Happy Atheist Forum

In his book, Letters From a Skeptic, Greg Boyd presents 9 arguments for the reliablity of the Gospels. 5 of the arguments are internal (in the writing it's self), and the other 4 are external. I have shortened most of them into just a few sentences.

Internal:

1.The Gospels claim to be based on eyewitness accounts. Luke says that he himself is not an eyewitness, but is seeking to write a truthful account and is using eyewitness sources. John specificaly says that he is an eyewitness. Mark and Matthew do not specificaly claim to be eyewitnesses, but are written as if they are.

2. The Gospels are laced with tons of unimportant details that typicaly incompany eyewitness acounts. Here is one example "that is all the more important because it deals with the Resurrection" (John 20:1-8):

Quote from: "Greg Boyd"Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail, see the next criteria) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disiple, the one Jesus loved (John's modest way of referring to himself - other mark of genuineness) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" (note her lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John's modesty again, but who cares about this irrelevant detail?) He bent over (the tomb entrance was low - a detailwhich is historicaly accurate for tombs of wealthy people of the time - the kind we know Jesus was burried in) and looked at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in (why not? irrelevent detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him (modest repetition again), arrived and went into the tomb (Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head (irrelevant and unexpected detail - what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, seperate from the linen (could anything be more irrelevant, and more unusual than this? Jesus folded one part of His wrappings before he left!) Finally, the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about the exact order the went in?).

You get the point. There is absolutly no reason to throw in so much random detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, but makes it seem as if the author is recalling an event. The Gospels are full of this kind of stuff!

3. The Gospels are full of self-damaging material. For example, the Gospels tell about the testomony from Mary Magdalene. However, this could only be damaging, because durring the time period, women were thought of as incurible "tail-bearers", and were not even permited to testify in court. The deciples are repetedly portrayed in bad light. Also, there are some details which would have almost certainly been excluded if the Gospels were being fabricated. For example, on the cross Jesus proclames "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  This is hardly what you would expect from a devine Messiah.

(Edit:)
4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

Quote from: "C.S. Lewis"as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things

External arguments:

1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

(edit 2:)
2. There are many ancient texts from the same period of time from which we can learn about Jesus and the explosion in Christianity. Secular sources which mention Jesus include, but are not limited to:
-Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Major_works)
-Suetonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius)
-Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus)
-Thallus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian))
As well as ancient Jewish writing writen against the Christians (ex. the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud))

3. While many archeological findings support the events referenced to in the Gospels, no event in the Gospels has been disproven by an archeological finding (though many people have attempted to do this.) As Greg Boyd writes:

QuoteTo give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke's account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken durring the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinus was governer of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is where Jesus was born. But we know from other ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirinus was governer beginning in A.D.6, and there is no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinus' reign in A.D.6 was his second term

4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

Harry Potter was snoring loudly. ( self incriminating) He had been sitting in a chair beside his bedroom window for the best part of four hours, staring out at the darkening street, and had finally fallen asleep with one side of his face pressed against the cold windowpane, his glasses askew and his mouth wide open. (who cares?) The misty fug his breath had left on the window sparkled in the orange glare of the streetlamp outside, and the artificial light drained his face of all color, so that he looked ghostly beneath his shock of untidy black hair.(damaging to image)


 How to irritate an atheist #170 (http://onclepsycho.canalblog.com/archives/2004/06/05/35086.html)

Just so you know... This doesn't really irritate me.  That's just the title of the article.

Quote from: "Reginus"1.The Gospels claim to be based on eyewitness accounts. Luke says that he himself is not an eyewitness, but is seeking to write a truthful account and is using eyewitness sources. John specificaly says that he is an eyewitness. Mark and Matthew do not specificaly claim to be eyewitnesses, but are written as if they are.

Therefore all eyewitness accounts, or people claiming to write things based on eye witness accounts are completely reliable? Especially if there are no other extra-biblical corroborating texts?

Quote2. The Gospels are laced with tons of unimportant details that typicaly incompany eyewitness acounts. Here is one example "that is all the more important because it deals with the Resurrection" (John 20:1-8):]

[bible quote]

You get the point. There is absolutly no reason to throw in so much random detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, but makes it seem as if the author is recalling an event. The Gospels are full of this kind of stuff!

This kind of stuff is generally included in every fairy tale. Why is it relevant that Santa Clause comes down the chimney?

Quote3. The Gospels are full of self-damaging material. For example, the Gospels tell about the testomony from Mary Magdalene. However, this could only be damaging, because durring the time period, women were thought of as incurible "tail-bearers", and were not even permited to testify in court. The deciples are repetedly portrayed in bad light. Also, there are some details which would have almost certainly been excluded if the Gospels were being fabricated. For example, on the cross Jesus proclames "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  This is hardly what you would expect from a devine Messiah.

So because a text includes questionable things, that makes it more believable? In that situation, the case for the invisible purple chaffinch on my left shoulder just got that much stronger.

Sorry, but if the rest of the arguments are like this they either:

a) make no sense.
b) provide just as much credence to any other religious text.

Isn't this a historical version of "I Said So"?

Quote from: "Arctonyx"This kind of stuff is generally included in every fairy tale.

Eh, I don't think so.

Quote from: "Arctonyx"Why is it relevant that Santa Clause comes down the chimney?

He has to get inside the house some how...

I really recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.  He goes over the plagiarism from one author to the next in the bible (Matthew plagiarized from Mark), he talks about how it was common in the early church to write letters to your congregation in the name of the church heads like Paul.  In addition he talks about how the bible was changed either on accident or otherwise, by early heretics and apologists.  

I guess i'm on to number 2 now.  The details are what makes a story good, would you read a story from an author that said, "A body was discovered.  Another body was discovered.  The killer is now dead.  The End?"  No details are what makes a story good.  But I have a question for you, what happens when that detail conflicts with itself?  There are different accounts when Jesus was crucified, when how long it took him to come back from the dead.  What he says before he dies.  Who he sees first, and where he goes after he dies.  And so on.  The creators put too much detail in which conflicts with the other supposed accounts either through carelessness or whatever.  

Now number 3.  So if I were writing a book before the equal rights movement for black people, would having a black person in my story be damaging?

Quote from: "Reginus"Eh, I don't think so.

Pretty much every fairy tale I can think of has this kind of unnecessary additional details.

QuoteHe has to get inside the house some how...

They have to get inside the tomb somehow...

Wow, really, just wow. I am going to leave the details out and point out how silly internal arguments are.

The only thing you can say about the gospels' truthfulness, from just reading the gospels, is whether or not they are self consistent. You are trying to say, "
The gospels' have characteristics x, y and z.
Any story that has x, y and z must be true
Hence, the gospels' are true"

Of course, the problem with your argument is that your second premise is completely wrong.

