The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[downbeatplumb]

This is a non sequitur.

God does not have to reveal something to every race, tongue and tribe simultaneously for it to be universally true. The fact that different groups have different understandings of God at any one time doesn't disprove His existence any more than the fact that there are some people on this planet who do not know that DNA or irrational numbers exist.

If you replayed the world again 1+1 would still equal 2. You could still make bronze by heating copper and tin and mountains will be pushed up by plate tectonics but what you wouldn't get is the history repeating.
And your god boy is just a blip of history not a universal truth and much as you try to deny it the fact that no-one but a small group of desert sheep farmers thought anything of it is a good reason to reject it as universal truth.

If that's really what "blows the whole thing out of the water" for you, then I guess your remaining days as an atheist are few in number.

Let me lay my cards on the table.
There is not one aspect of the religion you believe to be true that I feel has any merit in the slightest and think that whole thing is laughably stupid at its very core.
This is my honest opinion.

[IATIA]

The double-standard is that atheists are allowed to play "what if" games but Christians are not, apparently.

"What ifs" based on natural observable conditions. The "rocket-scientists", as you say, did not come up with any 'magical' conclusions.

[Randy Carson]

If you replayed the world again 1+1 would still equal 2. You could still make bronze by heating copper and tin and mountains will be pushed up by plate tectonics but what you wouldn't get is the history repeating.

And your god boy is just a blip of history not a universal truth and much as you try to deny it the fact that no-one but a small group of desert sheep farmers thought anything of it is a good reason to reject it as universal truth.

How's that small group of desert sheep farmers looking now, deadbeat? Not so small any more, is it?  

If Jesus is God, then that is universally true regardless of whether rainforest tribes know it or not.

---

The double-standard is that atheists are allowed to play "what if" games but Christians are not, apparently.

"What ifs" based on natural observable conditions.  The "rocket-scientists", as you say, did not come up with any 'magical' conclusions.

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.

Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

It's not very likely, but it IS possible...based on what we know of Yoko.

[Angrboda]

Ye olde "it could have been like this" apologetics.  Do you realize how unpersuasive such speculations are?

Oh, I see how it is.

When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.

But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".

Okay. I got it, jorm.

Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.

You're attempting to demonstrate the reliability of the text, not the capacity of your imagination. Try to remain on point and not deviate into ad hoc excuses when you fail to deliver on your point. As to whether there is a double standard, the mythicist is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of an alternate explanation, whereas the apologist is attempting to demonstrate the probability of a certain explanation. There is no double standard as the epistemic standard required of each position is different based on the conclusions they are trying to reach. Your attempt to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament is not enhanced by postulating "missing stories" and ad hoc explanations for why a particular segment of the text suggests that it is unreliable due to a logical difficulty. All you do is undermine your entire case by doing so. How many other "missing details" are we to grant before its reliability is discredited?

[IATIA]

"What ifs" based on natural observable conditions.  The "rocket-scientists", as you say, did not come up with any 'magical' conclusions.

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.

Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

It's not very likely, but it IS possible...based on what we know of Yoko.

Alien intervention is an unlikely scenario due to the expanse of the universe and the interstellar distances.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Man, this guy reminds me more and more of His_Fallacy.

[Randy Carson]

Oh, I see how it is.

When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.

But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".

Okay. I got it, jorm.

Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.

You're attempting to demonstrate the reliability of the text, not the capacity of your imagination.  Try to remain on point and not deviate into ad hoc excuses when you fail to deliver on your point.  As to whether there is a double standard, the mythicist is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of an alternate explanation, whereas the apologist is attempting to demonstrate the probability of a certain explanation.  There is no double standard as the epistemic standard required of each position is different based on the conclusions they are trying to reach.  Your attempt to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament is not enhanced by postulating "missing stories" and ad hoc explanations for why a particular segment of the text suggests that it is unreliable due to a logical difficulty.  All you do is undermine your entire case by doing so.  How many other "missing details" are we to grant before its reliability is discredited?

Nice try, jorm.

You want to be free to speculate about alternative explanations for the resurrection or anything else to which you take exception. 

But you refuse to allow me the freedom to theorize about how the questions posed by Jenny A and Wyrd might be answered. In case you've forgotten, they were pretty simple really:

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

And my answer was: Someone asked.

Whoa. That's "unpersuasive speculation" if I ever saw it.   

[downbeatplumb]

If you replayed the world again 1+1 would still equal 2. You could still make bronze by heating copper and tin and mountains will be pushed up by plate tectonics but what you wouldn't get is the history repeating.

