support for the idea that the evidence is bad, and a truly great deal of support for the idea that the evidence is good.
It's got immediacy (and is far more immediate than other historical writings of the time), redundancy, corroboration from neutral sources, corroboration from hostile sources...

As a Christian, it feels weird that my faith would be validated by such a mundane thing as "a preponderance of evidence" (I'd greatly prefer divine revelation, or some such), but I am of the opinion that this is a very compelling argument.

[TheBassoonist]

As an atheist, I do not doubt Jesus' existence. I think he was born around 2,000 years ago in the Roman province of Judaea, and was basically a preacher. I don't think he was a divine being sent to free us from our sins. I think he stirred up trouble for the Romans with his teachings, so they executed him along with other troublemakers. Some Jews living under Roman rule believed that God would send Christ, and these early Christians believed that Jesus was Christ, possibly aided by what he preached.

My opinion is that the general information given in the New Testament, as stated above, is historically accurate. Did the 12 Apostles exist? Possibly. They could've been Jesus' closest followers, and were betrayed by one of their own. The specificities, i.e., Jesus' miracles, can be attributed to word of mouth, poor transcriptions, and poor translations in the centuries since. Start a rumor about someone and watch how quickly it mutates.

[TigerBoy]

I'm sorry, but all I'm hearing at this point is, "sure, the evidence says X, but it could be bad evidence."
Which isn't what I have said at all. My position is that you do not actually have evidence that conclusively proves any claim to the exclusion of other claims. Precisely what I have been debating against are specific claims being made on the basis of an insufficiency of evidence. What you have offered are hypotheses that you (or your sources) are attempting to fit the scant available data, but there are other hypotheses that also fit that same data which do not rely on miracles but rather on more commonplace explanations.


The problem with that is that there's no support for the idea that the evidence is bad, and a truly great deal of support for the idea that the evidence is good.
"Support for evidence" is a redundant statement. Either you have evidence or you do not. You are in essence stating you have "good evidence for evidence," which - assuming that by 'evidence' you in fact mean 'proof of your argument' - leads me to again wonder, "then where is this evidence?"


It's got immediacy (and is far more immediate than other historical writings of the time), redundancy, corroboration from neutral sources, corroboration from hostile sources...
... and issues with chronology, and contradictions, and omissions, and is thus immensely unreliable. As I've previously contended on the specifics we've discussed above regarding immediacy (or lack of), contradictions and exactly what is corroborated and by whom, it is a cloth of many holes. Making such a claim about what the Bible may have in its favour as a history book while ignoring the evident flaws is as unpersuasive to me as a car salesman trying to sell me a shopping trolley as a vehicle because "it has wheels".


As a Christian, it feels weird that my faith would be validated by such a mundane thing as "a preponderance of evidence" (I'd greatly prefer divine revelation, or some such), but I am of the opinion that this is a very compelling argument.
If there was indeed a preponderance of evidence, we'd not be having this debate.