From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You did not reply to a lot of my previous post. I'm going to take it that you've conceded the points?

What did I miss that you feel needs to be addressed, that hasn't been addressed?

Well hittites for one. And then the ones you omitted in this reply would be what I said about William Lane Craig. You basically asked me if I was rejecting your sources just because I didn't like it (implying I was being intellectually dishonest), and I've shown why WLC isn't worth one bit credulity and you don't reply. Do I take it that you concede?

Pick a historian or an archaeologist that isn't an apologist by profession. Shouldn't be too hard if it's such an established "fact", should it?

I'll get back to you on this.

No but you definitely cannot claim that it happened. The source has to be discredited based on its own properties, not its claims. If it is a legit source, its claims still has to be supported by other sources.

The New Testament contains multiple accounts of the resurrection. You are lumping them all together when they were written by different people at different times. Flavius Josephus is a contemporary of the disciples and he mentions the resurrection as well. Even it were only a single source, it cannot be discredited for that reason.

Ok, I looked this up after talking to you about the new testament. So they were written like 80 years after the resurrection supposedly happened. If they were 10 year olds they would have been like 90 when they wrote it. How reliable is that? And we know they weren't kids, they were adults when Jesus was there, what are they all more than a 100 years old? How reliable can you be at that age? And some historians think that the gospels borrowed from each other. So not really independent sources are they? Flavius was born in 37 AD, how could he have seen anything? Whatever he wrote would have to be hearsay.

Without archaeology you wouldn't be justified in saying that it does. Do you understand now, how this thing works? Just because I claim a I have a car doesn't prove I have a car but it doesn't prove I don't have one either. But without seeing an actual car it would be dishonest of you to tell someone else you know for sure I have a car. Well dishonest or gullible.

That isn't primarily how historical evidence is evaluated. You are making an erroneous claim when you say that if there is only a single source that is unverified by archaeology that we have no reason to believe it. There are other criteria for evaluating the reliability of a source. Here are some of them:

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

(red highlight added by me)

The ones I highlighted in red are archaeologically determined. In fact if a source isn't archaeologically verified, it would be thrown out. Do you understand the difference between verifying as source and verifying a claim? Because that is the key here. If you cannot archaeologically verify your source (do they have the original copies of the gospels?) then there's no need to even think the sources are authentic and therefore there's no reason to check the claims. As for sources that talk about fantastical beings, yes you do need archaeological evidence. What, am I suppose to think that people in those times do not write novels? They don't lie? Everything they say is real? Is everything in your diary real? Come on. The bible saw fit to lie about Exodus. What was their motivation there? Oh and genesis too.

Oh and at the time the gospels were written, there were already really strong Christian groups in those area. That is as good a motivation as any to write a gospel. Especially for someone who has never met Jesus.

Before you get mixed up, just because one part of the bible has some basis doesn't mean the entire thing is real. I want to point out once again that even though you found a Hittite civilization, it is not proof that what happened to the hittites in the bible happened in real life. Do you understand the level of evidence I require now?

You're right; just because one part of the bible has been confirmed doesn't necessarily mean it is totally reliable. Conversely, just because you doubt one part of the bible doesn't mean the whole thing is unreliable either.

Did I say it was? And please try to stay honest here. I don't reject the bible because I "doubt" it, I reject it because there has been evidence to the contrary and the rest of it is pretty much bullshit and regularly breaks the known laws of physics and it hasn't satisfied the burden of proof.

I think having someone resurrected you would get at least a lot of different sources describing the same thing happening. (The bible is one source, which has been heavily altered to suit political purposes since it was first compiled, another reason why it should be discredited as a source altogether).

There is absolutely no evidence the bible has been altered to suit political purposes, or any other purpose. The bible is the most well attested document in history, with over 20 thousand manuscripts verifying its integrity going back to the 1st century. Could you please provide evidence for your claim?

Why don't you present your evidence that it is the "most well attested document in history"??

Nevertheless.

The compilation of the bible, the gospels at least, was made because they wanted 4 gospels. No more no less. So they picked whatever 4 best suits their needs and put it in the canonical bible. (it's on wikipedia, which has links to sources) That's an alteration to the bible.

Ok, let's look at the KJV version. I actually saw this in a documentary about English monarchy, but I looked this up and found:

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible).[8] King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[43] Exodus 1:19, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah.[43] Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.[8] Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church.[8] For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation".[8]

Furthermore,

For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[120] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[121] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[122])

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[124] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[125] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[126] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[127]

And, a highlight point:

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.[129]

It really doesn't look that well preserved from this angle. King James' bible was translated at a time when the church of england was experiencing factionalism in the congregation, namely protestant and puritans weren't getting along. So he translated a new bible.

By the way, isn't it dishonest to claim that something happen and then when asked to prove it, say, well it's the nature of this event to not leave proofs behind. Then how can you claim it happened in the first place?!

I never said there was no evidence; what I am saying is that your demand that archaeology verify the resurrection is unreasonable. My question is that if you demand such proof, what proof would satisfy?

One evidence that I feel is convincing is the martyrdom of the disciples. They were direct witnesses to the fact of the resurrection. Do you think they made it up and died for a lie? What is your theory about that?

You said it would leave no archaeological evidence, you said a resurrection can only leave eyewitness accounts. Testimonies are not evidence.

I don't know, what is your theory about people who claim Elvis resurrected? Has he resurrected, in your opinion? And if not, what is the difference between the testimonies we have for Elvis and those for Jesus? Elvis has way more independent sources and better documented too.

In summary, you only have the bible for resurrection. Yet this qualifies as historical while the Qur'an which states Jesus is not god doesn't qualify as a historical and factual document.

The reason the New Testament accounts are credible is because it is written by eye witnesses to the resurrection whereas the Quran was written 600 years later. If the Quran was written by eye witnesses I would consider it.

Something else interesting to consider is that within the first 150 years you have over 40 extra biblical sources verifying the life of Jesus and absolutely zero disputing it. Why the lack of testimony to the contrary, do you think?

List this 40 sources. Even the gospels themselves weren't written by people who've seen Jesus. If that makes it into the bible, I'll be surprised if any of these 40 sources are contemporaries.

ETA: the quotes about KJV came from wiki, which has links to the books they referred to.