You cannot judge whether something is true without comparing it to the outside world (what it purports to be true about). The only thing you can judge is whether or not they are self consistent, they fail this test to in case you were wondering. From the tone of your posts, you don't seem stupid, you don't seem like a rabid, raving, loony fanatic, if you critically evaluate the evidence, you will see it does not stand up. Once you realise this, it does not mean you have to forsake your god and go to the winds, but it does mean you will be a more reasonable, rational person, this is surely a good thing? You obviously want these gospels to be true, but that should mean you are even more rigorous in your self discipline and evidenciery standards, so as to rule out the specter of confirmation bias. It is a good thing you have posted them here, we can help you  

Any good writer adds these kind of details to a story he or she is telling.  It gives emotional impact.  If we don't add these small and irrelevant details readers will not relate to our characters as if they were real people.  It's just good storytelling.  
 
Please, do not (and I mean do not) pull out the old saw about people not being sophisticated enough to write a great story almost two thousand years ago.  Human beings have had basically the same intelligence and imagination for far longer than that.

Kylyssa is right just look at the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, and the other books we have from antiquity.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Kylyssa is right just look at the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, and the other books we have from antiquity.

...and Harry Potter.
J.K. Rowling just ripped it off of some ancient hieroglyphic scrolls.
It's proof that a technologically complex Muggle society once lived alongside Wizards, presumably before the Great Flood.  It also demonstrates that society and politics are cyclical, because they had a Prime Minister, just like we do.

I also believe that the Odyssey is accurate in its entirety, partly because it coincides with actual events.

;)

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"I also believe that the Odyssey is accurate in its entirety, partly because it coincides with actual events.

Um...  :blink:  

I preferred the Iliad which too coincided with actual events.  Must be 100% true.  Couldn't help but notice the other 6 reasons were never posted, I guess if we tear apart the first 3 reasons no point in posting the other 6 ^_^

OOO, he updated it

Quote from: "Reginus"4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

I find that doubtful but do you have any evidence that later authors did not have access to earlier works? Also, given that few if any of them even claimed to be eye witnesses, a simpler explanation would be that they were merely going by what they heard from other people (who may or may not themselves have claimed to be eye witnesses).

Quote5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

I have read plenty of works of fiction that describe at least some of their fantastical events in a very matter of fact way. The works of George R R Martin and David Gemmell spring to mind.

I shall take C.S. Lewis' opinon under advisement, thanks.

Quote1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

Does anyone actually have evidence that the original disciples were the authors of any of the gospels? I was rather under the impression this was not the case so speculating as to what their motives might have been is ultimately pointless. In fact, can you even trace a line of chinese whispers from the original disciples to the written gospels with any certainty?

Quote from: "Reginus"(Edit:)
4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

Suggested by whom?  The author?  Some of our oldest bibles we have say that Jesus got angry at the people he healed.  Some of the books of the Apocrypha show young Jesus as mischievous.  I take it the only thing that counts here is the canonized gospels from the time of King James.  Also Matthew plagiarized from Mark so that perspective isn't significantly different.

Quote from: "Reginus"5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

Quote from: "C.S. Lewis"as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things

First can you be anymore vague?  What is considered main features of mythology?  As far as I know in mythology there are gods which tributes are offered to plead for their help in killing enemies.  Wow OT right there, Crusades, and the Inquisition too.  C.S. Lewis is a poor apologist and historian.  C.S. Lewis believes that if a miracle was written down its proof the miracle happens.  If thats the case C.S. Lewis should believe the miracles of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, etc.  However all Lewis does is special plead for his god because its his god.

Quote from: "Reginus"External arguments:

1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

What motive could Joseph Smith have for fabricating the Book of Mormon or Hubbord for Scientology?  Lets see you get lots of sex and money.  Why would they lie see previous 2 sentences.  Really can you define very very few?  Or is it very very few the author knows of?  Um if you are going to believe in the story of the bible then the disciple who betrayed Jesus could be exhibit 'A' that the author is wrong.

Also there is no proof the original authors of the bible were the disciples. (Thanx Karras I forgot to mention that)

Quote from: "Reginus"(edit 2:)
2. There are many ancient texts from the same period of time from which we can learn about Jesus and the explosion in Christianity. Secular sources which mention Jesus include, but are not limited to:
-Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Major_works)
-Suetonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius)
-Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus)
-Thallus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian))
As well as ancient Jewish writing writen against the Christians (ex. the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud))

Lets see Tactius was born after Jesus died, so he can't be used as a reference to someone who lived and died before him.  All he can do is confirm there were Christians at that time.  Same with Suetonius, Josephus and Thallus(since they put him at the end of the 1st century).  And there has been writings against Christians from those times, considering many pagans thought Christians were godless because they claimed to worship the god of the Jews but not follow that gods laws.  Also we have writings against Christianity which complain that Christians change their bible all the time to get rid of ridicule and contradictions.  The Christians who responded didn't deny those allegations they instead tries to spin it like it was a good thing.  

Quote from: "Reginus"3. While many archeological findings support the events referenced to in the Gospels, no event in the Gospels has been disproven by an archeological finding (though many people have attempted to do this.) As Greg Boyd writes:

QuoteTo give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke's account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken durring the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinus was governer of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is where Jesus was born. But we know from other ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirinus was governer beginning in A.D.6, and there is no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinus' reign in A.D.6 was his second term

Lets see neither has the Iliad, it doesn't mean the supernatural events and miracles are true.  It doesn't mean Achelles or Hector existed because there was a Troy.  And the census bullshit, saying that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because his remote ancestor lived there would be like saying my home town is Athens because my remote ancestors came from there.  

Quote from: "Reginus"4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

Jewish leaders didn't care much.  Look at Christianity today with over 30,000 sects, some fight one and other but must get along.  Jewish leaders wanted it gone when it was too late.  Early Christianity was like todays Scientology, most people say let them live their own lives until they start something.  Early Christianity was a joke to most people, they received ridicule mostly and the occasional isolated violent attack against them.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Suggested by whom?  The author?  Some of our oldest bibles we have say that Jesus got angry at the people he healed.  Some of the books of the Apocrypha show young Jesus as mischievous.  I take it the only thing that counts here is the canonized gospels from the time of King James.  Also Matthew plagiarized from Mark so that perspective isn't significantly different.

In responce to aligations of modification of the Gospels:
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/bible/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

Quote from: "LoneMateria"First can you be anymore vague?  What is considered main features of mythology?  As far as I know in mythology there are gods which tributes are offered to plead for their help in killing enemies.  Wow OT right there, Crusades, and the Inquisition too.  C.S. Lewis is a poor apologist and historian.  C.S. Lewis believes that if a miracle was written down its proof the miracle happens.  If thats the case C.S. Lewis should believe the miracles of the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, etc.  However all Lewis does is special plead for his god because its his god.

