Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

Like all the dead Taliban and Islamic millitant elders who knew full well that by taking on a leadership role that every living second of every living hour involved a huge degree of risk.

Risk is not the same thing. Osama Bin Laden was killed, but he didn't choose to strap a bomb to himself and personally go and die blowing something up. It's also not the same thing, since those are examples of obscene violence (suicide bombings).

Also my other question to you, and i'd like you to be as honest as possible please with this one > If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person, and that the biblical accounts, despite their disagreements and contradictions here and there, are 100% accurate in that when they say Jesus rose from the dead that he absolutely must have etc..........If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down (and if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies). If all of this...........then why don't you accept Mohammed as the final prophet and Islam as the sugar-daddy sexy man that he evidently is?

Start again, and this time phrase your question properly.

"If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person"?

It's not an 'assumption'.

"If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down"

As I've already pointed out to you, we have contemporary writings of Jesus - and that's something we do not have for most other historical persons outside of the New Testament. So you're making an assumption that what we have is bad evidence, when it's not and it's very good evidence.

"if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies"

Please, by all means why don't you school me on this?

What we had at the time of the reformation was the Novum Instrumentum omne (3rd edition) 1522. It was based on just 7 Greek manuscripts (and mostly just on one), and he used the Vulgate as well (the last six verses of Revelation 22 were back-translated from Latin). The Greek manuscripts were 12th-15th century! Editio Regia is another edition by Robert Estienne.

What we have now is Novum Testamentum Graece (the 1st edition was way back in 1520, the current edition is the 28th edition published in 2012), and The New Testament in the Original Greek by Westcott and Hort, which has also been updated with improvements to the text since its inception. And there are over 5,800 manuscripts in Greek now, totalling 2.6 million pages.

[xpastor]

Not at all. I think much of what they [the Church Fathers] recorded is valuable. Especially so when writing about contemporary matters. They record the history of the early church as best as they can, however there is certainly room for error.

So why is there no room for error in the books now comprising the Bible? How could you possibly prove this to anyone?

That's easy enough to explain. There were forgeries, people writing under the name of a long-dead authority.

Then what was it's purpose? It didn't introduce a heresy or any new theology, so why did somebody write a false epistle that had no purpose?

The purpose is quite obviously stated. People were doubting the second coming of Christ would ever occur because it had been so long delayed, evidently delayed past the generation Peter belonged to as they say, “He promised to come, didn't he? Where is he? Our ancestors have already died, but everything is still the same as it was since the creation of the world!”

In any case it [Jesus' prophecy of the manner of Peter's death in John] clearly shows that Jesus doesn't believe that the world will end in his lifetime. ... I don't know why you think John is unreliable.

First, the vast differences in style and content between John and the synoptic gospels preclude any possibility that they are both reasonably accurate records of the same person's life and teachings. Virtually all biblical scholars believe that the synoptics present the more authentic account.

Second, I did not quite say that Jesus believed the world would end in his lifetime. In Matthew 24:34 he says: "Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." People now living presumably includes Peter. This passage does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE as it speaks of the signs in the heavens (the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, stars will fall, and people will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds.) C.S. Lewis called it the most embarrassing verse in the Bible with good reason. It places Jesus in the long line of people from the author of Daniel to Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world and nothing happened. Mark and Luke give the same pronouncement in the parallel passages. If you want another example, there is Luke 9:27 where he says: "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." When I was in seminary, we were told that this prophecy referred to the Transfiguration of Jesus (he glows like he's gone radioactive) which is the next event narrated. With all the respect I can muster now, I would say this explanation is utter bullshit. What would be the point of saying that some of the people here will not taste death before something happens 8 days hence?

As far as I can see, you base that solely upon a belief that Luke cannot make mistakes since his writing was bound up in THE BIBLE™ centuries after his death.

No, it was bound up just decades after his death, here's proof:

The date given for this papyrus is 175 - 225 CE, which is an awful lot of decades after the death of someone who you claim was producing his magnum opus ca 50 CE. In any case, finding Luke and John bound together does nothing to establish the infallibility of either.

