Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[DeistPaladin]

In order to do the topic of mutual, internal and historical contradictions in The Jesus Timeline, it's going to require an extensive post but I'm going to dash out a prelude quickly before I have to get to work in "real life".

Regarding the historicity of Jesus and what the gospels say about it, you all are taking the position not that they are fairly accurate until proven otherwise, but they are "hopelessly inconsistent" and unreliable until proven that they are not. Why should this be the default position, OR do you think that there is proof that they are inaccurate and unreliable? If so, please share.

Will do but before we even get started on that, you need to realize how you're coming across.

Imagine a courtroom setting, as apologists are wont to use in their allusions. The prosecuting attorney get's up and says, "OK, I know it seems like all our witnesses contradicted each other but let me explain..."

Without any other information on this story, we know prosecution's case is in serious trouble.

We know this before we even hear what he has to say.

Why?

There's an old saying in debates: "When you have to explain, you're losing."

This is not to say that the prosecution might not be able to save their precarious case but the attorney needs to have a really solid, air-tight explanation to do so. Until we hear it, the natural inclination is to assume that the situation is what it looks like: the witnesses are contradicting each other.

This is the normal "default position" for an unbiased listener.

Clear?

The fact that you had to link to a website with pages of explanations to try to clear away all the "apparent contradictions" on Quirinius means you're already in trouble. This website's explanations better be good.

You should also know about a logical fallacy called the abuse of the ad hoc hypothesis.





"The parot's not dead; he's resting"
"He's stunned"
"You stunned him just as he was waking up"
"Norwegian Blue's stun easily."
"Maybe he's just pining for the fijords."
"Well, of course he was nailed there..."

When you need to come up with an endless stream of improvised ad hoc hypotheses to defend your position, Occam's Razor needs to be invoked. The simpler explanation is that the situation is what it looks like: the parot is dead.

How is this not what you are looking for? Someone talked to eyewitnesses and wrote everything down? We rely on this standard all the time.

This is called "hearsay testimony".

That the sources aren't named makes it "anonymous hearsay testimony".

Josephus and Tacitus,

Phase II of the "of course Jesus existed" argument has begun.