I think that you have a somewhat narrow definition of mythology. Do Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood make any references to God at all? In any case, I always thought of legends as stories oraly passed down from generation to generation, being refined over time to become more epic and exciting. Now, are the Gospels exciting or epic? Not really. Jesus born in a stable, and died a violent death which he did not fight against. In the Gospels, unlike like legends, suspence and action do not really build up to a climax. As for C.S. Lewis, I don't understand why you think he is a poor apologist and historian of mythology; and where did you get the idea that he believed every miracle written down was real?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"What motive could Joseph Smith have for fabricating the Book of Mormon or Hubbord for Scientology?  Lets see you get lots of sex and money.  Why would they lie see previous 2 sentences.  Really can you define very very few?  Or is it very very few the author knows of?  Um if you are going to believe in the story of the bible then the disciple who betrayed Jesus could be exhibit 'A' that the author is wrong. Also there is no proof the original authors of the bible were the disciples. (Thanx Karras I forgot to mention that)

lmao, I'm just trying the the imagine the disiples becoming filthy rich with a bunch of wives and everything. Here's a question: would Hubbord create Scientology if he knew full and well that he would likely be killed for it? I mean, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down! As for whether or not the Gospels were written by the Apostles, I don't have enough of a background to tell you what the main consensus is, but I see no reason why they wouldn't be. If I remember correctly, the Gospels were most likely written sometime between 50-70 A.D. and Luke actualy lived to be 84! You might as well say that J.K. Rowing didn't actualy write Harry Potter.

Quote from: "Reginus"I mean, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down!

Why would Paul or Peter lie?  Why did Jim Jones lie?  He ended up dying along with the rest of his cult when they drank the Kool-Aid.

Quote from: "Reginus"You might as well say that J.K. Rowing didn't actually write Harry Potter.

Dude, some of those words have double consonants.

Also, I already told you:  R.K. Rowling got Harry Potter off of an ancient scroll.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Suggested by whom? The author? Some of our oldest bibles we have say that Jesus got angry at the people he healed. Some of the books of the Apocrypha show young Jesus as mischievous. I take it the only thing that counts here is the canonized gospels from the time of King James. Also Matthew plagiarized from Mark so that perspective isn't significantly different.

In responce to aligations of modification of the Gospels:
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/bible/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

Erm, no, that misses the point.

I have seen Christians trot out this before to try and prove the accuracy of the Bible, yet all it seems to be arguing for is the unchanging nature of it since the first version was canonized. A work of fiction 2000 years ago is still a work of fiction today, no matter how faithfully it was reproduced.

Furthermore, do you have any comments on the non-canonical gospels or why they were not included?

Quotelmao, I'm just trying the the imagine the disiples becoming filthy rich with a bunch of wives and everything. Here's a question: would Hubbord create Scientology if he knew full and well that he would likely be killed for it? I mean, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down! As for whether or not the Gospels were written by the Apostles, I don't have enough of a background to tell you what the main consensus is, but I see no reason why they wouldn't be. If I remember correctly, the Gospels were most likely written sometime between 50-70 A.D. and Luke actualy lived to be 84! You might as well say that J.K. Rowing didn't actualy write Harry Potter.

Please provide evidence that they knew they would be killed for it. Preferably frm a non-biblical source. I have heard the martyrdom thing mentioned before, always without citing any sources. Furthermore, people throughout history have died for many different causes. Do suicide bombers really get their 72 virgins in your mind? They wouldn't die for a lie, right?

So just living at the same time is enough evidence to prove authorship? Don't be daft! Provide a citation from are reputable biblical scholar (preferably more than one or some evidence of a consensus) stating that the gospels are confirmed to have been written by the original disciples or stop using such nonsense to support your case.

Oh and, to go back to this point:

Quote4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

A rather simpler and more plausible explanation would be either that Jesus never existed or that no claims were ever actually made of his resurrection around the time of his actual death. Considering the first accouts are from decades later, the latter seems very plausible indeed.


You "evidence" consists of little more than passing references to him in non-contemporaneous accounts, opinions on what make for a proper myth or legend and some unsubstantiated waffle.

Edited for spelling.

Quote from: "Reginus"4. The Gospels are consistant in their portrayal of Jesus and his personality, but significantly different in perpective, suggesting that they were neither individualy fabricated, nor fabricated as a group.

How is that evidence? In any way shape or form? You're just assuming that, because it supports your predetermined conclusions. I'm sure that if I had a ton of predetermined conclusions that I could find 'evidence' for them in almost any text.

Quote5. The Gospels have no signs of legendary accretion. While there are supernatural acts, the Gospels are lacking of the main features of ancient mythology, and are in fact very sober.

They have all the signs of legendary accretion. Legends, when you get down to the basics are: attaching supernatural or fantastical acts and experiences to a person in order to make the person seem supernatural or great. Doesn't matter whether that person is real or just a fiction, it happens in all sorts of legends and religious texts. Plus a nice argument from authority.

Quote1. What motive could the disciples possibly have had for fabricating the Gospels? As I said before, the Gospels repeatedly portray them in a bad light; Jesus often rebuking them. Why would they lie? It's not as if they would gain something from a fabrication. To the contarary, they were prosecuted by religious leaders. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the disipels were deceptive in character, and very, very few scholars doubt their sincerety.

Hmm, how about what everyone is after... power? These disciples had an awful lot to gain by fabricating the gospels, namely power and influence over people. And there is nothing to suggest that the disciples were honest in character either.

Quote(edit 2:)
2. There are many ancient texts from the same period of time from which we can learn about Jesus and the explosion in Christianity. Secular sources which mention Jesus include, but are not limited to:
-Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Major_works)
-Suetonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius)
-Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus)
-Thallus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian))
As well as ancient Jewish writing writen against the Christians (ex. the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud))

You and I obviously have a very different meaning of 'periods of time', historical records created decades after the supposed events happened, in my view aren't compelling evidence. It's odd as well that none of these 'historical records' record any of Jesus's amazing miracles and resurrection. You'd think a historian would find those quite important, and not neglect to mention them until decades after they supposedly happened.

Quote3. While many archeological findings support the events referenced to in the Gospels, no event in the Gospels has been disproven by an archeological finding (though many people have attempted to do this.) As Greg Boyd writes:
To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke's account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken durring the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinus was governer of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is where Jesus was born. But we know from other ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirinus was governer beginning in A.D.6, and there is no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinus' reign in A.D.6 was his second term

Archaeological findings do very little to discredit a lot of legends and myths. Just because we can say with certainty that there was a city in Italy called Rome that was controlled by the Roman Empire, doesn't mean we can say with certainty that any texts that mention Rome are correct in every other detail. Saying that archaeological evidence hasn't disproven some biblical events, therefore the bible is true is tantamount to saying: I live in the UK, leprechauns are real.

Just because there is 1 verifiable fact in that sentence doesn't automatically make the rest of it correct.

Quote4. Christianity was born in a very hostile envirnment. The Jewish leaders would have loved to see it stamped out, if only they could find evidence of fabrication. Why, if they had even brought forth the body of the slain Jesus, Christians would have been quickly silenced.