You never attempted to answer my earlier post about the birth narratives for Jesus. Specifically, Luke says that Mary, Joseph and Jesus headed back to Nazareth 41 days after the birth. No time there for the excursion to Egypt which Matthew tells us happened. Not unless God furnished them with a flying horse as Allah did several centuries later for Mohammed. You remember he flew from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night, so the trip to Egypt and back would be no problem. After all, Bethlehem to Alexandria is a shorter trip as the Pegasus flies.

Because you've used a deceptive technique to try and discredit the scripture. Luke says that the baby is cleansed in the temple 41 days after he is born (according to the law). Then there is a 2-year gap which he doesn't attempt to fill in between that and the return to Nazareth. Just because he left out a detail doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Get real. Luke says nothing about a two-year gap. His words are, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." That is right after the purification rites mentioned above, they go back to Nazareth. The next event mentioned in the life of Jesus is 12 years later when he goes to the Temple as a boy.

I do not think there is much point in pursuing this discussion further. The sticking point is biblical inerrancy. I can understand how you came to believe in it; I once did myself. However, my eyes were opened as I studied the Bible intensively. It is riddled with inconsistencies which get explained away only by the most laughable arguments. I will make only two points about this.

The Bible is filled with stories of events which violate natural law, events which we never see, such as raising the dead or changing water into wine. In our society the Bible is the only book with these unbelievable stories which is taught as credible. When we learn a bit more, we find that it was written in a credulous age and hundreds of other books retail the same kind of "miracles" such as virgin births (Alexander the Great) and God-men (Alexander and Caesar) and raising the dead (Apollonius of Tyana). There is no reason to give the Bible greater credence than the other superstitious productions of that age.

People like to claim as you do that the authors of the Bible are too near the events to be mistaken or lying. Sadly, that is not the case. There is a genre of writing which I call Lying for Jesus. I discuss it at length in a thread on the Friendly Atheist. I won't repeat all the examples I give there. To name just a few, I have received an email narrating the story of a university student defending his Christian faith against an atheistic professor and concluding, "That student's name was Albert Einstein." Well, Albert was raised as a non-observant Jew, and later in life, when he was a famous scientist, he specifically repudiated any belief in a personal God. Another example. Colonel Robert Ingersoll was the most prominent freethinker in 19th century America. Someone sent him a copy of a small British newspaper in which it was reported that he, along with 5000 other atheists, had been converted by the preaching of an obscure British evangelist, whose name Ingersoll had never heard before. Ingersoll also mentions prior published stories that his daughter had converted to the Presbyterian church (utterly false) and even more remarkably that a son he never had went mad and died in an asylum as a consequence of being raised in an infidel home. Then there is Lady Hope's story of Darwin's deathbed conversion, which somehow escaped the notice of his children who were present with him at the end. I think we can confidently place all those Pentecostal stories of miraculous healings in the category of lying for Jesus. So if people are so ready to lie for Jesus in our sophisticated, scientifically-knowledgeable age, why would it not happen in that credulous era when the New Testament was written?

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

I appreciate your honesty. Now that we have found common ground, please allow me to bother you with one more question, and it is my hope that you do so with the same sincerity.

If somebody believes something that is not true, what would it take to convince them to change their mind? More specifically, what evidence would convince you that your belief is wrong?

If your belief is supported by evidence, then it follows that there’s a possibility of some new evidence that could make it more likely false. This is true with all evidence based claims.

If somebody is delusional, no amount of evidence would convince them that they were mistaken. You would be right to ask me the same question pertaining to what I would require in order to believe, and I am prepared to answer it. But as a sign of sincerity and intellectual honesty, oblige me with your answer, and I will be happy to return the sentiment.

---

Correct.

If you could provide evidence that either: a. Jesus did not die on a cross, or b. That he did not rise from the dead, then you would convince me that Christianity is wrong. However as those two facts, I believe, are firmly established, they form the basis of the evidence that convinces me that Christianity is right.

