(July 11, 2016 at 4:45 pm)Lucifer Wrote:(July 11, 2016 at 4:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.
Well, you are on to something: using just historic texts is not enough to confirm whether something really happened, especially if they come from a source that can be expected to be biased (those in favour). If you would have a lot more texts about the same topic from people from different backgrounds, especially those who are not in favour of the religion, then you would have something a bit more interesting.
A lot of things in history are uncertain, because we only have a few texts on the topic. In general, it's: the further you go back in time, the more uncertain it becomes, and the fewer sources, and the less diverse the sources (the more they are likely to be biased), the more uncertainty.
You never answered my question. How does a Christian come to the conclusion that the NT is not true? What specifically made you go from believing it one day and not the next? Your objections above are vague and frankly weak.
