(August 16, 2016 at 10:17 am)bennyboy Wrote:(August 16, 2016 at 9:23 am)SteveII Wrote: If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity.And what year, exactly, are those letters dated? What's "just a few years" and how do you know, exactly?
Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?
You'd think if a dude was walking on freaking water, healing crowds of sick people, and doing water-to-wine party tricks, the Roman literature would be FULL FULL FULL of mention of him. Instead, he's pretty much completely absent except by those who formed his church decades after his supposed death.
Are you sure the document evidence is as solid as you think it is? Cuz I'm pretty sure it's not.
If you want to know the dates of 27 different documents, look them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
So, your reason why my belief is 'laughable' is...what? There would have been more surviving Roman literature on what happened in Palestine during the life of Jesus? That is the criteria for laughable??? You're sure the evidence of the NT is not solid, yet...nothing of substance has been forthcoming.