RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 14, 2015 at 3:06 pm
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2015 at 3:07 pm by Simon Moon.)
Textual reports of supernatural events are not valid evidence. Especially when written by unknown authors, several decades or more after the events in question.
Not to mention, that adding supernatural events to the stories of actual historical events was normal practice of the time. The people of that time believed they lived in a world awash with supernatural events. Almost everything, including obviously natural events, were explained via the supernatural.
If an eagle circled a battlefield before a battle, that would have been taken as a supernatural omen. A historically accurate report of the battle would have included the supernatural omen. But just because the historicity of the battle can be verified, does not prove there was a supernatural event.
You can interview 1000's of alleged alien abduction victims, that are earnest and sincere in their belief. These are first hand witnesses. Some of these abductions have other witnesses. There are even some abductions with multiple victims of the same event.
Do you believe they are relaying actual events? Why, or why not?
Not to mention, that adding supernatural events to the stories of actual historical events was normal practice of the time. The people of that time believed they lived in a world awash with supernatural events. Almost everything, including obviously natural events, were explained via the supernatural.
If an eagle circled a battlefield before a battle, that would have been taken as a supernatural omen. A historically accurate report of the battle would have included the supernatural omen. But just because the historicity of the battle can be verified, does not prove there was a supernatural event.
You can interview 1000's of alleged alien abduction victims, that are earnest and sincere in their belief. These are first hand witnesses. Some of these abductions have other witnesses. There are even some abductions with multiple victims of the same event.
Do you believe they are relaying actual events? Why, or why not?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