No they wouldn't. People who have faith in their beliefs would have simply said: "I can't hear you, lalalalalalala" and stuck their fingers in their ears. You're saying that people won't believe something when it's shown to be false. Just look at creationism, or the thousands of other people believing in things which have a mountain of evidence showing them to be fabrications.

Lol i'm gone for a little while and people answer Reginus' questions for me TY Karras and Arctonyx.  Before I counter the one part of Reginus' post that was not addressed i'm going to reinforce a point made by Arctonyx.  

Quote from: "Arctonyx"Archaeological findings do very little to discredit a lot of legends and myths. Just because we can say with certainty that there was a city in Italy called Rome that was controlled by the Roman Empire, doesn't mean we can say with certainty that any texts that mention Rome are correct in every other detail

Just because New York is real doesn't mean Spiderman ever existed.

Quote from: "Reginus"I think that you have a somewhat narrow definition of mythology. Do Paul Bunyan or Robin Hood make any references to God at all? In any case, I always thought of legends as stories oraly passed down from generation to generation, being refined over time to become more epic and exciting. Now, are the Gospels exciting or epic? Not really. Jesus born in a stable, and died a violent death which he did not fight against. In the Gospels, unlike like legends, suspence and action do not really build up to a climax. As for C.S. Lewis, I don't understand why you think he is a poor apologist and historian of mythology; and where did you get the idea that he believed every miracle written down was real?

I don't know if my definition of mythology is narrow it might be common.  To me and the 4 friends I asked the first thing we think of when we think of mythology is the ancient greek and roman works.  Anyway you make a good point with Paul Bunyan and Robin Hood (I haven't heard those stories since I was a little child so I don't know if they reference a god or not).  The Gospels are often cited as epic and i'm sure some people would consider them exciting though you and I probably do not.  I'm sure people get excited with the sermon of the mount and the miracles.  You are grossly misrepresenting the story by saying he was born and he died.  Climax = Jesus was crucified the story builds up to that especially once you know the romans sent their men after Jesus.

I've listened to C.S. Lewis debate a few times (long time ago).  One of the times (I don't remember who) asked Lewis if he believed in the miracles of the bible, he said yes.  Then he asked why because it was written down.  Lewis gave some long answer in which he basically said that the gospels were accurate and have been preserved by the disciples, but then he started asking questions and he ended up changing the topic before anyone really noticed.  I had to listen to it twice, but it was a yes without saying yes.  Since then I never really took C.S. Lewis seriously.  Just a note he wouldn't say that about our other classic works its just special pleading because its for HIS god.

The First Council of Nicaea 325AD kicked in to touch quite a number of ‘holy’ books notably the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdala (Magdalene) because they did not fit the ‘political’ picture that Constantine wanted to portray. Perfect example of how the winners write history to suit their political needs.

What about the so called Ten Commandments could any one that has read them take then seriously.check out. http://atheist666.blogspot.com/ (http://atheist666.blogspot.com/)

Quote from: "jim666"What about the so called Ten Commandments could any one that has read them take then seriously.check out. http://atheist666.blogspot.com/ (http://atheist666.blogspot.com/)

I've decided that I cannot really argue much further, as I just don't have enough of a background in biblical history. I would Iove to see someone have a debate on the same topic with Braxhunt, is he seems far more knowlegable on the subject than I am.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I've listened to C.S. Lewis debate a few times (long time ago). One of the times (I don't remember who) asked Lewis if he believed in the miracles of the bible, he said yes. Then he asked why because it was written down. Lewis gave some long answer in which he basically said that the gospels were accurate and have been preserved by the disciples, but then he started asking questions and he ended up changing the topic before anyone really noticed. I had to listen to it twice, but it was a yes without saying yes. Since then I never really took C.S. Lewis seriously. Just a note he wouldn't say that about our other classic works its just special pleading because its for HIS god.

I would be interested in listening to or reading that debate if you still remember where you found it.

Quote from: "Reginus"I would be interested in listening to or reading that debate if you still remember where you found it.

I'll try to remember, I listened to it a few years back and don't remember much of the debate.  I remember that part and a few bits and pieces.  If I remember it i'll pm you ^_^

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "jim666"What about the so called Ten Commandments could any one that has read them take then seriously.check out. http://atheist666.blogspot.com/ (http://atheist666.blogspot.com/)

:blink: +1 and WTF

Quote from: "Reginus"I've decided that I cannot really argue much further, as I just don't have enough of a background in biblical history. I would Iove to see someone have a debate on the same topic with Braxhunt, is he seems far more knowlegable on the subject than I am.

Well so far on the topic of gospel historicity he's used the same arguments. Which simply don't hold true, condensing the whole argument into a couple of sentences:

1: Are the Gospels historically accurate?

2: No.

There are no reasons to believe that the Gospels are historically accurate any more then any other religious text.

Quote from: "Arctonyx"There are no reasons to believe that the Gospels are historically accurate any more then any other religious text.

K, what ever floats your boat dude.  

Reginus why do you think they are historically reliable?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Reginus why do you think they are historically reliable?

Whoa, you just made Jesus facepalm:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_hXjhQ1_xjuQ%2FSJ22GuAwRtI%2FAAAAAAAAD9E%2Fv6TL8jJohj0%2Fs400%2FJesus%2BFacepalm.jpg&hash=8fe411106a43c3b39734240cfbc1ec8cbfb5b6f2)
Jk As far as the question goes, why don't you ask Braxton?

Because you aren't braxton.  I feel I can have a more honest discussion with you then him.  He just wants to debate to show his congregation that atheists are easily defeated.  Debates are usually skewed by people who agree with you and don't.  I'd rather have an honest discussion.  You obviously posted this thread for a reason even if you can't defend the view you have.  Honest discussion is productive so lets have an honest discussion about this.

Very well then. How bout this: you pick a text or story that claims to be eyewitness and accurate (though you think is false), then after I do some research on it, we'll compare it to the Gospels based on the 9 points.
1. Does the writer(s) claim to be an eye witness?
2. Is the story full of irrelevant details that typicaly accompainy an eye witness acount?
3. Does the account have material that would be damaging or down-grading to the author(s)?
4. If the account was writen by multiple people, are there unusaly common consitancies in minor details, or fundamental differences that stand out?
5. Does the text resemble a legend? (ex. I would consiter it legendary if in the end, the protagonist just barely managed to defeat some sort of powerful monster)

6. Would there be a reason for fabrication of the account? Would the story benefit the author(s) in any significant manner?
7. Do unrelated texts of the same time period and place conform parts of the story, or do they conflict with it?
8. Do archeological finding conflict with or confirm the story?
9. Was the envirnment that the account was written in hostile to the story? (Pretty much anything goes in our fiction oriented society, but it wasn't like this at other times. However, if someone wrote an account accusing Mother Terisa of murder, this would definatly be a good example of a story being born in a hostile envirnment.)

Fair enough? It could be anything from a scientology book to a novel written in first person format (lol your probably thinking "same thing").

