Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[discipulus]

Glad you enjoyed, TruthBTold, and for Dis' benefit, I'll post my cross-examinations of the other "eye-witnesses":

Here's my post on Mark, quoted here so as to avoid the problems of necro-posting. If you wish to reply to defend your witness, Dis, please do so below and not on the original thread:

Mark's Gospel: Anonymous Hearsay
The following is an excerpt from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV 3rd edition), p57 NT.

So the first Gospel, on which Matthew and Luke were based, is an anonymously written account of what is thought to be the story related by Peter of what he saw and heard, at least some of which Peter wasn't a personal eye-witness to but may have heard it from others.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible goes on to say (same page)


So, we have:
[snip]

A dubious source...
...telling us what he heard Peter tell him (hearsay) ...
...about a story that included parts which Peter wasn't a witness to...
...compiled in an account that was later changed...
...from the original version composed four decades after the alleged events took place.

This is what passes in apologetics for a "reliable eye-witness testimony"

And this is your prime witness. Not a good start for your case.

DeistPaladin I perceive you, more so than anyone else here that I have talked with, have the ability to present your arguments clearly and concisely. I also think you make some points that are worthy of a thoughtful response.

Is there a way that we can have a formal debate here on this forum just between you and I for all to view? If so I would like to extend a cordial invitation to you to debate on whether or not the four gospels constitute a reliable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Think over the matter and let me know what you think.

Thank you for considering this.

---

I love how Christians describe the way they came to be Christian. 'Investigative research' really? When it is, in fact, much more likely that a Christian is born into their religion. Taught by their parents and unquestioned. Just accepted that it is true, most don't even read their own bible. And you say 'investigative research'? What did that involve specifically? Critically evaluating and comparing all the religions and possible gods in the world? Or did you just stop at the god who claims to be the only god? Using the word 'research' when describing how you became a Christian, is a mockery of the word.

I did not say I became a Christian via investigative research. This is another strawman.