RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 4, 2015 at 9:16 am
(This post was last modified: June 4, 2015 at 9:28 am by Randy Carson.)
(June 3, 2015 at 2:28 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: He...he does know that a dude named Jesus actually existing =/= the new testament is reliable, right?
Of course "he" does.
However, if you actually READ what SOME posters in this forum write, you will observe that a fairly significant percentage of the members seem to be mythers.
Consequently, just getting to the baseline agreement that yes, Jesus really did exist, is a major task in itself.
However, one thing is for sure, if Josephus and Tacitus (whom O'Neill says are unimpeachable sources on this) are correct, then the NT was reliable about that.
But YOU try telling that to a few folks around here...
(June 3, 2015 at 5:07 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: OK, suppose Jesus did exist and that he did run around the Middle East blabbling about this and that. What did he say that was so important? Based upon the dialogue countless other people have said far more important things about all kinds of issues.
Why not read what He said for yourself?
(June 3, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Why not? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Carl Sagan.
To whom I reply, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Let that sink in.
Quote:Were I to accept god on earth, miracles, and the resurrection on that basis I'd have no reason not to believe in UFO abductions, ghosts, big foot, Nessy, ESP, Mormonism, and a variety of other things that I'm pretty sure you don't believe in either. I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason you don't believe in those things.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that we are agnostic about those things, because we simply don't know for sure whether they exist or not?
Quote:Which is not to say I think the gospels are pure fabrication. I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus, lived, was born in Galilee (not Bethlehem) to a woman named Mary, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached, and was crucified. I'm also sure his mother was not a virgin and did not think she had born the son of god (ask me why and I'll show you the gospel text).
Please show me.
(June 3, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Dystopia Wrote: The bible and the New Testament in particular are history - Arguably one of the most influential books of all time... But historically reliable? No, that's the conclusion bible academicians have been reaching for decades.
Update:
That was the trend of scholarship in the first half of the 20th century, but more recently scholars have been moving toward acceptance of the historical reliability of the gospels.
