Quick YEC Debunks

[Aegon]

True. You've reconciled your beliefs with the scientific reality as we know it today. I was far from a YEC when I believed too. I also accepted evolution, but I still fervently believed in the New Testament. I do have a question though: if you can accept evolution, why do you still believe in the stories of a man who could walk on water and rise from the grave? In other words, what about the Gospels make more sense to you than the OT? They both seem pretty unlikely, bordering on ridiculous if you'll excuse the disrespectful connotation of the word. And we've certainly proven scientifically that people cannot walk on water or rise from the grave.

I'm not challenging you, I'm just genuinely curious. Because when I was Catholic I didn't exactly have an answer to those things.

There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified. And to me, the rapid spread of early Christianity during a time without good means of transportation or communication further supports the idea that something truly extraordinary was going on. It helps give credit to the miracles depicted in the Gospels.

And not only is there historical evidence for Jesus' existance, but for others in the NT as well - the deciples, John the Baptist, Punctious Pilot, Paul, etc...

I don't deny the historicity of Jesus, I've gotten into some intense arguments on here about that since I appear to be in the minority of atheists who believe he existed. Him existing, of course, does not imply anything further unless one truly believes the word of the Gospels.

AFAIK, none of the Gospels as we see them today were written in his time. They were written decades after the fact. Very, very few people witnessed these miracles if they did happen. The rest was word of mouth.

I look at the rise of Christianity through socio-political lens, like I do most things. I enjoy reading the Gospels as political history; Jesus was a Jew who led a resistance movement against the Roman government, and the religious stuff was actually secondary (just barely, anyway.) I read a couple of books that make this argument. It would then make sense why the men crucified next to Jesus were referred to as "lestai" (very commonly interpreted as a thief, hence his identity as the Good Thief, but it was actually the term the Romans used for those who supported insurrection or rebellion. Textual evidence exists for the context of that term.) That's just a small part of a very large and in-depth argument that I can't replicate here since I don't remember a lot and I'm not exactly qualified to do so, but if you're interested in the argument there's a significant portion of historians who have written about it: I recommend Richard Horsley's works (specifically Jesus and Empire) as well as Zealot by Reza Aslan.

It's no surprise to me that legend of this young man who made such a ruckus in the Jewish province would spread quickly in the area and a following would begin, since they were certainly looking for new leadership and new inspiration in the face of oppression. It makes more sense to me than walking on water, anyway.