Great! I'll just address b to keep things simple. Thanks very much for your honesty here.

I notice that you've said that you believe it is a firmly established fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and you've already said that evidence is your reasoning for believing it. Given that you've humbly admitted that evidence to the contrary would convince you that it was wrong, let me ask you a question so that I may understand the kind of evidence you would accept.

Say a notorious and worldwide respected Archaeologist calimed: "We've found Jesus' bones in an ancient tomb in Israel"

(Which would mean Jesus didn't ascend to heaven and the myth would be exposed as such)

Wouldn't you want to know how he knew they were the bones of Christ?

What sort of answer would satisfy you?

---

I mean, what would he have to say to you to convince you that they were indeed the bones of Christ?

[Chas]

Well, Aractus, since you are scrambling around for evidence, you obvioulsy lack faith. That is disturbing.

[downbeatplumb]

Let me get this straight.

Actual physical proof of jesus i.e. his bones would prove christianity wrong.
So by having no bones of jesus they are in a better position to claim it's true.


What kind of arse faced twisted logic is this!

[WesOlsen]

Risk is not the same thing. Osama Bin Laden was killed, but he didn't choose to strap a bomb to himself and personally go and die blowing something up. It's also not the same thing, since those are examples of obscene violence (suicide bombings)

Obscene violence being something i'm sure you're very well acquainted with, given that the bible is literally littered with it. The final method of death does not diminish the potential for death as a result of one's actions. Bin Laden could have been killed on many occassions, and he did see front-line violence as a millitant commander, which could have led to his death (on many occasions, just to really emphasise that point). If an individual displays a willingness to perish for their belief, and frequently engages in behaviour that involves imminent fatal risk, then that IS essentially martyrdom, or the desire for martyrdom. Jesus himself didn't die during an act of obscene suicide-bombing violence, but he did die for religious dogma, which can be closely parallelled to many Islamic millitants, white supremacists and cult leaders throughout time, many of whom died for what they believed in, on or during violent and nonviolent acts.

Start again, and this time phrase your question properly.

Ok I shan't post a rush-response this time. You can re-read my post and pretend I didn't use a few jockular phrases if you like, but you haven't addressed the Islamic question I put to you at all.

As I've already pointed out to you, we have contemporary writings of Jesus - and that's something we do not have for most other historical persons outside of the New Testament. So you're making an assumption that what we have is bad evidence, when it's not and it's very good evidence.

We have contemporary writings for a great many historical characters outside of the new testament, from many corners of the globe. The new testament isn't unique in that sense at all. The early Roman republic was heavily documented, from within and outside. Most external corroroboration comes from the 2nd century onwards and much of that is by church elders whose objectivity must be called in to question (just like the authors of the new testement, may I add). There is a paragraph from Josephus from approx 95 CE, which most secular scholars now believe is bogus. Philo-Judaeus, who was reporting hot off the ground when Jesus supposedly marched in to Jerusalem and did everything you believe that he did. Philo outlived Jesus but mentions him not. Justus (of Tiberius) through Photius mentions nothing of Jesus. Many are convinced that the relevant writings of the messianic jew Flavius Josephus to be either completely fabricated or heavily edited (Josephus would not refer to Jesus as Christ or Truth if clearly he did not believe him to be such, and indeed remained a messianic jew). Everything from the 2nd century onwards is getting a little too late for something that is purportedly to have had an immediate and outstanding impact during his (Jesus') lifetime. Not even Pliny (the younger) had a lot to say about Jesus, or indeed Christianity at all.