But like I said, I won't be able to contribute much to a discussion of "Who wrote Luke's account, and at what place and at what time?"

Um... I think you missed what I was saying.  I wanted to know why YOU thought the bible is historically reliable.  And why that 9 point stuff?  We've already demonstrated why its wrong, why use that?  Unless you can demonstrate why our claims about it are wrong and it's an accurate method then we will go nowhere with this conversation. we will just be repeating ourselves like an 80 year old married couple.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Um... I think you missed what I was saying.  I wanted to know why YOU thought the bible is historically reliable.

Uhhh... because it conforms to the nine criteria...

Quote from: "LoneMateria"And why that 9 point stuff? We've already demonstrated why its wrong, why use that? Unless you can demonstrate why our claims about it are wrong and it's an accurate method then we will go nowhere with this conversation.

The majority of the claims in this topic were something like "If the Gospels fit criteria x, and story y fits criteria x as well, then if the Gospels are reliable, myth y must be historicaly reliable as well." That is why we I am suggesting that we do a compairison between an account of your choosing and the Gospels, basing the compairison on the 9 criteria. If the 9 criteria are an inaccurate method, than it will become apparent after we test a made-up or mythological account against them.

I'm going to be skeptical here so forgive me.  Are you telling me you didn't accept the Gospels before you heard of the 9 criterion you mentioned?  Or are you using them to reinforce what you already believed?

The bible is the only book that can make a prophecy and then fulfill that prophecy later on in the book and it be considered true.  Also we have evidence that later Christians changed the bible to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies.  But thats a side note to what you said.    

QuoteIf the Gospels fit criteria x, and story y fits criteria x as well, then if the Gospels are reliable, myth y must be historicaly reliable as well."

The thing is with the Gospels what can be considered criteria x?  We have the name of cities existing and thats almost completely what we have to go on.  However that does not lend credit to any miracles or other supernatural claims that occurred.  To steal a quote extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Citing one passage as proof for another (especially in the same book) does not fit that bill.

On top of that we have to establish that the Gospels are reliable, you are assuming they are in the premise here which by definition is begging the question.  Thats what I wanted to have a conversation about why do YOU think they Gospels are reliable.

Congrats on failing to address most of the criticism of your little list.

Quote from: "Reginus"Very well then. How bout this: you pick a text or story that claims to be eyewitness and accurate (though you think is false), then after I do some research on it, we'll compare it to the Gospels based on the 9 points.

A more worthwhile challenge would be for you to substantiate the claim that these criteria actually mean anything.

Quote1. Does the writer(s) claim to be an eye witness?

If memory serves, not all of the Gospel writers even make this claim (do any?). But then, anybody can claim anything. That does not automatically make it true.

Quote2. Is the story full of irrelevant details that typicaly accompainy an eye witness acount?

Just about any book I have ever read. Again, what is your point? Do you think humanity was incapable of creative writing back then?

Quote3. Does the account have material that would be damaging or down-grading to the author(s)?

Who were the authors again?

A character in a work of fiction is only as smart as the author (whoever they may have been). Do you know what the easiest way is to make a character look smarter or otherwise superior? Simple really, make those around them look dumber and/or inferior. This is a common tactic in various methods of story telling. Want to make Jesus look smart? Just have the disciples appear to have no idea what he is talking about. Want to make him appear morally superior? Just highlight the human flaws in the disciples.

Quote4. If the account was writen by multiple people, are there unusaly common consitancies in minor details, or fundamental differences that stand out?

Perhaps you could substantiate the claim that there is anything special about the Bible in this respect? Only, I have seen plenty of people list inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. Perhaps you could also explain to us just how one judges the optimum amount of inconsistencies v accuracies in differing accounts and what you base this on?

Quote5. Does the text resemble a legend? (ex. I would consiter it legendary if in the end, the protagonist just barely managed to defeat some sort of powerful monster)

Does such a book really have to involve slaying dragons or similar? If so, why? If that is not the subject of the story, why should the authors feel the need to pad it out with such things? I already cited the works of David Gemmell. Many of his books include little or no fantastical elements, yet are pure fiction.

However, you do realise do you not that the Bible is more than just the New Testament? Even if you can convince yourself that walking on water, healing the sick, raising from the dead and rising bodily into heaven are somehow not "legendary" enough, how about talking burning bushes, global floods, epic battles, plagues of locusts, just general plagues and all the rest? I suppose you are probably of the "ah, but that is just allegory" persuasion but I have yet to speak to a single theist who has been able to explain how one tells a literal account from allegory. Furthermore, if you get to dismiss fantastical stuff as just allegory, you have just made this point unfalsifiable for your side which arguably shows staggering dishonesty on the part of anyone indulging in this kind of hand waving apologetics.

Quote6. Would there be a reason for fabrication of the account? Would the story benefit the author(s) in any significant manner?

You really do love false dichotomies, don't you? Why does it have to be either truth or a deliberate fabrication? Can they not have merely been mistaken?

Remind me again, who were the authors?

How can we judge how they would have benefited without knowing who they were with any certainty? Since they were likely not written by the original disciples, it is perfectly possible that they were written by people with an agenda and something to gain. Would the disciples have gained? I am not sure but I do not see as this is relevant either way as we can only speculate about them since they probably did not write them.

Quote7. Do unrelated texts of the same time period and place conform parts of the story, or do they conflict with it?

Which texts? Examples please. Do any agree with the supernatural events or do they merely provide some evidence that Jesus the man existed? There is pretty compelling evidence that the pharoahs existed, yet there is none to confirm any who claimed to be gods were indeed that.

Quote8. Do archeological finding conflict with or confirm the story?

Examples of archeological finding that confirm the Bible? In particular, the supernatural aspects? Once again, there is acheological evidence for the pharoahs but none for their divinity.

Quote9. Was the envirnment that the account was written in hostile to the story? (Pretty much anything goes in our fiction oriented society, but it wasn't like this at other times. However, if someone wrote an account accusing Mother Terisa of murder, this would definatly be a good example of a story being born in a hostile envirnment.)

What would this prove? I think you will also find that plenty of people were opposed to the spread of Islam throughout history, especially in it's early days. Is the Koran true?

Are you honestly suggesting that nobody has ever written anything that was unpopluar at the time, in it's native society, but became popluar later or elsewhere?

QuoteBut like I said, I won't be able to contribute much to a discussion of "Who wrote Luke's account, and at what place and at what time?"

Perhaps you should come back when you can contribute? Much of what you are saying relies upon some degree of certainty as to the authorship of the gospels, otherwise we are merely speculating about who the author was and what might have motivated them.

I really think you should take the time to explain to us exactly how you came to the conclusion that the points you raise here (even assuming the accuracy of them) can be best explained by the 100% truthful nature of the supernatural events in the Bible. So far, all I am seeing is a bad attempt to be a book critic.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Arctonyx"There are no reasons to believe that the Gospels are historically accurate any more then any other religious text.

