RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 31, 2015 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2015 at 12:09 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 31, 2015 at 8:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: You know what might -actually- advance the argument for the reliablility of the new testament? Establishing that there was anything to witness in the first place. Then, then, you could bullshit us endlessly about the accuracy of their testimony. Can't establish a "jesus", can't even establish a "paul".....and yet.....we're babbling on about eyewitness testimony as though it would matter even if it were.......lol.
Is that what Atheist scholars think?
This would be amusing if it weren't so sad how ignorant you are. You should read some books...any books...on the subject.
Heck, you don't even need to read a book...just check out a two-part article by an ATHEIST HISTORIAN, Tim O'Neill*. Google will help you find it.The title is:
An Atheist Historian Examines the Evidence for Jesus.
O'Neill concludes a lengthy examination of the evidence (frequently discounted in this forum) with these words:
Quote:The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.
The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.
* For those who doubt O'Neill's bona fides vis-a-vis atheism, here is his bio:
About Tim O'Neill
Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum.
So, yeah. That's not good for ignorant atheists...