Even though your objectivity is indeed highly questionable, as is that of the authors of the new testement, you are still prepared to readily assert both the importance of historical investigation AND the certainty of all the supernatural elements of these historical stories. Most secular scholars, who agree that Jesus probably existed, are however not convinced that the new testement is infallible. You on the other hand take it at 100% face value. This is strange as any serious historian, emphasising the importance of reading a range of sources to arrive at an objective and rational conclusion, would not take the new testement at 100% face value. Indeed even you have made an appeal for reason in several posts now (why would so and so do X if Y, or why would god do Z if Y). It is this very appeal to reason that has led the vast majority of historians to conclude that Jesus was NOT the literal embodiment of a deity. Not because they're filthy atheist swine, but because they aren't convinced of your fringe views, which you try to pass off here as objective historical fact. The three main reasons why most serious historians are not taking the bible at 100% face value are:

1. There are natural alternative explanations for the potty events described (that's in the new testement by the way, the old testement contains more quack than a duck reserve)
2. There are serious contradictions running through old and new testements, both in logic outlines of deity attributes and in the teachings of the the various characters.
3. If the bible is 100% the word of god, it has been completely unsuccessful in providing a consistent framework for moral guidance, as not even christians can agree on half of the contents.

The third point is particularly elucidating. This one book to end all books has spawned thousands of different movements, who to this day only bicker on with issues of women's rights, homosexuality, capital punishment....right down to really mundane things such as what sort of cup to use in church, or what kind of disgusting, materialistic adornments the pope should sport. If this is the work of a deity, via revelation/transferrence to his son and then hearsay to the writers of the new testement, then it has been completely unconvincing, morally vague/ambiguous, and virtually impossible to decode; not even christians can reach a consensus, on anything.

That alone is enough to convince most serious historians that there is some useful information in the bible, but a whole heap of unuseful stuff that can't even be interpreted by its own competing followers, let alone dirty non theist shit-gibbons such as myself. This is how you manage to not so much straddle the line between, but rather make the gigantic irrational leap between pragmatic bible historian and, i'll put this in the nicest possible way, impressionable and incredibly un-objective religious crank. If there is a deity and he has a plan for us, he's yet to present it in such a way that even a tiny minority can decode his ambiguous camel shit, let alone the entire population of the non-desert dwelling tribes of 21st century earth.

I could go on......................so I will.

Seeing as you offered a few appeals to reason, i'll offer a few of my own, in the same condescending manner that you assert your thesis with (to be fair there's a lot of condescending stuff on here, so i'll give you credit for your sarcasm if nothing else).

. Why does Jesus issue rules on how to beat slaves rather than condemning slavery outright?

. Who was Joseph's dad?

. Why did Jesus smite a fig tree for the crime of bearing no fruit?

. Given that reliable and objective Paul is so well acquainted with the son of god, why is there so little written on the actual human history of Jesus, ie the life and times of? Childhood, teenage years, the woodwork business etc?

. Given that John probably wrote in isolation, whereas Mathew and Luke pinch things from Mark, and the three come up with a very different tale to John, is this not evidence in itself that little sects get carried away with their own fabrications and own versions of the hearsay?

. How come nobody other than Matthew talks about the huge 'kill the firstborn' operation launched by Herod, which would have required enormous coordination and manpower?

. Why does god always reveal his plan to one chosen prophet, like by inscribing 10 shoddy commandments in stone to moses on a mountain when nobody else is watching, or by revealing it to Mohammed in some cave, whilst he's on his own and nobody else is watching, or to the brain of his son Jesus, so nobody else can hear it directly, thus making the big leap from revelation to hearsay?

. Why is the old testement full of really inane crap, like villagers murdering a man collecting sticks on the sabbath, and shit loads of genocide?

. Why would anyone want to teach their child the disgusting idea of inherited sin, and that sin can be redeemed by someone else taking the burden of responsibility even though they had nothing to do with the original events?

. Given your dedication to historic academic rigour, and your emphasis on really reading that stuff thoroughly, are you not convinced of any number of other creation myths? And while we're at it, why don't you dedicate the same amount of time to reading balanced sources on related topics, such as journals on genetic science, fossil records and everything else that shows humans don't tend to live to the age of 200 and 32 years, or that humans, whilst a little bit aquatic (well, we can swim any way), don't walk on water, etc....

[xpastor]

3. If the bible is 100% the word of god, it has been completely unsuccessful in providing a consistent framework for moral guidance, as not even christians can agree on half of the contents.