And your god boy is just a blip of history not a universal truth and much as you try to deny it the fact that no-one but a small group of desert sheep farmers thought anything of it is a good reason to reject it as universal truth.

How's that small group of desert sheep farmers looking now, deadbeat? Not so small any more, is it?  

Because it gained the favour of a murderous regime that enforced it by torture and horror for hundreds of years.

Kim Jon Un is big in North Korea for exactly the same reasons as the catholic church was big during the middle ages.
This does not seem like something to be proud of. More ashamed.

If Jesus is God, then that is universally true regardless of whether rainforest tribes know it or not.

Agreed, but the fact that they were unaware of your favourite fictional character is a sign that it was made up.
If it was true the stories would have matched but they do not do they.
remember jesus was supposed to come down and do his shit for everyone not matter where but only people in his immediate vicinity heard of him.

---

"What ifs" based on natural observable conditions.  The "rocket-scientists", as you say, did not come up with any 'magical' conclusions.

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.

Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

It's not very likely, but it IS possible...based on what we know of Yoko.

A more likely scenario than jesus existing as god and going to heaven.

It is statistically possible that aliens may exist.

The same cannot be said for Yahweh.

[Randy Carson]

What if I said that John Lennon was not killed by Mark David Chapman.

Instead, he was whisked away by aliens at the last second and Chapman shot a stand-in.

Lennon is actually working on a new album and playing to an adoring public on another planet. He's also glad to be free from Yoko at last.

It's not very likely, but it IS possible...based on what we know of Yoko.

Alien intervention is an unlikely scenario due to the expanse of the universe and the interstellar distances.

Unlikely but possible.

Now, why would I post something as silly as the alien abduction of John Lennon.



Because this is the idea behind the Muslim belief that Jesus was not crucified. They accept him as their second most important prophet, but they cannot allow him to die on a cross. So, Allah (pbuh) whisked the real Jesus away at the last moment and a substitute was killed instead.

Do you see how all these non-Christian attempts at explaining away the resurrection of Jesus sound so desperate? I could poll the membership of this forum and come up with 10 different ideas about Jesus...folks will believe anything - but the resurrection story itself, of course.

Muslim, Jewish, Atheist - makes no difference to me what someone's beliefs are. If they are NOT Christian, then they are forced to explain away the account of the resurrection of Jesus one way or another.

Only the Apatheist is exempt from this.

---

remember jesus was supposed to come down and do his shit for everyone not matter where but only people in his immediate vicinity heard of him.

Where is that written? Jesus spoke of his mission in this way:

Matthew 15:21-28
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Less time online and more time reading good books is my advice.

[downbeatplumb]

And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

And my answer was: Someone asked.

Whoa. That's "unpersuasive speculation" if I ever saw it.   

Well I can see a male dominated judgemental society that make ISIS look like pansy liberals would have just been dandy with that explanation when confronted with a pregnant teen who joseph had not known in the biblical sense.

"Sure" they would have gone. "that makes sense"[/sarcasm]

She would have been stoned to death and you know it.

by the way what do you make of the jesus the child killer as described in the infancy gospel.

In one book, Jesus is described as playing by a stream with some other children. While the other children are probably just splashing around, Jesus is digging pools of water next to the bank, in which he forms statues of birds out of the muddy clay. Being a miracle-worker, he then turns the bird-statues into real, living birds, which then fly away. Observing this, a child comes by and proceeds to splash the water in the pools with a stick. Jesus does not take kindly to his playmate’s antics, and uses his spell-casting powers to wreak vengeance on him:

“O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the
waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree,
and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit.” And straightway that
lad withered up wholly.

— Infancy Gospel of Thomas 3:2-3
Just a little later in the same day, Jesus is gallivanting about town performing errands as well as the occasional miracle when a boy accidentally bumps against him in the street. What would Jesus do, you ask? This time, he lacks the patience to watch him wither and die:

Jesus was provoked and said unto him, “Thou shalt not finish thy
course.” And immediately he fell down and died.

— Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1

Read more at [url=http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2011/01/jesus-the-child-killing-dragon-tamer/#bOkVo8piguwiiYDZ.99

http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2011/01...uwiiYDZ.99

Notice that this gospel was written around 80 ad putting it around the same age as the canonical gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

So every single argument you gave to support those based on age also relates to the one that contains the story of killer christ.

Enjoy