(June 28, 2016 at 12:22 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:(June 28, 2016 at 11:57 am)SteveII Wrote: What is the difference? How do we know any historical event happened? People write about it.
There's also archaeology.
But, here's the thing - Christians like to rely on the Gospels as being separate works that corroborate a single story. But, the Gospels were written with the intent to make one messiah stand out in a world of others. The disciples and/or whomever wrote them weren't just disinterested bystanders or eyewitnesses, they had a vested interest in making Jesus powerful and desirable to follow. A messiah who cannot perform miracles, who cannot wield the power of the god he professes to exist, isn't much of a messiah at all.
The Bible is propaganda in the purest sense. And while it may reference real places, mundane events, and people, the supernatural elements it purports cannot be regarded as being true because there's nothing unbiased to corroborate it. And references to the mundane/real does not make the supernatural elements more likely. Just because New York City is a real place doesn't mean that the Hulk's existence is more likely.
This is investigation 101. If you can't prove something happened, why believe it happened? Because people who want it to happen said so? Because a story loses its foundation without it? Or because it simply feels good?
I could see you point if there were not already a series of churches stretched across the Roman empire that predate Paul's letters and the gospels. The letters indicate that these churches already believed what we later learn in the gospels.
So, therefore the letters and the gospels are descriptions of the beliefs already held. Thus they are evidence and not propaganda.