K, what ever floats your boat dude.  

Well your 9 points have been shot down numerous times. The fact is that there is no reason to believe the gospels are more accurate then any other religious text.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I'm going to be skeptical here so forgive me.  Are you telling me you didn't accept the Gospels before you heard of the 9 criterion you mentioned?  Or are you using them to reinforce what you already believed?

The latter, as I was born to Christian parents, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. When you were very young, you were probably told that you lived on a round planet called Earth. You had no evidence for this, but simply believed this because it was told to you. When you got older, you likely realized there was quite a bit of evidence for this (pics from the moon, etc) so your beliefs didn't change.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"The bible is the only book that can make a prophecy and then fulfill that prophecy later on in the book and it be considered true.  Also we have evidence that later Christians changed the bible to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies.  But thats a side note to what you said.

You have to be very careful not to make a statment like "one passage was changed, therefore all of the passages in all of the Gospels are false." But like I said, we might have to pass over discussion of the specifics of this, simply because I'm not a New Testiment scholar (and you would likely need one.)

Quote from: "LoneMateria"The thing is with the Gospels what can be considered criteria x?  We have the name of cities existing and thats almost completely what we have to go on.  However that does not lend credit to any miracles or other supernatural claims that occurred.  To steal a quote extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Citing one passage as proof for another (especially in the same book) does not fit that bill.

Since when do we have nothing to go on besides the names of the cities??? Anyway, I personaly think that the Gospels are much more similar to real, first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and/or mythology. That's why I want to have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Gospels, and some sort of well known, made-up story. You seem very reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context, with your suggestion that the Gospels on their own don't prove anything. None the less, we do have some seperate historical evidence, such as the explossion in Chrisitanity, that suggests that Jesus might have actualy preformed some sort of supernatural acts.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"On top of that we have to establish that the Gospels are reliable, you are assuming they are in the premise here which by definition is begging the question.  Thats what I wanted to have a conversation about why do YOU think they Gospels are reliable.

I think that they are historicaly reliable because they are much more similar to accurate first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and myths, and because much of what they say is backed by seperate sources of the same time period. That is the current reason why I believe them, but if you are asking why I first came to believe in them, then it was because I was told that they are accurate. As I stated in the top, I don't think this is bad, or evidence against my current opinions, as humans are simply programmed to learn from others (without asking "why?") in their first years of life.

By the way to all the other folks on the forums, I'm sorry that I havn't had a chance to cover your citicism, because:
A. A lot of them revolve around making a compairison between the Gospels and some sort of made up legend (such as Santa Clause), and I would like to cover these sometime in my discussion with LoneMateria
B. Because I just started school this week, so since I'm running cross-country as well, I really haven't had much extra time. Fortunatly, it's the weekend so I should have quite a bit more time in the next couple of days.

Quote from: "Reginus"The latter, as I was born to Christian parents, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. When you were very young, you were probably told that you lived on a round planet called Earth. You had no evidence for this, but simply believed this because it was told to you. When you got older, you likely realized there was quite a bit of evidence for this (pics from the moon, etc) so your beliefs didn't change.

If you were presented with evidence against them would your views change? If my parents had told me the Earth was flat, then I was presented with pictures of a spherical Earth I would have either thought the pictures were false or altered my beliefs, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not flat. However if you were presented with enough evidence, would you ever consider the gospels to not be historically reliable?

QuoteYou have to be very careful not to make a statment like "one passage was changed, therefore all of the passages in all of the Gospels are false." But like I said, we might have to pass over discussion of the specifics of this, simply because I'm not a New Testiment scholar (and you would likely need one.)

You've made several arguments that are "This one passage is true, therefore all of the passages in the Gospels are true". In fact your entire archaeological argument revolves around this premise.

QuoteSince when do we have nothing to go on besides the names of the cities??? Anyway, I personaly think that the Gospels are much more similar to real, first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and/or mythology. That's why I want to have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Gospels, and some sort of well known, made-up story. You seem very reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context, with your suggestion that the Gospels on their own don't prove anything. None the less, we do have some seperate historical evidence, such as the explossion in Chrisitanity, that suggests that Jesus might have actualy preformed some sort of supernatural acts.

What other historical examples are there of occurrences/places in the bible? Wouldn't these be countered all too easily by the obviously false claims of the Bible? And have you ever read Greek mythology? They are written as first hand accounts, not people claiming to write based on others claiming to be eye witness testimonies. Many Greek myths are written in the first person by 'eye-witnesses', wouldn't that by your argument, make them more believable then the Bible? And where are you getting this 'explosion of Christianity' from? The explosion of Christianity didn't really happen until the Emperor Constantine, which was several hundred years are the events of the New Testament. Again your argument gives more credence to others, as the explosion in Islam happened much sooner after their prophets death and lead to a prosperous society much more quickly then Christianity ever did.

QuoteI think that they are historicaly reliable because they are much more similar to accurate first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and myths, and because much of what they say is backed by seperate sources of the same time period. That is the current reason why I believe them, but if you are asking why I first came to believe in them, then it was because I was told that they are accurate. As I stated in the top, I don't think this is bad, or evidence against my current opinions, as humans are simply programmed to learn from others (without asking "why?") in their first years of life.

Again Greek mythology is even closer to first hand accounts then the Gospels are, and none of what the Gospels say is backed up by separate sources. Those 'separate sources' don't even mention Christianity until several decades after his supposed ascension, and even then don't call Jesus by his name, instead referring to a vague 'Christus' figure. And yes humans are programmed to learn their parents views, especially in early life where their brains aren't developed enough to allow for their own reasoned decision making. However if your parents have told you that the Earth is flat, and you believed them throughout your childhood, are you required when presented with the mountains of evidence that the Earth is not flat to stick to your parents points of views?

QuoteA. A lot of them revolve around making a compairison between the Gospels and some sort of made up legend (such as Santa Clause), and I would like to cover these sometime in my discussion with LoneMateria

Many here would argue that God was a made up legend, and there is no more evidence for God then there is for Santa Clause or Leprechauns.

Haven't read much, but you guys are concentrated on jesus.

What about david and goliath, or god's SMITEFEST 400?

Quote from: "Arctonyx"If you were presented with evidence against them would your views change? If my parents had told me the Earth was flat, then I was presented with pictures of a spherical Earth I would have either thought the pictures were false or altered my beliefs, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not flat. However if you were presented with enough evidence, would you ever consider the gospels to not be historically reliable?

Of course.

QuoteYou've made several arguments that are "This one passage is true, therefore all of the passages in the Gospels are true". In fact your entire archaeological argument revolves around this premise.

My archaeological argument revolves around the premise that much of the Gospels are confirmed by archeology, and that there is no definative archaeological evidence against any part of the Gospels.

