RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 23, 2015 at 10:36 am
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2015 at 10:53 am by Randy Carson.)
(May 19, 2015 at 11:13 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Even the Bible says not to pay any attention to Jewish fairy tales. We know that the New Testament is not historically accurate because it contains a lot of scenes in which there were no independent witnesses. Therefore the writers could not have known about those incidents and what was said during those times.
How do you know there were no independent witnesses?
(May 19, 2015 at 11:20 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: LOL @ WLC being peer-reviewed
Here is a link to WLC's websiite where you may read some of them for yourself:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles
If you believe that Craig is not a bona fide scholar, please provide 1) evidence of that assessment by other scholars or 2) your own credentials so that we may evaluate whether you are in a position to make such a judgment.
(May 20, 2015 at 1:46 am)robvalue Wrote: I've made it pretty clear what I think. I'll concede all the arguments, right up until the point someone suggests it's reasonable to believe supernatural claims. That is the ultimate goal here.
If this was only intended as textual analysis, that would be different. But this is by admission just the first stage in a larger argument. I'm giving Randy as much as he could ever gain through these arguments, allowing every point, but then saying there is this one obstacle which appears to be insurmountable. I'm doing the equivalent of removing thousands of henchmen for him, giving him all the power ups they were holding, and moving him straight to the boss fight. How much more generous can I be?
So I'm not dismissing the arguments, I'm conceding them to show that they are irrelevant as a basis for proving Christianity is "true" because even if they are all sound, they don't reach the desired conclusion.
If yourself or Randy really wants to just discuss historical realiability for its own sake, then that is fine. I've debated the existence of Jesus on the forum endlessly, my position being that saying he is based on a real person is not saying much at all. The very best I've seen is people linking together someone called Jesus who was crucified and had a brother called James. Even that part is not completely convincing, and anything after that is incredibly shaky. So to say "Jesus existed", in terms of what can actually be pinned down to him, is saying next to nothing. There were probably hundreds of people back then who would fit an extremely vague notion of "Jesus", depending on what aspect you're looking at. I think Jesus is most likely a compilation of many people around at the time, as a foundation, then built on with an almost entirely mythical life story.
On the atheist experience, they are trying to do the same thing, cut to the chase. They know what is coming at the end, and that it's the part where the non sequitur is going to happen from experience.
Rob-
We have half a dozen witnesses who wrote their testimonies in the NT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James. We can verify the reliability of the text, we an determine that the dates of authorship are early enough, we can evaluate the veracity of what they wrote with regard to geography, topography, customs, language, political and religious leadership, the distribution of names, etc.
All of this speaks to the credibility of the authors are reliable eyewitnesses.
So, when, exactly, did the desire to record an accurate, orderly account of the life of Jesus end and the fairy tale begin?
I'm asking you for YOUR opinion, but watch to see that several more of your forum mates will offer conflicting and contradictory opinions about when and how this transition from truth to fable occurred.
