The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

[Edited the below about a million times. Sort it out Rob.]

I'll try.

OK, we're done.

A pity. You won't find many Christians willing to deal with as much crap as this forum churns out. So, if you want to talk, I'm your guy.

If you refuse to acknowledge the difference between telling what you think is the truth, and actually being correct, you're being extremely dishonest and using a massive double standard.

To the contrary. I'll say it again. There is a huge difference between being

1) sincere (and wrong) about something you believe to be true, and
2) sincere (and right) about something you know to be true.

People are willing to die for either of those. What I reject is the idea that eleven apostles all died for something that they knew was a lie.

You're saying someone who has done careful research must be correct about everything. Unless, of course, their research is about a different religion. You're happy to distinguish between belief and fact for every person ever, including your most trusted friends, but not for the authors of one particular specific book.

I'm not saying that at all. But it stands to reason that while the authors of the gospels may have been off on the number of women at the foot of the cross or whether it was 4,000 or 5,000 people fed with two loaves and a fish, there is not much chance that they were in error about Jesus being seen alive three days after the crucifixion. There would have been no reason to even write the gospels without that central fact, would there?

I didn't say it was all fiction, I was very clear to make that point. You're not addressing my points, you're strawmanning me and just using evasive fallacious reasoning. I could address all the fallacies, but it would be pointless while you hold the above stance.

Hopefully, I have just made it clear that I do NOT hold the "above stance", so address all you want.

The general consensus is that the gospels were not written by eye witnesses, by the way.

It depends on which gospel you are referring to. Mark and Luke, no. As for your "consensus", maybe you should read some different books.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that they were, and you still need to be dishonest to try and make the case. I acknowledged there may have been a "real Jesus" beneath the story, yet you are talking as if I said the opposite.

See above. I'm not doing anything dishonest...I don't need to.

Your case boils down to "You should just believe it because the bible has some historical accuracy". Well, so does Spider-Man. New York exists, but it doesn't mean Spider-Man does.

Your first sentence is an oversimplification (and you know it).

Whether you believe the bible depends on whether or not you've already decided it is true for other reasons,

Is that universally true for all who become Christians, Rob? If not, then your argument fails - not because it is not true is some cases but because reading the Bible is what BRINGS some people to conversion.

which I'm sad to see you're not willing to discuss. If you change your mind about that, I'll rejoin the discussion. Or if you admit to some of this dishonesty. If what you say is actually true, you should not need all these dishonest and fallacious arguments to try and convince me. And to convince us is the point of this, for which you are failing I'm afraid.

I admit no dishonest. I suspect misunderstanding. If we were at a pub having a pint or two, this probably wouldn't have happened.

The burden of proof is on you, as you are making the claim.

Granted. That's why I joined the forum. To explain and defend the Christian faith.

Even if all the crazy stuff in the bible did happen, so what? It's clearly all finished now. No evidence of anything like that going on today. It seems god is dead or has lost interest.

Ah...now that is a separate discussion. For now, I'll leave you with this thought: A silent God is better than a non-existent one.

Yes, people can die for things they know are false. People can do all sorts of strange things. And again, this only establishes that they thought they were correct, not that they were actually correct. You acknowledge this distinction in every person ever alive, except bible authors.

You've just contradicted yourself in these two phrases:

"people can die for things they know are false"
"this only establishes they they thought they were correct"

Rob, if they thought they were correct then they did not know they are false. Hello?

That last point I made, about this distinction, is what you need to think about if you take anything away from your discussion from me.

Hopefully, this posts indicates that I have.

You also feel the need to misrepresent what atheism is in order to try and shift the burden of proof. I guess you didn't read my website:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

Not all atheists are strong atheists. And to ask us to prove the bible wrong... the argument from ignorance. Here is my article about logical fallacies, in case anyone is unsure what exactly I'm talking about when I reference a particular one:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!logical-fallacies/cwi1

I did read your website...including all the fallacies (some of which I would rephrase, btw)...the whole thing (I think). And yes, not all atheists are strong atheists. (I'm not sure you're an atheist at all, but we'll see what the discussion reveals.)

One final thought. I can't speak for every atheist of course, but personally I have no agenda. I have no particular reason to want to disbelieve in gods. I just do, because I'm unconvinced. If there actually is a god, I don't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way.

So, maybe it's not really a matter of being unconvinced so much as it is that you are indifferent?

I would assume a being of such power would have no interest in anything I do, nor require anything from me.

And what God has been trying to tell you is that you are wrong. On both counts. But start with the first part until you feel more at ease.

So I'll continue to put those people and animals around me first because I know what I do matters to them. If christianity was true, I wouldn't care. I would carry on my life exactly the same way. It would just mean either god was an evil bastard, or the bible is misrepresenting him. So what, I don't care. Nothing I can do about it.

Hitchens said basically the same thing.

So you see, it makes no difference to me either way. This allows me a kind of objectivity, because I have no vested interest either way. If there is a god and he is of good moral character, he would be pleased with how I am living my life I think. If he is any other type of god, I don't particularly care what he thinks.

He may very well be pleased with you, Rob. And one thing is certain: He loves you.