QuoteWhat other historical examples are there of occurrences/places in the bible? Wouldn't these be countered all too easily by the obviously false claims of the Bible? And have you ever read Greek mythology? They are written as first hand accounts, not people claiming to write based on others claiming to be eye witness testimonies. Many Greek myths are written in the first person by 'eye-witnesses', wouldn't that by your argument, make them more believable then the Bible? And where are you getting this 'explosion of Christianity' from? The explosion of Christianity didn't really happen until the Emperor Constantine, which was several hundred years are the events of the New Testament. Again your argument gives more credence to others, as the explosion in Islam happened much sooner after their prophets death and lead to a prosperous society much more quickly then Christianity ever did.

What obviously false claims of the Gospels (not Bible, as we are not discussing any other books besides the Gospels)? Greek mythology in my view seems to be very epic and exciting. The Iliad is based around many parts of the Trojan War, from the king to the great soldier Achilles, and seems to be full of much wild and epic material. Having not read it, it seems unlikely to me that it is really similar to accurate, first-hand accounts. When I refer to the "explosion in Christianity," I am not talking about the expansion of it into Europe, I'm talking about the explosion of Christianity in Galilee and Judea and the areas imediate to where Jesus preached. There must be some reason as to why Christianity became so popular in these areas, so quickly. As early as 64 A.D., Christians were already being blamed and prosecuted for the Great Fire of Rome. I know very little about the history of Islam, but I will say this: If you are a Christian, you do not have to automaticly believe that all other religions are completely wrong. It is perfectly OK to think that Muhammad was used by God to reach out to people in that area. I personaly am undecided on this issue, but I know that there is some conflict in theological circles.

QuoteAgain Greek mythology is even closer to first hand accounts then the Gospels are, and none of what the Gospels say is backed up by separate sources. Those 'separate sources' don't even mention Christianity until several decades after his supposed ascension, and even then don't call Jesus by his name, instead referring to a vague 'Christus' figure. And yes humans are programmed to learn their parents views, especially in early life where their brains aren't developed enough to allow for their own reasoned decision making. However if your parents have told you that the Earth is flat, and you believed them throughout your childhood, are you required when presented with the mountains of evidence that the Earth is not flat to stick to your parents points of views?

I think that the separate sources that we have are reasonable. Again, we have the problem of eye-witnesses to Jesus, who were willing to die for Christianity. As for no part of the Gospels being backed up by seperate sources, I disagree. Sure there are no separate sources (that I know of) that back the claims of mirricles in the Gospels (I believe they are acurate 1. because the Gospels seem to be acurate first hand accounts, and 2. because the increadible rise in Christianity could not have been explained otherwise), but they back many other things, such as the existance of disciples of Jesus. If you can present to me "mountains of evidence" that the Gospels must be wrong, then yes, I would be willing to change my beliefs.

QuoteMany here would argue that God was a made up legend, and there is no more evidence for God then there is for Santa Clause or Leprechauns.

Well, It would be nice to do a compairison between the Gospels and a made up account that we both agree is almost certainly false.

Btw guys, I understand that for some of the arguments, there will be a few myths that fit the criteria. Imagine that we are trying to decide if a perticular animal is a bird. We ask questions like "does it have wings?", and "does it have a beak or bill?" Well, bats have wings, but are not birds. Platypuses have bills, but are not birds. However, if the animal meets all of the criteria, then it is almost certainly a bird.

Quote from: "Ninteen45"Haven't read much, but you guys are concentrated on jesus.

What about david and goliath, or god's SMITEFEST 400?

Well, the Old Testiment would be a pain in the ass to argue about , and also because Christianity revolves around Jesus, NOT the OT.

Quote from: "Reginus"The latter, as I was born to Christian parents, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. When you were very young, you were probably told that you lived on a round planet called Earth. You had no evidence for this, but simply believed this because it was told to you. When you got older, you likely realized there was quite a bit of evidence for this (pics from the moon, etc) so your beliefs didn't change.

Theres nothing wrong with being born to Christian parents, I never said there was (my parents consider themselves Christian).  The way you were making it seem was that the reason you believed the gospels was because of those criterion which I pointed out (and you acknowledged) that it's not the case.  I was trying to point out indoctranation was the reason you believed it and that you probably haven't examined any evidence or literature that contradict that claim.  Children are predisposed to believing anything an authority figure tells them.  Children have no filter to separate good information from bad information.   This is true of Children of our species.  My parents told me there was a god and that he looked over me and if I believed in him I would go to heaven.  Well, I know now my parents are not infallible and in order to be intellectually honest with myself I ended up rejecting my belief in God.

There is a ton of evidence for a spherical earth, yet there are still some groups of religious people who say the earth is flat based on the bible.  They perform bad science when they start with a conclusion then look for evidence to support it.  When it comes to the gospels you would expect a several things if they were historically reliable.  First you would expect them to depict reality which they don't, in reality there is nothing supernatural taking place, the gospels there are.  Secondly you would expect few if any mistakes, and you wouldn't expect to change from the earliest works to the present works.  Both of these are false biblical scholars have determined more mistakes, and changes since our earliest gospels are at least 200,000 (conservative number) and some go as far to say there are 500,000+ and a few say you can't count all the changes from the earliest works we have to present.  What this means is there are more changes in the gospels then there are words in the NT.  And third you would expect contemporary accounts of events happening which we don't have, we have accounts of Christians existing, but no proof of anything in the gospels happening.

Quote from: "Reginus"Since when do we have nothing to go on besides the names of the cities??? Anyway, I personaly think that the Gospels are much more similar to real, first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and/or mythology. That's why I want to have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Gospels, and some sort of well known, made-up story. You seem very reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context, with your suggestion that the Gospels on their own don't prove anything. None the less, we do have some seperate historical evidence, such as the explossion in Chrisitanity, that suggests that Jesus might have actualy preformed some sort of supernatural acts.

What do we have to go on then?  How exactly does the existence of Christians prove the reliability and accuracy of gospels let alone supernatural acts?

Yes i'm reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context because of what I've learned about them.  Like everything though I would reconsider if you could prove they are reliable, until then I reject the claim they are reliable and will treat them as such.  If you have some evidence to the contrary please present it, I would be happy to hear it.

Quote from: "Reginus"I think that they are historicaly reliable because they are much more similar to accurate first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and myths, and because much of what they say is backed by seperate sources of the same time period. That is the current reason why I believe them, but if you are asking why I first came to believe in them, then it was because I was told that they are accurate. As I stated in the top, I don't think this is bad, or evidence against my current opinions, as humans are simply programmed to learn from others (without asking "why?") in their first years of life.

You do know that Luke says in the beginning of his gospel that he wasn't an eye-witness but he will act like he is throughout his gospel right?  Then on top of that Matthew literally plagiarized from Mark.  I'm curious what separate sources are you talking about from the same time period and how do these sources prove the supernatural events and miracles that happened?  Remember what I said before extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm glad you admit you were told they were accurate and thats why you believe them. I usually can't get theists to admit that it shows you have much more honestly then many people.   I hope you see how unreliable that is, that you should look at the evidence for and against your belief.  The flying spaghetti monster was always a good example of why you shouldn't always believe what people told you.  Just remember if your belief is true the evidence should be in support of it, if its not then its time to revise that belief.

