The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

I think Randy is realizing that this whole "witness of the holy ghost" charade means nothing more than "if you can ignore that voice of reason in your head and just accept on insufficient evidence all of this nonsense that I'm claiming then Christianity will seem more acceptable to you."

[Minimalist]

If he wanted to play the "I-believe-because-I-believe" card that would be fine.  He hurts no one but himself.  But when you start making assertions about historical reliability for something which has no historical basis then he should expect to catch hell.

We do not have to play his silly game.

[Tonus]

Is it too much to hope that our Randy Catholic has given up?

I'd rather he got to the next part of his presentation.  I don't get this fascination with building up to an anticlimax (His_Majesty and Rev777 come to mind) but the sooner we get a move on the sooner we reach the part where he dashes our hopes by presenting nothing new and defends it right into the ground.

[Ravenshire]

Got to wonder if Randy's ever going to get to the meat of his arguments. Three days since he last tried to convince us that the buy-bull of today is faithful to the "original writings" and that was supposed to be the foundation to the whole thing.

[nihilistcat]

The layers of bullshit in religion, in some cases, are virtually unending. They not only obscure fact, but try to control how their adherents analyze facts. It’s layer upon layer of wild and fantastical bullshit, almost unprecedented in scope. The more sincere the religionist, the more steeped they are in this bizarre form of thinking and fact analysis. I see little difference between religious indoctrination and cult indoctrination. So these type of threads almost invariably wind us down a slippery slope of imbecilic thinking that's stunning in its breadth.

That's really all I have to say in response to this crap

[robvalue]

Hmm. I've been away for a few days, and it seems the challenge has gone unanswered. Maybe Randy is considering that it is a valid objection? I'd be very impressed if so.

[Pyrrho]

The layers of bullshit in religion, in some cases, are virtually unending. They not only obscure fact, but try to control how their adherents analyze facts. It’s layer upon layer of wild and fantastical bullshit, almost unprecedented in scope. The more sincere the religionist, the more steeped they are in this bizarre form of thinking and fact analysis. I see little difference between religious indoctrination and cult indoctrination. So these type of threads almost invariably wind us down a slippery slope of imbecilic thinking that's stunning in its breadth.

That's really all I have to say in response to this crap

The most essential part of religion is the analysis of information.  This is why they go on about "faith" and other such bullshit.  People who analyze information properly could not be religious for long.

[Ravenshire]

Hmm. I've been away for a few days, and it seems the challenge has gone unanswered. Maybe Randy is considering that it is a valid objection? I'd be very impressed if so.

Far more likely that he's given us up as incorrigible.

[robvalue]

We are indeed a hopeless bunch of heathen whippersnappers.

I'm going to go sin by eating my breakfast in the wrong order or something. There's bound to be a death sentence about that somewhere.

[Randy Carson]

After a bit of...interaction with the mods, I'm not 100% certain about what I can and cannot post at this point. Therefore, I'm going to outline the case I WOULD have made and wait to see what happens next.

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament – Summation

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

Here is that evidence.

The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).

• Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
  
• The Telephone Game and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
  

The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).

• Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.
  

The authors recorded eyewitness accounts.

• All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
  
• Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
  
• Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
  
• Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
  
• John was an apostle.
  

The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).

• Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
  
• The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God – a responsibility they took seriously.
  

The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.

• Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
  
• Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
  
• Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
  
• Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
  

The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses – both supportive and hostile.

• Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
  
• The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.
  

The authors had no ulterior motive.

• What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.
  

Additional Points for Discussion:

• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
  
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
  
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
  
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. It is unlikely that this person was a legend.
  

With the reliability of the gospels established by the weight of the evidence, we must consider two additional points:

1. The four gospels clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God.
   
2. The four gospels contain clear support for the resurrection of Jesus which He offered as proof of His claims.
   

---

Here's a quick recap of my unanswered questions:

1) Why should I believe what some guys 2000 years ago believed, regarding things that have never even been demonstrated as possible, just because they wrote it down?

Rob, you should only believe what they wrote if it is true. If it isn't, then you can safely ignore it.

They experienced something, and all we have is their attempts to describe it. Why should I think unprecedented supernatural events is a more likely explanation than them being mistaken, which happens all the time? This is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they weren't hallucinating, or just making stuff up. That's a lot to concede so I'm really helping you out.

I appreciate your assistance. Curiously, I seem to be the only theist active in this forum, so I need all the help I can get.

You should only come to the conclusion that a supernatural event occurred based upon careful consideration of all the evidence that is available. To do otherwise would be "blind faith", and that is not what Christianity is based upon. Here's an analogy:

Let's suppose that a buddy wants you to go bungee jumping or sky diving with him. Your nervous, because let's be real: death is a possibility. So, you check out the company online to see what you can learn about the operators and instructors. You read all you can find about safety and procedures. You sit through the classes to learn what to do and when, etc. You examine the equipment carefully looking for possible problems. IOW, you do everything you can possibly do to determine a safe outcome, but you won't actually know if everything is okay until your feet are back on the ground.

So, do you jump or not? Well, it's based on trust. Do you trust your buddy, your instructor, your gear? If so, then taking that "leap of faith" is more about making an informed decision than it is about closing your eyes and hoping for the best.

Have you really done careful, unbiased research into the claims of Christianity? Or have certain prejudices and presuppositions prevented you from objectively analyzing the facts?

2) If your 10 most trusted comrades told you God just talked to them and you must all become Muslims, would you do it?

Knowing what I know of Islam, I would be explaining to them why they were in error. Not all religions are based upon equally solid evidence, Rob, and it makes no sense to lump them all together.