This reminded me of an observation by a working class philosopher which I heard repeated many times over 50 years ago.

When I was an undergrad, I had a summer job one year at a potato chip factory unloading the raw potatoes from railway cars. One permanent employee was in charge of our crew, a man of about 60. Every so often he would mutter, "All of them religions, and all of 'em out of the same book."

[DeistPaladin]

Damn good point, and a more recent example: the James Bond books, and the earlier James Bond MOVIES (as well as their countless imitators) were created during the Cold War period, but glamourise and romanticise the Cold War beyond all recognition. Something doesn't have to have receded into history to become a fanciful legend.

Interestingly, there was apparently a real spy that supposedly inspired the concept of the James Bond character. He went by the name of Sidney Reilly (actual name was Gregori Rosenblum). His "life" in the service of British intelligence, or at least the fanciful legends about it, were depicted in a 1983 TV series "Reilly, Ace of Spies".



So this turn-of-the-century master spy, who's actual story is probably hopelessly buried in legends and romanticized folklore, was later the inspiration for a fictional Cold-War era master spy.

So, was Gregori Rosenblum "The Historical James Bond"? I guess it depends on how much license you grant to qualify. And even if we agree on that, how much of the real story can we know vs. what's just fanciful tale-telling?

My aunt worked at the CIA (now retired). She never spoke of her work except to say there are no cars equipped with machine guns coming out the front lights nor did their vehicles have the ability to transform into a submarine. The crap you see in the James Bond movies is just that.

This is just one example of how legends grow. Even fiction is frequently inspired by real life people and events. And often these works of fiction are placed in real historical settings against real historical events (there was a Santa Anna but probably no Historical Zorro). That doesn't make them any less fictional.

[Minimalist]

There are numerous theories on this.

Yes there are Danny and they are all fucking stupid. The discrepancy between luke and matty cannot be apologized away. Its a biblical fuckup whether you like it or not.

Maybe you can cite ONE historical document or record written DURING THE SUPPOSED LIFETIME OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT that mentions the life and/or death of this man?

Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman

Yes, the original histories were lost but they were cited by later writers which is a bit more than your godboy ever managed.

Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus and Nearchus. It is generally considered one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander as well as one of the founders of a primarily military-based focus on history. Arrian cites his source by name and he often criticizes them.

Then there are the coins and the cities and the statues. Your godboy left no mark on history beyond the rather vapid writings of his batshit crazy followers which Ehrman sometimes forget he has trashed as forgeries and vicariously and politically edited propaganda tools for the power brokers who were looking to subjugate the commons.

Worked in your case.

[Aractus]

So why is there no room for error in the books now comprising the Bible? How could you possibly prove this to anyone?

That's easy. They weren't contemporary; they were writing about events that took place 100-200 years prior.

The purpose is quite obviously stated. People were doubting the second coming of Christ would ever occur because it had been so long delayed, evidently delayed past the generation Peter belonged to as they say, “He promised to come, didn't he? Where is he? Our ancestors have already died, but everything is still the same as it was since the creation of the world!”

Okay, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. While it is true that it is a theme of Peter's letters, it belongs within the context of reminding Christians that this earth is temporary and mortal and will pass away, just as we will pass away. This is in complete contrast to what Jehovah Witnesses believe, for instance, they believe this Earth will last an eternity.

First, the vast differences in style and content between John and the synoptic gospels preclude any possibility that they are both reasonably accurate records of the same person's life and teachings. Virtually all biblical scholars believe that the synoptics present the more authentic account.

No, virtually all believe they present an earlier account, I don't know where you're getting "more accurate". The Gospel of John is the only gospel to have been written by one of the original 12 disciples.

There was a time in the past that the vast majority of scholars did believe that the gospel was written by someone else in the 2nd century, but that theory is no longer very strong because of the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, and the St John Fragment. The St John's Fragment reliably dates to the first half of the 2nd century, and is from a codex and not a scroll. How much literature did you find on codices in the 2nd century? Barely any - except for Christian literature, and especially scriptures. So this is very strong evidence that by the 1st half of the second century it had been accepted as scripture.