Real life is more important then internet life Reginus!  Reginus you made a long post while I wrote this i'm gonna take a break and i'll see if I can comment on it.

Quote from: "Reginus"My archaeological argument revolves around the premise that much of the Gospels are confirmed by archeology, and that there is no definative archaeological evidence against any part of the Gospels.

That's just another way of saying "This passage of a Gospel is true, therefore the rest of them are". If the archaeological argument is valid then it lends just as much credence to any other religious text that happens to get some place names right.

QuoteWhat obviously false claims of the Gospels (not Bible, as we are not discussing any other books besides the Gospels)? Greek mythology in my view seems to be very epic and exciting. The Iliad is based around many parts of the Trojan War, from the king to the great soldier Achilles, and seems to be full of much wild and epic material. Having not read it, it seems unlikely to me that it is really similar to accurate, first-hand accounts.

Well I'd say the Gospels most prominently get prophecy wrong, and on a couple of occasions predict events that never come to pass (which means that by OT standards Jesus would be a false prophet and should have been put to death). So what to you doesn't seem epic about the bible? A virgin birth, visiting kings, kings that wipe out entire generations to kill Jesus, walking on water, healing the sick, love, transubstantiation, betrayal, resurrection, ascension. In many ways the biblical story is much more 'epic' and 'exciting' then much of Greek mythology. And quite a few are written as first hand accounts, not just by people claiming to be basing their story on those claiming to be eye-witnesses. Greek mythology in biblical terms would be Jesus personally writing the bible.

QuoteWhen I refer to the "explosion in Christianity," I am not talking about the expansion of it into Europe, I'm talking about the explosion of Christianity in Galilee and Judea and the areas imediate to where Jesus preached. There must be some reason as to why Christianity became so popular in these areas, so quickly. As early as 64 A.D., Christians were already being blamed and prosecuted for the Great Fire of Rome. I know very little about the history of Islam, but I will say this: If you are a Christian, you do not have to automaticly believe that all other religions are completely wrong. It is perfectly OK to think that Muhammad was used by God to reach out to people in that area. I personaly am undecided on this issue, but I know that there is some conflict in theological circles.

As religions go that isn't popular, and if you are arguing that the fast spread of a religion gives it credence then there are hundreds if not thousands of religions more credible then Christianity. And why wouldn't you think they were wrong? If your version was correct wouldn't God reach out to people with your book only? And not bother with the falsehoods likely to be spread by others? And if you believe in Islam why not Thor, Horus, or any number of the thousands of other Gods?

QuoteI think that the separate sources that we have are reasonable. Again, we have the problem of eye-witnesses to Jesus, who were willing to die for Christianity.

Evidence? There isn't any that I know of, and look back in history and you'll find a surprising number of cases of people willing to martyr themselves for a lie, even if that lie was committed in plain sight. I'm really not sure why this argument is used so often, a cursory glance at history shows it to be fallacious.

QuoteAs for no part of the Gospels being backed up by seperate sources, I disagree. Sure there are no separate sources (that I know of) that back the claims of mirricles in the Gospels (I believe they are acurate 1. because the Gospels seem to be acurate first hand accounts, and 2. because the increadible rise in Christianity could not have been explained otherwise), but they back many other things, such as the existance of disciples of Jesus. If you can present to me "mountains of evidence" that the Gospels must be wrong, then yes, I would be willing to change my beliefs.

The problem here is that you are transferring the burden of proof. If you claim the Gospels are accurate you should be able to easily provide a mountain of evidence that shows they are accurate. As it is, you have 1, 2000 year old book with historical writings only taking place decades after the events happened. Don't you think resurrections would feature quite highly on a historians list of things to write about? People don't often rise from the dead. And you keep saying that they 'seem to be accurate first hand accounts', but again you have no evidence of this, the Gospels themselves admit to only being based on people claiming to be eye witnesses and you'll dismiss religious texts of others that actually claim to be based on first-hand accounts. So why does them seeming to be such lend them any credence? And again if the uptake of a religion is evidence of its veracity then many other religions benefit more from this argument.

QuoteWell, It would be nice to do a compairison between the Gospels and a made up account that we both agree is almost certainly false.

Btw guys, I understand that for some of the arguments, there will be a few myths that fit the criteria. Imagine that we are trying to decide if a perticular animal is a bird. We ask questions like "does it have wings?", and "does it have a beak or bill?" Well, bats have wings, but are not birds. Platypuses have bills, but are not birds. However, if the animal meets all of the criteria, then it is almost certainly a bird.

How about any number of other deities? The thousands of others that have similar supernatural acts attributed to them, and have a similar amount of proof? As mentioned there are lots of myths that are written in the first person by people claiming to be eye-witnesses to events that are just as if not less 'epic' then the bible.

Quote from: "Reginus"Well, It would be nice to do a compairison between the Gospels and a made up account that we both agree is almost certainly false.

As much as comparative literature may be a facinating subject in it's own right, I am less inclined to indulge in this due to your repeated failure to substantiate the idea that your criteria lend anything to the veracity of the Bible. This is even ignoring the fact that you seem to be incorrect on a number of points anyway.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Ninteen45"Haven't read much, but you guys are concentrated on jesus.

What about david and goliath, or god's SMITEFEST 400?

Well, the Old Testiment would be a pain in the ass to argue about , and also because Christianity revolves around Jesus, NOT the OT.

But then Jesus supposedly gets much of his credibility from the OT so it is not so easily dismissed. Or would you say that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different and that Jesus lies about being there to follow on from the OT prophets?

The only compelling reason to disregard the OT is that you do not feel it supports your already dubious argument, which is really just a case of moving the goalposts as far as I can see.

Well this discussion has moved right along while I was gone yesterday.  

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Ninteen45"Haven't read much, but you guys are concentrated on jesus.

What about david and goliath, or god's SMITEFEST 400?

Well, the Old Testiment would be a pain in the ass to argue about , and also because Christianity revolves around Jesus, NOT the OT.

Everything else is pretty much covered I just wanted to add something to Karras' points.  Jesus was a rabbi who preached and taught the OT.  At least according to the NT.  The reason Jesus is called Christ is because he fulfilled the OT prophecies (supposedly).  The OT plays a critical part for the acceptance of the NT, to dismiss the OT would be like trying to build a house while free falling.

Also now that I think of it I can dispute one claim you made Reginus even though the burden of proof isn't on me.  You said that no archeological evidence ever disproved anything in the bible.  I can think of one.  Nazareth didn't exist until the 4th century C.E.  Jesus couldn't be from a city that didn't exist.  

Like I said before though archeology (essentially proving a city existed) isn't evidence that claims made about people living in the city are true.  Just because New York exists doesn't mean Spiderman exists.