(September 18, 2017 at 10:34 am)Mathilda Wrote:(September 16, 2017 at 11:02 pm)SteveII Wrote: a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
You are cherry picking. Your argument assigns some likelihood or probability of an inference based on incomplete data. You weren't there so you are looking at some of the available evidence and judging the probability of it being correct. But you aren't also taking into account other facts that are at odds with your hypothesis. Probably because you are ignorant of the implications if it were all true.
For example the likelihood of the miracles taking place is really small based on what else we know. What exactly would be required for Jesus to turn water into wine, walk on water, heal a blind man by spiting into his eyes, healing a severed ear etc. These miracles affected the physical world and so therefore had to be constrained by physics at least to some extent. The molecules involved needed to be sensed, processed and rearranged somehow, e.g. all the water molecules being tuned into wine. What was the power source and physical mechanisms used to enact these miracles? If you can't answer this then your argument is one of ignorance because it relies on you not being able to explain things.
There are also plenty of historical inaccuracies that you are not taking into account, which should also reduce the probability of it being true. For example the zombie outbreak described in Matthew 27:52 was not recorded elsewhere by any historians. Herod's killing of every two year old male child etc. The fact that the written accounts differ quite significantly. Loads more historical inaccuracies here
When you take it all into account, the most likely explanation is that if it wasn't completely made up, then the eye witnesses were wrong. People raised from the dead weren't actually dead but in a coma and Jesus recognised this. When Jesus walked on water then it was an illusion because he had placed large stones to step on under the surface and stuck the severed ear back on the servant's head using a sticky substance and people didn't hang around to see it shrivel up and wither.
You are not taking into account all possible explanations and choosing one that is actually completely unreasonable to make because it's what you want to believe.
There is no cherry picking. I did not leave out facts that lead to another conclusion.
Miracles are supernatural causes with a natural effect. It doe not matter how because we cannot investigate supernatural causes with natural tools.
Regarding Matthew 27, if we say that is an inaccuracy, what does that do to the rest? Absolutely nothing. The written accounts do not differ significantly. I would actually hope there were some minor variations--since 100% similarities would actually cause concern.
No, the most likely explanation is that the events are as described by the people who very thoroughly believed them to have happened. You are welcome to alternate theories--but the problem with them is that NONE of them ever deal with the whole picture. I have never heard a theory the explains everything we have available to examine.