Second, I did not quite say that Jesus believed the world would end in his lifetime. In Matthew 24:34 he says: "Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." People now living presumably includes Peter. This passage does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE as it speaks of the signs in the heavens (the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, stars will fall, and people will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds.) C.S. Lewis called it the most embarrassing verse in the Bible with good reason. It places Jesus in the long line of people from the author of Daniel to Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world and nothing happened. Mark and Luke give the same pronouncement in the parallel passages. If you want another example, there is Luke 9:27 where he says: "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." When I was in seminary, we were told that this prophecy referred to the Transfiguration of Jesus (he glows like he's gone radioactive) which is the next event narrated. With all the respect I can muster now, I would say this explanation is utter bullshit. What would be the point of saying that some of the people here will not taste death before something happens 8 days hence?

Well that's not the explanation I've heard. Most modern scholars would combine it with the statement I highlighted earlier "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days", if that's taken literally, as the Jews at the time took the Holy's of Holy to be a literal place where the presence of God dwelt, then there really is no further explanation needed than this:

1 Tim 2:5-7: For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

The date given for this papyrus is 175 - 225 CE, which is an awful lot of decades after the death of someone who you claim was producing his magnum opus ca 50 CE. In any case, finding Luke and John bound together does nothing to establish the infallibility of either.

No, I claim Luke wrote his gospel c. 60-61 AD. It is bound together with other Christian literature well less than 200 years after it is written - and unless you really think that we discovered the first ever copy made of them bound together, then it means that we can safely presume that it existed sometime prior to the date it was found. Meaning that it could have been bound together with John c. 150-200 AD (and that's more probable than going solely by the age of the manuscript that we have).

That's only a number of decades - not centuries.

Get real. Luke says nothing about a two-year gap. His words are, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." That is right after the purification rites mentioned above, they go back to Nazareth. The next event mentioned in the life of Jesus is 12 years later when he goes to the Temple as a boy.

What so Luke didn't have a copy of Matthew's Gospel then? What about the double-tradition, the synoptic problem, etc? I know you'll probably say, no he didn't use Matthew and he only had "Q" and Mark. Well if that's the case, then a. why is there not a shred of evidence that this mythical and very important "Q" work ever existed as a single written entity? And b. Matthew was still written before Luke, the overwhelming majority of scholars believe this, so if it was written before Luke, and Luke had a copy of Mark - why wouldn't he have a copy of Matthew?

Here's a clue - Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience. He spends more time focusing on details that would be important to Jewish Christians who know the Law well. Luke spends way less time on that, and there's no way it can be put down to chance or coincidence. The fact is that Matthew had to have been writing early enough that there was still a large enough proportion of Jews converting to Christianity, whereas Luke is writing at a time when the majority of converts are gentiles. What's interesting is that scholars - including the more liberal ones - believe that by 40 AD the majority of converts were Greeks and not Jews!

Now I know what you're going to say - wouldn't that mean that Matthew has to have been written prior to 40 AD? This is a problem that I'm still undecided how is solved best. For a while I believed the best explanation is that if Matthew is written 5-6 years prior to Mark, however that leaves me with the inescapable question of why Mark would leave out details that are relevant to gentiles along with the details more relevant to Jews.

This is what I think. The Gospel of the Hebrews was the earlier work that paved the way to the Gospel according to Matthew. It did not have the genealogy, nor the nativity of Jesus, and rather it began with his baptism. Jerome said he translated the work into Greek and Latin, and by all accounts it was originally written in Aramaic and not Greek. The Gospel according to Matthew is a later and more polished/complete version, written in the 50's AD and both it and GotH were based upon Mark and further testimony by one (or more) of the apostles.

