The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

The thing is, Randy doesn't believe in any of Christianity for these reasons. He already assumes the bible is not just accurate but innerant. If you believe that, all of this history stuff is irrelevant. You can't get from historically accurate to innerant without another big reason to assume such a massive thing.

And you can hardly study a text objectively that you have already decided is word perfect, now can you? You are forced to always conclude it is correct, no matter what arguments you have to make to convince yourself.

So if even Randy doesn't believe for these reasons, I'm not sure why we are expected to. Sadly no one seems interested in discussing the real reasons. What we are given are the cover arguments, the rationalisations. And they simply don't work, as has been shown at length here. I handed over every single assumption that could possibly be conceded, and still the argument comes down to special pleading.

This is all my opinion, of course He is welcome to correct me.

[Brakeman]

The geography fails certainly lend credit to the infallibility as well.

I challenge those christians to map out the new testament on a static map.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ab...pels-3.htm
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/...testament/
http://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-failed...e-student/

[Randy Carson]

Is that what experts say? Let's see...

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."

Wow, You found two christian apologists that claimed the bible they believed in to be historical just 50 and 100 years ago! Wow! Were convinced now, we skeptical atheists just swoon at christian authorities of the early 1900's!

Says the voice from the peanut gallery with no degrees from Oxford University and no knighthood in recognition of his contribution to the science of archaeology.

[The Grand Nudger]

We swoon over appeals to authority even quicker.  Step up your game, Randy.

I'm going to make a suggestion, because you're not doing well, and I want you to do well. What you need to find (I'm guessing you're incapable, personally) is not someone willing to say "x", but, someone willing to demonstrate "x".  Eh?

[Randy Carson]

What does Luke say?



Who was Mark's source?

Mark was one of Paul's disciples.  So Paul was Mark's source.

If you're going to argue with Christians, you may find some familiarity with the Bible helpful.

1 Peter 5:13
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

IOW, Peter says, "The church in Rome sends greetings and so does my disciple, Mark."

---

First off OP your stuff is getting unreadable it is butt condense it. 

Let's start with the big elephant in the room.

Sorry, I don't watch videos. Make your own arguments.

Next the other big elephant. 

I don't have a video for this so bear in mind its only a bit of reading.
okay so let's give god his famous powers.
1. all knowing
2. all powerful 
3. all intrusive and has everything

Free will goes out the window if he is all knowing and the fact being is he made us with those decisions.

All intrusive? When was that assigned as an attribute of God? And you have not disproven that God exists by your "argument" here. An all-powerful God can and has given us free will.

But this is the topic of another thread. So, take it somewhere else.

[dyresand]

Wow, You found two christian apologists that claimed the bible they believed in to be historical just 50 and 100 years ago! Wow! Were convinced now, we skeptical atheists just swoon at christian authorities of the early 1900's!

Says the voice from the peanut gallery with no degrees from Oxford University and no knighthood in recognition of his contribution to the science of archaeology.

You don't need to be a genius or have a degree from Oxford or even knight hood to know that the NT is bullshit. 
It's a great piece of literature but something no one should follow. The bible is fiction always has always will be.

[Randy Carson]

You know what might -actually- advance the argument for the reliablility of the new testament?  Establishing that there was anything to witness in the first place.  Then, then, you could bullshit us endlessly about the accuracy of their testimony.  Can't establish a "jesus", can't even establish a "paul".....and yet.....we're babbling on about eyewitness testimony as though it would matter even if it were.......lol.

Is that what Atheist scholars think?

This would be amusing if it weren't so sad how ignorant you are. You should read some books...any books...on the subject.

Heck, you don't even need to read a book...just check out a two-part article by an ATHEIST HISTORIAN, Tim O'Neill*. Google will help you find it.The title is:

An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus.

O'Neill concludes a lengthy examination of the evidence (frequently discounted in this forum) with these words:

The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact".  The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world.  There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material.  Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor  and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars.  The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.

* For those who doubt O'Neill's bona fides vis-a-vis atheism, here is his bio:

About Tim O'Neill
Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum.


So, yeah. That's not good for ignorant atheists...

[Minimalist]

I don't give a fuck how many degrees from Oxford you have when you say stupid shit like:

When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul's letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were authentic.

you're a dumbfuck.  Believers gotta believe...no matter how stupid it makes them seem!

[Randy Carson]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make ages ago in this thread, but for some reason it's always different when the subject is something other than Jesus. Or if someone is telling the wrong story about Jesus.

So it's simple special pleading, on top of ignoring the fact that eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. And even that is after giving the benefit of the doubt that they actually were eyewitnesses, and that they were actually trying to tell the truth about an event, and that the event actually happened. That's a whole pile of unfounded assumptions.

I guess we're back to little hurdles. I think Randy should really decide whether this is a simple textual analysis or an actual argument.

Rob-

You, of all people, need to read Tim O'Neill's article. Let me know if you do.

Thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

My being ignorant wouldn't advance your own claim an inch, even if it were true, of course.  It's such a pointless response, don't you think?  The original question you've concerned yourself with, apparently, is nothing more than an appeal to numbers.  Why are you harping on about jesus mythicists...will proving them wrong prove you right?  No, it won't - no more than my being ignorant would -or even could-.  

What's not good for ignorant atheists, that you found yet another person willing to say "x"?   I thought we covered this?  You're still looking to prop up what you imagine might be a suitable figure of authority as though this would establish the truth of the claim itself. It doesn't...it simply -can't-...and this is why you are unconvincing.

Now, you can take that to the bank, you can alter your method, and maybe you'll see some results....or you can keep on keeping on and we'll continue to be entirely unimpressed. Your call, but either way - you're in the drivers seat.