This does mean that Mark could not have been written any later than 45 AD, and probably had to have been written by 40 AD. Scholars typically believe the earliest date Mark could have been written is around 53 AD, if true this would simply have to mean that Matthew had to have been written first, because there is no other way to explain the attention to the Jewish law which he gives in his Gospel.

But there is way too much conflicting information to be able to date it firmly. For instance, Irenaeus in the second century wrote that John Mark wrote the gospel after both Peter and Paul had died - this would make it 65 AD or later, but if that's the case why does the book of Acts end in the present while Paul (a companion of his) and Peter are still alive? And even more problematic, as I've said a number of times now, is why is there so much Jewish detail in Matthew if it's written after AD 65?

I do not think there is much point in pursuing this discussion further. The sticking point is biblical inerrancy. I can understand how you came to believe in it; I once did myself. However, my eyes were opened as I studied the Bible intensively. It is riddled with inconsistencies which get explained away only by the most laughable arguments. I will make only two points about this.

Well I'll only make one point. If there are so many inconsistencies, as you and others claim, then how come there aren't consistent problems with other external historical information? Sure, it's one thing to claim that maybe a few verses here or there are "questionable", and it's fair enough because not all 5,800 manuscripts agree 100% - they agree about 98%, and about 99.5% when you discard irrelevant inconsistencies (like "Christ Jesus" versus "Jesus Christ" etc). But when all is said and done, over the last 200 years we've discovered mountains of external evidence that only supports the NT chronology, and virtually nothing that discredits it.

The Bible is filled with stories of events which violate natural law, events which we never see, such as raising the dead or changing water into wine. In our society the Bible is the only book with these unbelievable stories which is taught as credible. When we learn a bit more, we find that it was written in a credulous age and hundreds of other books retail the same kind of "miracles" such as virgin births (Alexander the Great) and God-men (Alexander and Caesar) and raising the dead (Apollonius of Tyana). There is no reason to give the Bible greater credence than the other superstitious productions of that age.

True, but they don't include the death and resurrection of Christ - which is so far not disproven with any other external evidence, at all.

People like to claim as you do that the authors of the Bible are too near the events to be mistaken or lying.

I don't like the phrase "people like me", please don't use it.

And also, it's not what I claim. I simply claim that the writings are contemporary, and are very well (but not perfectly) preserved from their original version. For some books this is very easily proven, and for others it isn't.

When I hear people make some of the claims you've made, I find many simply untenable to begin with. Like Luke's census. Well according to external sources, there's only one known census under Quirinius, correct me if I'm wrong? He was governor of Syria for six years, from 6 - 12AD:

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Well how could that possibly make sense if there was only one which he could have been talking about, what would "first" have to do with anything? I know we've been over it a thousand times, but I don't find it credible that Luke doesn't know that there was only one census under Quirinius. And if he's making it up as he goes along, how come he gets so many other facts right?

Well, Albert was raised as a non-observant Jew, and later in life, when he was a famous scientist, he specifically repudiated any belief in a personal God.

Yes, but he also said "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind". He also hated Quantum Physics so much that he refused to believe that General Relativity may also be incomplete. He is the fundamental proof that scientists are not generally "unbiased", though they might like to believe they are.

So if people are so ready to lie for Jesus in our sophisticated, scientifically-knowledgeable age, why would it not happen in that credulous era when the New Testament was written?

Because those "lies" are actually rumours, and probably were never intended to be deceptive and came along the way of Chinese Whispers.

I used to get Robert Young and Thomas Young mixed up (because they have the same name, and they were both incredible linguists).

Either that or some people are just douches.

---

Say a notorious and worldwide respected Archaeologist calimed: "We've found Jesus' bones in an ancient tomb in Israel"

(Which would mean Jesus didn't ascend to heaven and the myth would be exposed as such)

Wouldn't you want to know how he knew they were the bones of Christ?

What sort of answer would satisfy you?

I mean, what would he have to say to you to convince you that they were indeed the bones of Christ?

Well, considering that neither I nor just about anyone else is convinced that the James ossuary is 100% genuine (although it may be, but I don't know), I can't imagine that it would be an easy thing to prove.

But I don't think that's the type of evidence that would be likely to come forward if the gospel is false. There is plenty of other evidence you'd expect would be more likely to see. For instance, written records of his final burial place, or an earlier copy of a gospel that has something else in place of the resurrection, etc. Atheists keep claiming that it was inserted in there in the 2nd century, if this is true there should be surviving copies that have a completely contradictory account!

---

Say a notorious and worldwide respected Archaeologist calimed: "We've found Jesus' bones in an ancient tomb in Israel"

(Which would mean Jesus didn't ascend to heaven and the myth would be exposed as such)

Wouldn't you want to know how he knew they were the bones of Christ?

What sort of answer would satisfy you?

I mean, what would he have to say to you to convince you that they were indeed the bones of Christ?

Well, considering that neither I nor just about anyone else is convinced that the James ossuary is 100% genuine (although it may be, but I don't know), I can't imagine that it would be an easy thing to prove.

But I don't think that's the type of evidence that would be likely to come forward if the gospel is false. There is plenty of other evidence you'd expect would be more likely to see. For instance, written records of his final burial place, or an earlier copy of a gospel that has something else in place of the resurrection, etc. Atheists keep claiming that it was inserted in there in the 2nd century, if this is true there should be surviving copies that have a completely contradictory account!

---

Ok I shan't post a rush-response this time. You can re-read my post and pretend I didn't use a few jockular phrases if you like, but you haven't addressed the Islamic question I put to you at all.

And you didn't address my question relating to your claims that "many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies"??

The floor's all yours on this one, what exactly do you mean by it, and why should it concern me?

We have contemporary writings for a great many historical characters outside of the new testament, from many corners of the globe. The new testament isn't unique in that sense at all.

It is unique in the sense that there are 5,800 copies of it.

There is a paragraph from Josephus from approx 95 CE, which most secular scholars now believe is bogus.

Yes, and that's because 1. we don't actually have a complete copy of his work, and 2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the earliest copies that we have of his works are from the 10th or 11th centuries, correct?

Many are convinced that the relevant writings of the messianic jew Flavius Josephus to be either completely fabricated or heavily edited (Josephus would not refer to Jesus as Christ or Truth if clearly he did not believe him to be such, and indeed remained a messianic jew).

You're talking about like 2 sentences in Antiquities which I haven't even made reference too, nor did I ever claim they are his original writings...

Even though your objectivity is indeed highly questionable, as is that of the authors of the new testement, you are still prepared to readily assert both the importance of historical investigation AND the certainty of all the supernatural elements of these historical stories. Most secular scholars, who agree that Jesus probably existed, are however not convinced that the new testement is infallible.

No, but they are convinced of certain things, such as that Jesus did live, that he called disciples, that he died on a cross, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that Paul wrote at least the majority of the epistles bearing his name, and that Luke (a companion of Paul) wrote Luke-Acts.

They disagree over the authorship of Matthew, Mark, the Pastoral Epistles, John, 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter, Revelation, Jude.

So what?

The onus of proof isn't on me. Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem in all three synoptic gospels, and does so in different ways too (ie more than once). More liberal scholars claim that these verses had to have been inserted (but can offer absolutely no evidence), or that the gospels had to have been written after AD 70 (this causes huge problems, especially for Matthew which is written for a Jewish and not a Greek audience).

You on the other hand take it at 100% face value. This is strange as any serious historian, emphasising the importance of reading a range of sources to arrive at an objective and rational conclusion, would not take the new testement at 100% face value.

Oh please. Historians believed for over 2,000 years that slaves built the pyramids because Herodotus wrote that down in the 5th century BC. If that's not taking something at "face value", I don't know what is.

. Why did Jesus smite a fig tree for the crime of bearing no fruit?

You want me to provide you with Bible lessons? Well.... It's an example to his disciples, it was out of season, and therefore of course had no figs. "Curse" is really not the best modern translation, nor is "smite", he literally tells it to die, comes back later and it's dead.